20060364 Ver 1_Mitigation Technical Report_20020228

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
NATURAL RESOURCE TECHNICAL REPORT
Bridge No. 21 on NC Highway 210 over
Northeast Cape Fear River in
Pender County, North Carolina
T.I.P No. B-4223
NCDOT Consultant Project No. 00-ES-12 ;' -~
~~~~' ,~
1 ~'
Prepared for: '~`'
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Q 1
~~A
ONORTH Cq~P
O!
~2
I" )o
~~~
O
OF TRANSe
January 2002
erg 2 $ ~

u
0
1
1
1
1

L~

0
u

0
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Pape
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 ........................................... ..................................8
3.1 Terrestrial ................................................. ...................................8
3.2 Aquatic ..................................................... .................................11
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .....................................................12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................... .................................13
4.1 Waters of the United States .......................... ..................................13
4.2 Permit Issues ............................................. .................................15
4.3 Protected Species ...................................... ..................................16
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................... ..................................24
LIST OF TABLES
Paae
Table 1. Largest Permitted NPDES Dischargers ...................................................7
Table 2. Plant Communities .............................................................................10
Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates ..................................................................12
Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................15
Table 5. Federally Protected Species .................................................................17
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) ........................................................22

Bridge No. 21 on NC 210 over Northeast Cape Fear River
in Pender County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-4223
1.0 INTRODUCTION
' 1.1 Project Description
' The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT- proposes to replace Bridge No.
21 on NC Highway 210 (NC 210) over the Northeast (NE) Cape Fear River in Pender
' County, North Carolina. This bridge replacement project (B-4223) is located approximately
2.0 miles (3.2 km) north of Mooretown, NC. 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 provided by the NCDOT for
' B-4223 is approximately 16 acres (6.5 ha) in size and is defined in Section 1.5.
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; 31 a preliminary
assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 3) a preliminary determination
of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on the mapped project study
' area and does not take into account final design or limits of construction.
' 1.3 Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a
' number of sources. The Mooretown, NC U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute
orthographic quadrangle 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 Pender County, North Caro/ina (USDA
1990), and recent aerial photography 11 inch = 100 feet) furnished by the NCDOT were
also used in the evaluation of the project study area.
' 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
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 19901. When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford eta/. (1968).
' Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
' delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin eta/. (1979).
' Water resource information for the NE Cape Fear River was derived from the most recent
versions of the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000-, Basinwide
Assessment Report-Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999), and DWQ Internet resources.
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
' The most current FWS list (April 12, 2001) of federal protected species with ranges
extending into Pender County was reviewed prior to .initiation of the field investigation. In
addition, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records documenting occurrences
' of federal or state-listed species were consulted before commencing the field investigation.
Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife was documented, and expected
' population distributions were determined through observations of available habitat and
review of supportive documentation found in Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985),
Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde eta/. (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 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC)
' dated August 7, 2001.
Construction moritoria information has been requested from the North Carolina Division of
Coastal Management (NCDCM) via a letter dated August 8, 2001.
' Pertinent fisheries information has also been requested from the NC Division of Marine
Fisheries (NCDMF) and the NCWRC via letters dated August 7, 2001.
' 1,4 Qualifications
' The field investigation associated with B-4223 was conducted on 28 August 2001 by ESI
staff. Jeff Harbour is the Project Manager for this Natural Resource Technical Report and
supervised the field investigation. Mr. Harbour has a B.S. in Marine Science and has more
2

than nine years of professional experience. Mr. Harbour is also a Professional Wetland
Scientist (No. 0001204) as certified by the Society of Wetland Scientists. Additional ESI
' staff involved with the field investigation include Kevin Lapp, Josh Witherspoon, and
Charles Kaufman. 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.
Witherspoon has a B.S. in Natural Resources and has over six years of professional
experience. Mr. Witherspoon is also a Soil Scientist in Training. 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 2,500 feet (762 m- in length and widths range
' from 50 feet (15.2 m) at the termini to 370 feet (1 12.7 m) at the NE Cape Fear River. The
project is located on NC Highway 210 over the NE Cape Fear River approximately 2.0
miles (3.2 km) north of Mooretown in Pender County, North Carolina. The bridge is
' located approximately 2.3 miles (3.7 km) east of the intersection of NC 210 and Interstate
40.
' 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 outer coastal plain physiographic province of North
Carolina. The topography in the project study area is generally characterized as nearly
level. Natural elevations in the project study area range from 5 ft (1.5 m) to 10 ft (3.0 m)
above sea level (USGS 1983). The project study area consists of existing maintained right-
of-way, floodplain forest, powerline right-of-way, maintained/disturbed land, and
pine/hardwood forest.
The project vicinity is rural in nature and surrounding land use includes a mixture of
residential, agricultural, and silvicultural use. Important products from this area include
soybeans, corn, cotton, and timber.
2.1 Soils
The project study area crosses four soil mapping units. These soils include Dorovan muck
(Typic Medisapristsl, Murville muck (Typic Haplaquods-, Invershiel-Pender complex
' (Albaquic Hapludalfs), and Alpin fine sand (Typic Quartzipsamments) (USDA 1990). Hydric
soils that are mapped as occurring within the project study area include Dorovan muck,
which is frequently flooded, and Murville muck, which is very poorly drained. These soils
3

' occupy the project study area east of the existing bridge. Nonhydric soils that may contain
hydric inclusions mapped as occurring within the project study area, primarily west of the
' existing bridge, include Invershiel-Pender complex and Alpin fine sand. These two soil
mapping units may have hydric inclusions of Meggett loam and Muckalee loam.
From a broader perspective, the project study area is mapped within the Goldsboro-Norfolk-
Exum soil association as depicted by the Soi/ Survey of Pender County, North Caro/ina
' (USDA 19901. The Goldsboro-Norfolk-Exum association consists of nearly level to gently
sloping, moderately well drained and well drained soils on uplands and terraces that have a
sandy or loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil. The General Soil Map in the Soi/ Survey
' of Pender County, North Carolina appears to have reversed designations for the Goldsboro-
Norfolk-Exum association and the Muckalee-Dorovan association. The Muckalee-Dorovan
association is believed to be the appropriate association in which the project study area is
located. The Muckalee-Dorovan association consists of nearly level, poorly drained and
very poorly drained soils on floodplains that lave a loamy surface layer underlain by a
loamy and sandy material or are sapric material (muck).
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030623 of the Cape Fear River Basin
(DWQ 2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030007 (USGS 19741. The NE Cape
Fear River is the only water resource likely to be impacted by the proposed bridge
replacement project. The NE Cape Fear River originates near Mt. Olive in southern Wayne
and Duplin Counties. Its drainage area is approximately 1,750 square miles (4530 km2.)
The NE Cape Fear River from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210 has been assigned Stream Index
Number ISIN) 18-74-(29.5) by the DWQ (DWQ 2001). From NC 210 to Prince George
Creek, which is downstream, it has been assigned SIN 18-74-(47.5) (DWQ 2001).
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. The NE Cape Fear River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of CSw from
Rock Fish Creek to NC 210 (DEM 1993, DWQ 20011. The C designation indicates waters
designated for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The NE Cape Fear River has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of
BSw from NC 210 to Prince George Creek (DEM 1993, DWQ 2001). The B designation
indicates waters designated for primary recreation and any other usage specified by the C
classification. The Sw supplemental classification indicates Swamp Waters, which have
low velocities and other natural characteristics that are different from adjacent streams.
4

n

The NE Cape Fear River is considered "inland waters" above the NC 210 bridge and "joint
waters" below the NC 210 bridge (NCMFC 2001). "Inland Waters" are all inland waters
except private ponds; and all waters connecting with or tributary to coastal sounds or the
ocean extending inland from the dividing line between coastal fishing waters and inland
fishing waters agreed upon by the NC Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC) and the
NCWRC. "Joint Waters" are those coastal fishing waters, hereinafter set out,
denominated by agreement of the NCMFC and the NCWRC pursuant to G.S. 1 13-1321e) as
joint fishing waters (NCMFC 2001).
The NE Cape Fear River is a perennial stream with substrate consisting of mud, sand, and
silt. Floodplain forest occurs along the edges of the NE Cape Fear River in the project
study area. The channel is approximately 450 feet (137 m) wide in the project study area
and depths likely exceed 10 feet (3 m). Preliminary observations indicate that this
particular section of the NE Cape Fear River may represent an "C" channel type pursuant
to Rosgen (1996).
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW1, High Quality Waters (HQW-, WS-/, or WS-//
Waters occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area.
Upstream portions of the NE Cape Fear River above Rock Fish Creek are designated as
HQW (DEM 1993). This is more than 3.0 miles (4.8 km) upstream from the study area.
Water duality Information
One method used by the DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates. In 1998, monitoring sites in 19 of the 24 subbasins in the Cape Fear
River Basin were sampled to determine overall water quality. Benthic macroinvertebrates
from the NE Cape Fear River were sampled in 1998 on US 117 near Castle/Hayne
approximately 7 miles (11 km) downstream from the project study area. This site, which
is labeled as 89580000, received a bioclassification rating of Good (DWQ 2000). This
same site received rating of Good-Fair in a 1993 sampling event.
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of
Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of
the fish communities. No NCIBI monitoring has been documented within 10 miles (16 km)
of the project study area. Fish tissue has been sampled at the ambient monitoring station
on US 117 in 1998. The mercury limit established by the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) was exceeded in 3 of 25 samples at this location.
The NE Cape Fear River is rated as "Fully Supporting" from Rock Fish Creek to NC 210.
"Fully Supporting" is a rating given to a water body that fully supports its designated uses
5

L'

and generally has good or excellent water quality. A rating of "Fully Supporting" was also
given to the NE Cape Fear River from NC 210 to Prince George Creek (DWQ 2000).
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 19991. For the purpose of interpreting the definition of EFH: "Waters"
include aquatic areas and their associated physical, chemical, and biological properties that
are used by fish and may include aquatic areas historically used by fish where appropriate;
"substrate" includes sediment, hard bottom, structures underlying the waters, and
associated biological communities; "necessary" means the habitat required to support a
sustainable fishery and the managed species° contribution to a healthy ecosystem; and
"spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" covers a species' full life cycle
(NMFS 1999). An EFH Assessment is an analysis of the effects of a proposed action on
EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR 600.920 (g) mandatory contents include: a description of the
proposed action, an analysis of the effects of that action on EFH, the Federal action
agency's views on those effects; and proposed mitigation, if applicable. An adverse effect
includes any impact which reduces the quality and/or quantity of EFH. Pursuant to 50 CFR
600.810 adverse effects may include direct (e.g., contamination or physical disruption),
indirect (e.g., loss of prey, or reduction in a species' fecundityl, site-specific or habitat-
wide impacts, including individual, cumulative, or synergistic consequences of actions.
During the agency review period for the proposed project, the COE makes the
determination of whether or not a proposed project "may adversely affect" EFH. This
determination by the COE is submitted to the NMFS for their review and comment. NMFS
will then determine if additional consultation is necessary regarding the proposed project or
if they concur with COE's decision.
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 project study area occurs
' at the point of division between "inland" and "joint" waters as indicated by the NCMFC
and described previously. Because of this, the project study area may likely be considered
' EFH by COE and NMFS. ESI's opinion based on best professional judgement and reviewing
pertinent literature and regulations is that the proposed bridge replacement should not have
any detrimental effect on any existing EFH

C
6

' Permitted Dischargers
' Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point "sources." Wastewater point source discharges
' include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants and small
domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices, residential
subdivisions and individual homes (DWQ 2000). stormwater point source discharges
' include stormwater collection systems for municipalities and stormwater discharges
associated with certain industrial activities. Point source dischargers in North Carolina
must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
' permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to DWQ by the
EPA. Within subbasin 030623 there is only one major NPDES discharger. There are
numerous minor non-NPDES dischargers in the subbasin (DENR 2001). The three largest
dischargers are listed in Table 1.
Table 1. Largest Permitted NPDES Dischargers Located in subbasin 030623 of the Cape Fear River
Basin (DENR 2001 and DWQ 2000).
Permit Facility Water Body Discharge Distance
' Imgdl
N00003875 Occidental Chemical Corp. NE Cape Fear
River in New 1.07 > 10 miles (> 16 km)
downstream
Hanover Co.
' N00007757 Thorn Apple Valley Juniper Swamp 0.65 > 10 miles (> 16 km)
downstream
N00021113 Burgaw WWTP Osgood Canal 0.5 9 miles (14 km)
' upstream

Non-point source dischargers observed in the project study area consist of normal roadway
' runoff and likely runoff from the fish camp/boat ramp facility. This facility contains limited
impervious surface.
' 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.
~ ,

ii

Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of
increased exposure to sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased
shade due to the construction of the bridges, 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 of bridge surface area increases.
However, due to the limited amount of overall change anticipated in the surrounding areas,
impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
In-stream construction activities will be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic
resources/organisms. Specific moratorium dates have been requested from the 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. Logging, farming, selective cutting, and natural succession after fires, farming,
hurricanes, and other disturbances have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP
classification system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect
local variations within the project study area.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forests -Mixed pine/hardwood forest covers approximately 0.7
acre (0.3 ha) (4 percent) of the project study area. This plant community type is located
on the east side of the NE Cape Fear River. Tree species consist of loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetbay (Magno/ia virginiana), and sweetgum
(Liquidambar styracif/ua). Shrub species consist primarily of wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera).
Groundcover species consist of cinnamon fern (Osmunda cinnamomea), and netted chain-
fern (Woodwardia areo/ata). A small portion of this mixed pine/hardwood community may
be jurisdictional wetland. A portion of the pine/hardwood forest has been timbered and
has revegetated as a successional area.
Coastal Plain Levee Forest (Blackwater subtype) - Coastal plain levee forest covers
approximately 0.2 acre (0.1 ha) 11 percent) of the project study area. These plant
communities are associated with natural levee deposits along channels of large blackwater
streams (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Tree species within the coastal plain levee forest
associated with NE Cape Fear River include bald cypress (Taxodium distichum), laurel oak
(Quercus /aurifo/ia), American elm (U/mus americana-, sweetgum, and red maple. Midstory
8

' and shrub species consist of red maple, sweetbay, and sweetgum. Groundcover consists
primarily of scattered giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea) and netted chain-fern. The edges
' of the river channel support patches of cattail and alligator weed (A/ternanthera
phi/oxeroides-. This plant community is typically associated with either cypress-gum
swamps or bottomland hardwood forest and is distinguished from these other communities
by its higher, drier location on a levee.
Cypress-Gum Swamp -Cypress-gum swamp covers approximately 2.1 acres (0.9 ha) (13
percent) of the project study area. These plant communities are associated with
backswamps, sloughs, swales, and featureless floodplains of rivers (Schafale and Weakley
' 1990). Dominant tree species include such species as bald cypress, swamp tupelo (Nyssa
bif/ora), red maple, and sweetbay. Shrubby vegetation is sparse with the exception of
' some small red maple. Groundcover consists primarily of giant cane and netted chain fern.
Dominance by cypress and gum species and flooding on asemi-regular basis distinguish
cypress-gum swamp from bottomland hardwood forest.

~J

C

0
n
u
Successional/Clear-cut -Successional/clear-cut areas cover approximately 2.8 acres (1.1
ha) (18 percent) of the project study area. Successional areas are those areas that have
been disturbed by man in the past, usually by logging activities, and have become re-
established with successional or disturbance-oriented vegetation. Clear-cut areas have had
all woody vegetation removed by logging activities and have not yet become re-vegetated.
The successional land within the project study area consists of areas that appear to have
been timbered approximately five years ago. The wetter area is vegetated with species
such as black willow (Sa/ix nigra-, red maple, woolgrass (Scirpus cyperinus), and scattered
cattail (Typha sp.). This area is located on the east side of the river and on the north side
of NC 210. The drier successional area is located on the west side of the river and is
vegetated primarily with loblolly pine, red maple, sweetgum, and blackberry (Rubus sp.).
The clear-cut area is located on the west side of the river and on the north side of NC 210.
Logging activities appear to have occurred within the past year and no significant amount
of vegetation has become re-established.
Maintained/Disturbed Land -Maintained/disturbed land covers approximately 6.4 acres
(2.6 ha) (40 percent) of the study area. Maintained/disturbed areas can include roadways,
roadsides, maintained residential yards, powerline right-of-way corridors, and areas where
other human related activities dominate the landscape. Roadsides and powerline righs-of-
way are typically maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. A fish camp/boat ramp is
located on the west side of the river, north of NC 210. This area is being maintained by
the current landowner. Additional maintained/disturbed land is located on the west side of
the river, south of NC 210. Previous activities in this area are unknown. A powerline
right-of-way crosses the river south of NC 210. This right-of-way appears to receive
regular maintenance by mowing and/or herbicide application.
9
u

~'~

1

1

The plant communities within the project study area were mapped on an aerial
photographic base and field verified. A summary of the coverage of each plant community
within the project study area is presented in Table 2. This does not take into account the
final alignment and actual right-of-way width, which will result in much less impact than
the amounts presented below. Additionally, the open water area attributed to the NE Cape
Fear River is not included in this assessment, which accounts for approximately 3.8 acres
(1.5 ha) (or 24 percent) of the project study area.
Table 2. Plant Communities Located Within the Project Study Area for B-4223.
Plant Community Approximate Amount in Acres
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 0.7 ac 10.3 ha)
Coastal Plain Levee Forest 0.2 ac (0.1 ha)
Cypress-Gum Swamp 2.1 ac (0.9 ha)
Successional/Clear-Cut 2.8 ac (1.1 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed Land 6.4 ac (2.6 ha)
Total 12.2 ac (5.0 ha)
Note: Acreage of open water attributed to the NE Cape Fear River channel (3.8 ac) (1 .5 ha) is not
included.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. Mammals
directly observed or evidenced by tracks or scat include white-tailed deer (Odocoi/eus
virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon /otorl. Other mammals expected to occur in and around
the project study area include such species as Virginia opossum (Dide/phis virginiana),
eastern cottontail ISy/vi/agus f/oridanus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus caro/inensis).
No terrestrial reptiles were observed within the project study area during the field
investigation. Those species expected in the project study area include such species as
green anole (Ano/is caro/inensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene caro/ina-, black racer
(Coluber constrictor), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta-.
Terrestrial or semi-arboreal amphibians expected to occur in the project study area include
such species as Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousii), southern leopard frog (Rana utricu/arial,
and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
' Avian species directly observed within the project study area include mourning dove
(Zenaida macroural, American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), turkey vulture (Cathartes
' 10

7

1
1

7

aura, blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata-, great egret (Ardea a/bat, and great blue heron (Ardea
herodias) .
Most of the terrestrial wildlife occurring in the project study area are typically adapted to
life in fragmented landscapes, and overall impacts should be minor. Due to the lack of, or
limited, infringement on natural communities, the proposed bridge replacement will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. Wildlife
movement corridors are not expected to be significantly impacted by the proposed project.
3,2 Aquatic
The aquatic habitat located within the project study area associated with B-4223 includes
the NE Cape Fear River and portions of the adjacent floodplain forest where occasional
flooding is evident. The littoral fringe along the shoreline is also an important component
of the aquatic habitat located within the project study area.
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, and visual observation of stream banks and
channel within the project study area were conducted in the NE Cape Fear River to
document the aquatic community. The depth of the channel inhibited the use of the back-
mounted electro-shocker.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish species documented in the NE Cape Fear River during the field investigation include:
bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus sa/moidesl, eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia ho/brookil, flathead catfish (Py/odictis o/ivaris), yellow bullhead
(/cta/urus nata/is), blue catfish (/cta/urus furcatus), and pirate perch (Aphredoderus
sayanus). Additional fish that can be expected to occur in the project study area include
such species as blue-spotted sunfish (Enneacanthus g/oriosus), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus-, bowfin (Amia ca/va), and redfin pickerel (Esox americanusl.
Coastal Plain streams and rivers are often used by anadromous fish species such as striped
bass (Morose saxatillis) sturgeon (Acipenser spp.), and shad (Alosa spp. and Dorosoma
spp.-. Striped bass have been documented by Menhinick (1991) in the NE Cape Fear River
drainage. Several species of shad including American shad (A/osa sapidissima), blueback
herring (A. aestiva/is), hickory shad (A. mediocris), alewife IA. pseudoharengus-, and
gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianuml have been documented by Menhinick (1991) in the
NE Cape Fear River drainage. The Atlantic sturgeon (Acipenser oxyrhynchus) and
shortnose sturgeon (A. brevirostrum) have been documented in the Cape Fear River and
likely utilize the NE Cape Fear River. ESI has contacted the NCWRC, NCDCM, and NCDMF
via letters dated August 7 and 8, 2001 regarding pertinent fisheries information within this
11
1

r
r
0
study area. Additionally, any information regarding the occurrence of the shortnose
sturgeon has been requested from the appropriate regulatory agencies.
The NE Cape Fear River provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians
and aquatic reptiles. Although none were observed during the field investigation, the
following species are expected to occur in the project study area: green frog (Rana
c/amitans), snapping turtle (Che/ydra serpentina-, banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata),
and cottonmouth (Agkistrodon piscivorus).
Benthic macroinvertebrate sampling was conducted pursuant to DWQ methodologies.
' Kick-net surveys and limited bottom sampling conducted within along the edge of the NE
Cape Fear River produced a small amount aquatic macroinvertebrates. Table 3 provides a
' list of the benthic organisms collected and identified to Order and Family when possible.
Identifications are based on McCafferty (1998).
' Table 3. Benthic Macroinvertebrates Collected from NE Cape Fear River Within the Project Study
Area for B-4223.
' Order Family
Coleoptera Psephenidae
' Annelida
Decapoda Oligochaeta
Palaemonidae

' 3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
' Terrestrial Communities
The replacement of B-4223 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 2; 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
the proposed project. Wildlife known to utilize the project study area are commonly found
' within fragmented landscapes, and the bridge replacement should not substantially alter
conditions within the study area.
12

Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging the NE Cape
Fear River 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 m1 from this stream channel. Silt fences should also
be erected around any stockpiled material in order to minimize the chance of erosion or
run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge Demolition and Removal (BDR) will
follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the protection
of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce impacts during all construction
phases.
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 or spawning habitat. Anadromous fish species have been documented by
Menhinick (1991) as occurring in the NE Cape Fear River drainage. NCDOT's Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish should be utilized to ensure that the replacement
of the bridge will not impede anadromous fish runs. Construction timing should adhere to
the seasonal moritorium requested by the regulatory agencies to protect fisheries
resources. Resident aquatic species may be displaced during construction activities;
however, anticipated impacts are expected to be minor and temporary.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA-. Additionally, wetlands are
also considered "waters of the United States" and are also subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and COE as:
Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency and
duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions.
' Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas [33 CFR
328.3(b)(1986-).

13

' 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 soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Four wetland types occur within the project study area. The surface waters within the
channel of the NE Cape Fear River exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial,
' unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded waters (R2UBH} pursuant to Cowardin et a/.
(1979}. The floodplain of the NE Cape Fear River exhibits characteristics of a palustrine,
forested, deciduous, semi-permanently flooded wetland (PFO6F). The NWI map indicates
that this wetland is comprised of broad-leaved, deciduous trees (PFO1) and does not take
into account the presence of bald cypress co-dominating at this site which results in the
PFO6 designation. The third wetland type is a palustrine, shrub-scrub, broad-leaved
deciduous, semi-permanently flooded wetland (PSS1 F1. This wetland is located in the
successional area east of the river that was logged approximately five years ago. The
' fourth wetland type is the palustrine, emergent, persistent wetland (PEM 1) located under
the powerline right-of-way.
' ESI delineated the jurisdictional extent of the wetland areas based on current COE
methodology, and the areas were subsequently mapped with Trimble TM' Global Positioning
' System (GPS) units. Field verification is to be conducted by the COE on October 9 and 10,
2001. The wetlands within the project study area will likely be considered high quality
' wetlands by the COE based on their location within the floodplain of the NE Cape Fear
River.
' Table 4 contains the total wetland acreage within the project study area. The entire
jurisdictional system was delineated, but individual wetland types were not delineated
separately. The total wetland acreage is based upon the GPS mapping results. The
' acreage for each individual wetland type is based upon interpretation of the aerial
photograph base mapping provided by the NCDOT depicting the project study area.

1
14
1

r

C

G'

Table 4. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters Located Within the Project Study Area for 6-
4223.
Wetland Type Approximate Acreage Iha)a Linear Feet (m)
R2UBH 3.8 ac (1.5 ha) 370 ft (1 12.7 m)
PF06F 2.1 ac (0.8 ha) NA
PSS1 F 2.2 ac (0.9 ha) NA
PEM 1 0.6 ac (0.2 ha- NA
Total n 8.7 ac (3.4 ha) 370 ft (112.7 m)
a Based on individual wetland types as mapped on the aerial photograph.
Based on results of GPS maps and study area limits provided by NCDOT.
Anticipated impacts to these jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters will be determined
during the design phase of this project. Actual impacts will be limited to right-of-way
widths and will be less than the amounts presented in Table 4.
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)I
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
needed if temporary structures, work and discharges, including cofferdams are necessary
for this project and if review of the temporary structures are not included in the NEPA
document.
Pender County is a coastal county and is therefore under the additional jurisdiction of the
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). The NE Cape Fear River within the project study area -will likely be
considered an AEC because it is considered public trust waters and it is in an area
designated as "inland" and "joint" fishing waters by NCWRC and NCMFC (NCDCM 2001).
Replacement of B-4223 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.
15

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 the NE Cape Fear River will be minimized through 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
within wetlands. Limiting in-channel structures will also serve to minimize direct impacts
to the river channel.
' Mitigation -Compensatory mitigation could be required for this project if it does not meet
' the criteria for a 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.
' The existing causeway and approach to the existing bridge could possibly provide on-site
wetland restoration if the new bridge is designed to span the floodplain so that the existing
fill can be removed. Removal of fill may also be an option if the new bridge is to be
' located in a different location; however, constructing a new bridge in a different location
will result in additional wetland impacts.
' The maintained/disturbed area located west of the river and south of NC 210 may offer
potential wetland restoration. This area appears to have been filled many years ago. It
was likely part of the floodplain forest associated with the NE Cape Fear River prior to it
being filled. An in-depth investigation of this area will be necessary before the feasibility of
utilizing it as a mitigation area can be fully understood.
4.3 Protected Species
' Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T-, or officially
proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
' 16

i~
i.

1

1

1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal protected species are
listed for Pender County (FWS list dated 12 April 2001):
Table 5. Federally Protected Species Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Conclusion
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum E Unresolved
American alligator A//igator mississippiensis T(S/A)a N/A
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta T No effect
Piping plover Charadrius me/odus T No effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No effect
Manatee Tiichechus manatus E Unresolved
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus T No effect
Golden sedge Carex /utea E No effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperu/aefo/ia E No effect
American chaffseed Schwalbea americans E No effect
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi E No effect
a T(S/A) =Threatened due to similar appearance
Shortnose sturgeon -The shortnose stugeon is an anadromous fish whose usual habitat is
estuaries and lower sections of larger rivers. It moves into fresh water only to spawn
(Gilbert 1989). The shortnose sturgeon rarely reaches 3 feet (0.9 m) in length, is dark
above and light below, and has a wide mouth pointed downward beneath a short snout.
Menhinick (1991) has documented the shortnose sturgeon in the Cape Fear River. He does
not provide any documentation of its occurrence in the NE Cape Fear River. Requests have
been submitted to the NCWRC, NCDMF, and FWS for more information concerning this
species.
No Designated Critical Habitat or Proposed Critical Habitat for shortnose sturgeon is
currently listed by the NMFS (NMFS 2001-.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
The project study area does represent potential habitat for shortnose sturgeon
based upon descriptions in available literature about the species; however, an
accurate determination of its presence or use of the project study area is not
possible at this time. NHP does not document any occurrences of this species
within the project study area as of December 20, 2001. A follow-up survey should
be conducted 1 to 2 years prior to project construction.
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
17

to estuarine habitats including swamp forests, bottomland hardwood forests, marshes,
large streams, canals, ponds and lakes (Palmer and Braswell 19951. 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. 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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not applicable
No biological conclusion is required for the American alligator since it is listed as
T(S/A).

u

1
Loggerhead sea turtle -The loggerhead sea turtle is a marine turtle characterized by a
large head with blunt jaws. The carapace and flippers are areddish-brown color and the
plastron is yellow. Adults grow to an average weight of about 200 pounds (441 kgs). The
loggerhead sea turtle may be found hundreds of miles out to sea, as well as in inshore
areas such as bays, lagoons, salt marshes, creeks, ship channels, and the mouths of large
rivers (Palmer and Braswell 19951. Nesting occurs mainly on beaches.
No Designated Critical Habitat or Proposed Critical Habitat for loggerhead sea turtle is
currently listed by the NMFS (NMFS 2001).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
The study area does not contain suitable habitat for loggerhead sea turtles. No
impact to this species is expected as a result of this project.
' Piping plover -Piping plovers are small shore birds measuring only 6 to 8 inches (0.2 m) in
length. These birds occur along beaches above the high tide line, sand flats, barrier
' islands, sloping foredunes, behind primary dunes, and washover areas (Dyer et a/. 1987).
Critical Habitat for the piping plover is being proposed by FWS for coastal portions of
' Pender County; the project study area is not located within 5.0 miles (8.0 km) of the
proposed Critical Habitat.
' BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
' No habitat for piping plover occurs in the project study area. No impacts to this
species will result from this project.
18

C!

Red-cockaded woodpecker -This small woodpecker 17 to 8.5 inches) (0.2m) 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 (Pious pa/ustris), slash 1P. 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. Pine flatwoods or pine
savannas that are fire maintained serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this species.
Development of a thick understory within a given area usually deters nesting and foraging.
Potential nest sites for RCW's include open pine and pine/mixed hardwood stands greater
than 60 years of age. Hardwood/pine stands (< 50% pine) greater than 60 years of age
may also be considered potential nesting habitat if adjacent to potential foraging habitat
(Henry 1989). Foraging habitat is typically comprised of open pine or pine/mixed
hardwood stands over 30 years of age (Henry 1989). Pines must comprise at least 60
percent of the canopy in order to provide suitable foraging for RCW's. Somewhat younger
pine stands may be utilized if the trees have an average diameter at breast height (DBH)
greater than or equal to 10 inches (0.25 m1. Foraging stands must be connected to other
foraging areas or nesting areas in order to be deemed a viable foraging site. Open spaces
or unsuitable habitat wider than approximately 330 ft (101 m) are considered a barrier to
RCW foraging.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support nesting or foraging populations of red-cockaded
woodpeckers was identified within the project study area or directly adjacent to the
project study area. The mixed pine/hardwood forest within the project study area is
dominated by hardwoods (> 50%) and is not considered suitable habitat since no
adjacent potential foraging habitat is present. No RCW cavity trees were identified
within the project study area. NHP does not document any occurrences of this
species within 1.0 (1.6 km- of the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No
impacts to this species should result from this project.
Manatee -The manatee is a large gray or brown aquatic mammal. Adults average about
10 feet (3.0 m) in length and weight up to 1000 pounds (2205 kgs). Manatees inhabit
both salt and fresh water of a sufficient depth (5 to 20 feet) (1.5 to 6.1 m). They may be
encountered in canals, rivers, estuarine habitats, saltwater bays, and in nearshore waters.
Manatees prefer water temperatures warmer than approximately 34° Farenheit (1° Celcius),
however, they have been observed in waters of a lower temperature (Webster et a/. 1985).
They may be encountered in North Carolina waters during the warmer summer months;
however, they are much more common in Georgia and Florida waters.
19

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Unresolved
' Althou h downstream ortions the NE Ca a Fear River ma rovide suitable habitat
9 p p YP
for occasional manatees, it is unlikely that they would occur as far inland is this site
is located. It is unlikely that manatees would be impacted by the proposed project
due to their scarcity in North Carolina and highly migratory nature. However, it can
' not be concluded that manatees will not occur in the project study area. NHP does
not document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 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.
seabeach amaranth -The seabeach amaranth is an annual plant found on Atlantic coast
beaches. The stems are fleshy and pink-red or reddish, with small rounded leaves. It is
typically found on barrier island beaches, where its preferred habitat consists of overwash
flats and lower foredunes (FWS 1996).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for seabeach amaranth occurs within the project study area. NHP does
not document any occurrences of this species within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the
project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species will result
' from the proposed project.
Golden sedge -Golden sedge is a perennial member of the sedge family and is known only
from North Carolina. The stem may reach 3 feet (0.9 m) in height and the green, grasslike
leaves are up to 10 inches (0.25 m) long. This species grows in sandy soils overlying
coquina limestone deposits, with unusually high soil pH (Glover 1994). Golden sedge
' prefers the ecotone between pine savannah and adjacent wet hardwood or
hardwood/conifer forest. Most plants occur in partially shaded savannah/swamp where
occasional to frequent fires favor a herbaceous ground layer (LeBlond 19961.
Populations of golden sedge are known from the NE Cape Fear watershed in Pender
County. The species appears to be a very rare, narrowly restricted endemic to an area
within a 2-mile (3.2 km) radius of the Onslow/Pender County line in southeastern North
' Carolina (LeBlond 1996). Localities where golden sedge have been found are ecologically
highly unusual. The combination of open conditions underlain by calcareous substrate is
very rare on the Atlantic coastal plain.
' Golden sedge has recently been listed as E by the FWS (FWS 2002). This species was
previously listed as PE (proposed for Endangered).
' 20
t

BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat that would support golden sedge was observed in the project study area.
NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of
the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species 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., pocosinsl. The loosestrife 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 our state. Drainage of habitat may also have adverse effects on the species
(FWS 1994a).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for rough-leaved loosestrife was observed in the study area. NHP does
not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the
project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species should
result from this project.

1
American chaffseed -American chaffseed is a perennial herb that stands 1 to 2 feet (0.3
to 0.6 m) tall. The species has alternate leaves and is erect and simple, or branched only
at the base, The fleshy leaves are yellow-green or dull green with red undertones. The
leaves become smaller and narrower from the base of the plant to the top (Kral 19831.
Flowers are yellowish on the tube and purplish distally. Blooming typically occurs from
April to June. This species is fire maintained and typically occurs in grass/sedge
assemblages within moist pine flatwoods, pine savannas, bog borders, and open oak
woods. Lack of fire will quickly suppress the species preventing blooming. It will then be
quickly overgrown by successional herbs and woody plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
No habitat for American chaffseed was observed within the project study area.
NHP does not document any occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km1 of
21

' the project study area as of December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species should
result from this project.
' Coole 's meadowrue - Coole 's meadowrue is a rare
y y 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. Each of these series are sandy loams.
Tulip poplar (Liriodendron to/ipifera) and cypress growing together, bordering asavanna-like
area, has been the best indicator of Cooley's meadowrue sites (FWS 1994b1.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No effect
' No habitat consisting of wet savannas or savanna-like areas kept open by fire or
disturbance occurs in the project study area. NHP does not document any
occurrences of this species within 1.0 mile (4.8 km) of the project study area as of
December 20, 2001. No impacts to this species should result from this project.
Federal Species of Concern
' The 12 April 2001 FWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC1. The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the
ESA for the species listed. The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999,
i LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study area has been evaluated for FSC listed for
Pender County.
Table 6. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Pender County, North Carolina.
' Common
Name Scientific
Name State
Status Potential
Habitat
Bachman's sparrow Aimophila aestivals SC Y
Henslow's sparrow Ammodramus henslowii SR N
Rafinesque's big-eared bat Corynorh/nus rafinesquii SC N
Southern hognose snake Heterodon s/mus SR Y
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius SC Y
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito SC N
Buchholz's dart moth Acrotis buchholzi SR N
Atlantic pigtoe
Venus flytrap cutworm moth Fusconaia masoni
Hemipachnobia subporphyrea T N
subporphyrea SR N
Yellow lampmussel Lampsi/is cariosa T Y
Croatan crayfish Procambarus plumimanus W Y
Carter's spartiniphaga Spartiniphaga carterae SR N
Table 6. Continues
22
l

Table 6. Continued
Common Scientific State Potential
Name Name Status Habitat
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana E N
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii T N
Chapman's sedge Carex chapmanii W Y
Venus flytrap D/onea muscipu/a C/SC N
White wicky Kalmia cuneata SC N
1 Carolina bogmint Macbridea caro/iniana T Y
Savannah cowbane Oxypolis ternata W N
Carolina grass-of-parnassus Parnassia caro/iniana E N
Pineland plantain P/antago sparsif/ora E N
Thorne's beaksedge Rhynchospora thornei E N
Carolina goldenrod So/idago pu/chra E N
Spring-flowering goldenrod So/idago verna T N
Carolina asphodel Tofie/dia g/abra C N
.Carolina least trillium Tri//ium pusi//um var.
' pusillum E N

* E-Endangered, T-Threatened, SC- Special Concern, C -Candidate, W -Watch List, P -Proposed,
SR -Significantly Rare.
NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC within 2.0 miles (3.2 km1 of the
' project study area. Species specific surveys for FSC were not conducted.
1
t

n

23

I

i
1

5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service,
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
100 pp.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2001. Active NPDES Permits.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDESldocuments/permits on 1 September 2001.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
' Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Basin-wide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River
Basin. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 420 pp.
'~ DWQ. 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC Department of Environment
and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 274 pp.
' DWQ 2001
N
h
. .
ort
Carolina Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin.
h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports.basinsandwaterbodies/03-06-23/pdf on September 25,
' 2001.
Dyer, R.W., A. Hecht, C. Raithel, K. Terwilliger, and S. Melvin. 1987. Draft Atlantic Coast
Piping Plover Recovery Plan. Prepared for the Atlantic Coast Piping Plover Recovery
Team for Region 5, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the Interior. 13 pp.
' Fi
h d Wildlif
S
i
FW
s
an
e
erv
ce (
S). 1993. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book). Southeast Region, Atlanta, GA.
'
FWS. 1994a. Rough-leaved Loosestrife Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Atlanta, GA. 37 pp.

FW
S '
1994b. Recovery Plan for Cooley s Meadowrue. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA. 29 pp.
24
u

n
FWS. 1996. 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. Pender County, NC. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Asheville NC.
FWS. 2002. Personal communication with Mark Cantrell of FWS on January 29, 2002.

1

1

Gilbert, C.R. 1989. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of
Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Mid-Atlantic Bight- - Atlantic and Shortnose
Sturgeons. Fish and Wildlife Service Biological Report 82 (11.122-. U.S.
Department of the Army Corps of Engineers TR EL-82-4. 28 pp.
Glover, L. 1994. Carex lutea: alive and well in Pender County, North Carolina. Report
prepared by the North Carolina Chapter of the Nature Conservancy, Durham, NC.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and Evaluations
for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, GA.
Kral, R.A. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2. U.S. Department of Agriculture,
Forest Service, Southern Region, Atlanta, GA. 1305 pp.
LaBlond, R. 1996. Status survey for Carex lutea. Unpublished report submitted to the
Asheville Field Office, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, NC.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Raleigh. 91 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264
PP•
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA.
448 pp.
25
1

Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 1999. Essential Fish Habitat Consultation
' Guidance. 62 pp.
NMFS. 2001. Endangered and Threatened Species and Critical Habitats under the Jurisdiction
of the National Marine Fisheries Service. http://caldera.sero.nmfs.Qov/protect/nc cand.htm on 30
August 2001.
North Carolina Marine Fisheries Commission (NCMFC). 2001. North Carolina Fisheries Rules
for Coastal Waters. NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh,
' NC. 277 pp.
' North Carolina Division of Coastal Management (NCDCM). 2001. CAMA Handbook for
Development in North Carolina. http://dcm2.enr.state.nc.us/Handbook/handbook.htm on
29 August 2001
' Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
' Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hitl, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
' Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
' Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pagosa Springs, CO.
365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
' Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh.
325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1990. Soil Survey of Pender County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 150 pp.
26

L
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
' USGS. 1983. Mooretown, North Carolina ortho-quad
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.

1
1
27
1

i
~'T' o. Lr~G ~ ~ 7t. ~`~»' ~ ]k~ 6~n}e r ~ ~ •,~ ~ ~ '~ r -; t"t ~+~~ 2 ~'- '~4
3} its : ~~.. , aiY4 ,-n., 31( 'A ~ rS-4'~. ~ .#~ f ~'l '~`~~~ ~'
~3-.M ~..3;t'a"`~r[,- ".i-... ..- 4 _UJ ~ ~~,5. Try ~ r t. r~l ,(` .s~.~-y.[L :~ ~1 •~.:1~ ~~ 4' ~::~4
' i t'~~``4f;~~_ j~ S'- ,~ '~ , ~ } „-~- '`~~S y Y ~' tt ~<~ ``""`; ~~- ~ r / f :,~ ~ ~ ? ~ aJ r , e ~, `~ ~~~~ ~. ~' ~ ~i
t'-
~,~A f~o~,'~S . } ~~ ~ ~.r"~. b . ,?.ri ~ P' ` .~~ .r ~ ,~~'J/ ~ ~ ~ r -.. p ~~v>i,- ~ r ~, "'~f .. ~;~
l7 ~ ^`F ~ t ~(,~
t '" i - ~r rS..ax ~r r y J~+ l~'~fi :_. „t "~n~. :-.~ ~~ : ~l t ~.~ -~ ~'~,~~kr,'. .~~F ~~k r~"g: .~u~""r''~
f ~, r4 ,¢},~-~ a~ cx c~ r -c~.~ , ., ,~$#" r( eke ~+~,rr a~3" ,~'~,>r,,
ti+., ~ rt ~rtv ki,i"'{~~~. l ~-4'1 j~j; .n Y,.+„ ~,.£. t ~~~1~~1'~~_ i/ ea .A~;~ sti'~„~~.{'r•, ~{>'vys; ~~
'F¢~ 5 ~~ .rl '.rr`\,~r~c 1 `~~.4 _.s r r ~D.. - ~ ~~L~1~4~A~~j" ~~~ ::
F~2 ~ F ; e'~^ ~~. ~ s""~ ,,, '' :+ ~ ~ ~ r : ~ ~F' .~ _ .~ ~~.~ ~' is Yy~..k TS< r~'~~ 4~~ ~ `.
~c-Y xL`~x ~ t - lz~ ~ ~k~.r , '~ ~ ? ~ 4 S~ ; 'Y` L "as. ,;: ,. ~ ~ ~ `~ k>. e` ` _ -+~ ~ p ~.= ~. ~~Z~~ ,F 4e' ~.4y ~+ ,.
x -
:- ~., "
"'"~ a 1 ~ ~ \ ?~ ~+.. { ~ ~rJ -~ r~u cF'r-s -3~~ E ~ ^ ~s ~+? arr~ ~ 3" t'rr'•..~~..
r TA T ,. ( ±~ ,i~'~ 1 r .~s~• ,1 ~ 4ti~ .Of'S ~Y'S' ~'y ''K~S~{"'~-
t - :' .~ ~'` a t > .. ~E,a. +~ r ,... ~~~ >,: y ~ ~ fs . 4~Jnr -r^Yr-' ~6,-. ~ ~'
tijy '~ r i "T t lj ~ v.,~ x ~~ ~ q. - ~~-N ~'~"'` vyg Yi x a h `f~tiv'i4 '~ ~.~
Mt~ ~ ~ t '. c, f.. ~c-r fir.: '.~ ~__^t'~- v.~, ~. -~. i-' r J4 ~` ~: ~. ~ 4at ,y. ~ ~,,t,~y~ ~~
'. ~~ - '-.. ray? ai, a ~„ S- 3~"t ~~s., '~5~~~' `i,' ,. < ~ . _
T ~ 1 r ~J~ ~ .~~~~:1~ ~:- r. - ~•. N`!~. _. ~r~g2~1~~T\~~~F~~ ~~ '.L.~ l ~''?~ . r ty '~ :f--~ ~S
~(. :kid ~J. ,: ~, f "E ~~_ J :' 3 ~ ~ $ f - '" C. L,~- ~{. •wT ctl"'t ~~_ r j a4,~_y~i~+
~ ~~ F z t ~:. G ~, ;~,`,, ~ r a r~ ~, ,.-z "ks~= a . ~ .~`' g L ~~ : ~ ~ i \ <t, fir, t ~ `"„3. '
~ 'S ~ F~ ~ ~ „'^a ~ ,r~ ~~fr tJ t ~ , 1,~..¢, +,; _.,1 .::y - i. ,T.. ,• ~- LG \ ~ ai-~:,_ ~. 3 ~ ~r~*'^~:
xyy,Z~ 4a a~ - f .t'-.~`` ;'j ~t -sSY.r~ ~~ g~ '^ ~, x r-,. ~ r"'. #. :''~ ,--f ~ `Ylr f \ ~ 're~~fr
'C ~'S J 's YYa l,~ l r ~ Y, y M1 f E \ • - .v- d4 a'~i - c >~ . Y +-~., 1 ~ ~'i' ~'+V`>~
;~yr. ~,~54 .a ~~ ' s ~~ -`~i ~ ,.~..-.:1 J a. ~ {rs}1 ~ ~ -~ ~ ~ i~ ~~ 2 ,yS -. ~ . t;. -4 - a v~+, L ,..
_ 6 'o ~ -1` _ s b,~" ~` ~ k -rte ` '~.' ' *z n ~ '.~ r
A~ ~ ~ i f: YCyr ~~t~t ~#~`-~ 1-z-' 3 '~`.~S ;~~r .~.~~ ~'~ ~,~ '<. _~' :~~`xr~ ' t"'y.~ t,;.
U : f~fir 7,~ ~ i =Vt"# C. `4t }t''{~ y`y '>~'~ - ~ _~• ~~ar~._ X . J, ~'>gz,~ 7 ~" Y.°s `"T f n , ...
~c y~}~` :ws c '~--.:f d y : °` ~ ~' .~ ~'4-'~r~? ~ \ , €+~"°" 'fir "^e' ~st;~ k:v~'~ _~y T.~ ,: ~ R" : _\
f~b.~rlyY[ fj~ ~ ~', t * J! ~~i~ r• :i4 l,, ;~ ~ ' ,E' r '~ } ~~~' Xf'~E i' ° '~ ~ , t
~'i6 t"ty,t.~ ~ .~ "`~ 'f`'y~ i l~j>- j 2 T _ ~~'. `~ .z'~'' ~'/'--'i>F -: ^y'*- --4 ~ .. \ ~ ,~
~`f~`}i;.~°e,iy _ ~r - ` ~ R a1 _9'~.~ ;S ~ ~4c. - , 4.i~ ~. ~'~ ~,~Cd~it~~ ~
. q "a - ~ 4 ~ .i;_• ~ 4-, -u'- *~ T~t3'~ .rr ' "' - ~. U cz t
,~..: ~L ~.., 74 '''i~,Ei ._ __ \ _' ~ i' :'-i 1+~~..,1 ..n s..> :i~j~.~c } I ~„r-i`.;~'t` ~ ?; r7~
yZ,, 1j{,k~ ,d ~ ^ ~ :t ti _ ( ~ ': ~ ,{ .s.L~~'s ~ i, : f?~r1+~ 'a iarY 1 J 5~. t j~ t ~ ... ~k
r'"y ~~,:.~ ~' ~~g~t _ y ~~ DSO -~ /^t Ji ~', t ti ter' ~ ,~,~< f'u??~ fit. .,~ ~ c.~"T~,i
t i§ y ~ ~iT, ,, .. .f* :.
~>,' 4 ~ t: ~ '!.~ \ .~ y ~ ~ f f~J 3~ r -J~''Y r ~ ,_+s~. `l p rq e7ef~.
. '~`, A~- ~~j ~ ~7 I 1 - t-~ ti_~. F'v~,Y~ 5`,K i' •~ s •. . 4~ 1 .v a
a~Y x '~,7 T ~ ' ~ j ~ ~' '~~ K~. l ~,• +.~~,. °~; r` r` ~1., jFtlxf - '.~ r .oc~
t~~/,T~^ 1_.4 ~"5; ~" 4~~ ( __ 14 E Sys/~~,~- 1 ~ 1'~•'~,~ ,q~ F ~~ Y' x>~~~ LL yy
e ! •Ty, -~a 7 ~ ~P' ; ^~7/ --~\'9^~ - ~ EL7 q~T ' p,'l. . 1 YZE T L' ~t '
.. w'r+y i.~.
1+.T `_ ~, 'c a X,~~ ~ 71.~. ~.-~~ f- t '~L Y :d$..~ '. 7 '~T`}'-,~ ~~7 ~ ~i~ r tt~--,L ~~
~a~~`~,'~ ~~I~.!~d'.i~ h'~3d2 ~° '~~{' r t't, - i f/ 1y '. ~ ~ r _ _ /~ ,-r ' ~ w° `;~~ ,-.. ~ _ T ~~ ~, {{ sti.
5 .~~,~~1,(• f ,j> : l '~y-'?7 '~ ..l -~ ; ~ ~ ~y ,' k ~ .-y, 7. 47 y t ~ r~.,_
r~n .,TL'` ~ yyvy.,y'yh,` r,~~'~JT."s2~.i t ~{ y r 3!.2:r l~ 't~ :y far>:! tt -,~>< l~~au S,S~b~ T1tt ~?..~
+(tk'~ ~_%. ~..1`FF yyr~'~ y'~ f ~ .~ ` i e~ f t ~' x .~ ..DV" ~~ ~b' . ~ D ` ~~T ~
. i{~f"~'''~c•~~,TAf ~ '~~1f'.:'~~~:. ti •_ ~'~`~`,{' ''i d~-."Sc-<k,~...w.. r,- '`fit ~,~ ~ _p a, , '~ 2+ i
n ~ 4 ~ 1 - .~,r' ([~ .. is ~ T 3) y ~j3y~J.~, '
w. ~; ~' -. ~t,Y5'sT. s;;; + ~ T! ~~[ i. t'•. d ~~~1~ 1>'14~. ~ T ~ ~ ~' ..... ~ ~ h ~7~. ~~ii-'{
D ~ I, r ~ -1 A F i t- * ~•
+ r j '~g~_~.~1 ~3''lA'~,ie ,~~4 F` .~-~r~ 1 ~.J' f. ~ x.. i5i ~'r7` .'r ;feT
~~- s; _ .~ ._~ L1l-',,_~..:.- r ,.r " (. r .%~<<~9-~'ii`'4. !~ t .3:~-, ~ 1r.ts ~s,'r~,3, >
e~ t41
•~V!•!* -1;^!~, .?,,. ~ ~ ~ i i ~ .J~ rr , -I n~ ',~ ,1: 'G 1 '~ ~.f~.~r*'2,; . t ~~, Y;,,, 'tt~ J
_. b ~' ~~ ~ .. ~ ` ^- ' i '• {~<: {a .~,t'~ r E Jkr _ ~,t;,t, Y t nT,{ j ~'Pr~~fi"~~ x~ l'rt

;:_~;
. _ - ,,.
~ .:. ... .. ... .... ..... _ ... r.~~,.,-s.~,._L.~ ~-a-.~9,.-,~..Y.'~ ~-,-',~aa~Y~aa~~a~a `awn-~.,5~. ss _,a''..:..d's-.~ _ "~ _ y'~ -

ii

~i

- - - ~.
,,
~ .~ ~;
J~ .-,
~~~~~~f~ ; ,a
~ - -
1---
i
-__
--
- -
_ ,.~ / ,
r ~, ®; r
C- ----` -i ~±~~
i ~ ~~ ~~~~ ~
--
___, ~ 'fJ ,` ~
- { c-- -__
,,
- __ _ _ _
-.
_-- - -
i
~ _ -_

-- ---_
._,-,..

t

1

~~ `
t(7 f7 ! v- <
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETEAND DETERM)NATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
ProjectfSite: ~~ r ~~ ~ ~ -,~ - ~ ~1/~'/
Date-
ApplicarttfOwner_ f'~,'f ~~„`.T_ County: ~~,~
Investigator ~ `J y Staie_ ~ ~
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID_ 5pr,,,p ~r.~,s~
is the site signihcantiy disturbed IAtypicai Situation)? Ye o Transect iD_ rji3 ~J
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No, Ptot 1D.
t..~E r/,,,,~
I1t needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plarrt Speoes Stratum Tndicator Dominant Plant Species
SNatvm Indicat
}} J/ __ or

vss~ t ~,~:.
?-
ti f~
T
C r_.
_ ,o_

a_ 3~~~, rub~-~~~, -~ c~~
,z_

13_
6- ~/urlc~~h~ c~ r~ lfn~E'6i u
`i r~`
~,`1~-L~
14_
7.
15.
8.
16_
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBE, FACW or

FAC (excludrng FAC-) j
/~~!
Remarks_ ~,

HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Descnbe in Remarks)_ Wetland H droto
Y gy Indicators

-Stream. lake or Trde Gavge -
Primary ~ndicators-~
-Aerial Photographs -Inundated
Other
_No Recorded Data Available Saturated in Upper 72 inches
/ Water Marks
Dritt lines
_Sedrment Deposits

Field Observations: _/Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
i Depth of Surface Water: a
{in. ) _.._ O>ardrzed Root Channels in Vppcr l2 Inches
--- _ad'~VVater-Stained leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit Gn) local Soil Survey Data

Depth to Saturated Soil_
~
(in) FAG Neutral Test
_ Other (Ea plain in Remarks)
Remarks: ---
t

~~ t~~l
~~ l~-~
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wettarids Delineation Manual)
~_
ProjectlSite: - ~ r} ~: - Date_ ~/t3 y/~~
ApplicantlOwner_ ;'\r'~ (? ~~~~ County. y~
lnvestigator_ ~ 5.~% ~ ~ -------
State- per: (_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No Community ID. ,~
is the site significantly disturbed [A icai Situation ? Ye o= ~~t' ~r`~~Sf
tYP 1 s~~ TransecttD_
is the area a potential Problem Area? Ye o. Plot 1D.
llf needed, explain on reverse ~'~ ~;'Of
VEGETATION
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data lDescnbe in Remarks)-
_Sbeam. lake or Trde Gauge
_Aerial Photographs
Other
o-Recorded Data Available
Field Observations-
Depth of Surface Water= -____-tin.?
Depth to Free Water in Pit Gn l
Depth to Saturated Soit_ ~ l [~ tin j
Wetland Hydrology Indicators,
Primary fndcators_
_ Fnundat ed
-Saturated in Upper 72 Inches
-Water Marks
Drih tines
_Sedrment Deposits
-Drainage Patterns m Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (Z or more required?-
_ Oxidised Root Channels in Vpper 72 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
local Soil Survey Data
_FAGNeutral Test
-Other tExptain in Remarks/
Remarks-

Wetland Rating Worksheet
' Project name 1Ji'yr sicn 3 ~ y~~ Nearest road ~ C t~ ~~
County }~:,~~ Name of Evaluator x.51- Date ~''~ ~''~~

Wetland location Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream)
_ on pond or lake natural vegetation ~1~'
on perennial stream
~ asriculture ~~
_
_ on intermittant stream suburban/urban l©
' _ within interstream divide
_ other
Dominant Vegetation

' .
--'
Soil Series ~er~rkn~ l~ur/;f~e ~-~-~ .
(1) /<~XaC?'~~~~r~~ drS~c~u~
predominantly organic-humus,
~
_
muc or eat
~ P
(2} ~/ y s5,~ ~:~~~'~~
~
_ predominantly mineral- non-sandy
_ predominantly sandy (3)~rl;.{Fr~~ u s ~~c~rf~~v~~~
Flooding and Wetness
~semiperminantly to perminantly flooded or
innundated
H_vdrolic Factors seasonally flooded or innundated
' steep topography =
intermittantly flooded or temporary
ditched or channelized surface water
' _
~ wetland width >/= 50 feet _ no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland Type (select one)
_ Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest =
Freshwater marsh
/Swamp forest _ Bogf fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
' =
Pocosin =
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes
Water storage ~ * 4 = ,~L~
Bank/Shoreline stabilization .~ * 4 = ~ ~ Total score
Pollutant removal ~_ o~C~ 7 ~f
* 5
Wildlife habitat ~_ _
* 2 `~
Aquatic life value '~ * 4 = 1
Recreation/Education ~' * 1 = ~`
Add I point if in sensitive watershed and >10^/o nonpoin t disturbance within 1/2 mile upstn:am

~., x F_ .r .Z a~i r r ~ 1 t ~• t •~~
.. i~i ~ ~xtt. ~, F'r /r'~hx~`_-] wis7~+;F'.j~~}^ ~ / 1t ~~:. ."., ~`~ ~ ~' ~
r2r~ F /l $ ti,S'tiF ~.Z\' ~~.s ,.Mr'. ~~~ ~`ux.. ~' ~ t r~~
,. ~ ' S~'~ ~ ~~.'.";+~ t~ ~ ~ ~ _ J 4 r ~~ t}fit.,':
a~ ~ x e'
~~ 1 ~, 1 ~~ t..j" ~" ~r ~. x
~ (( ; ~,~ h ~.~% ~~
n• ~5 !
S '1 \
Ly,L ~. ,
~ f w
~ .j '~'
t'•~~ ' f 5h~1 ~ ~. f? ..eD ~t~' ; ~:~' ~~a~ +.t e!°,.• 1' 'zr... ~ ~ .~ ~ ~f ~ ~ F~~
.v% .: k Y•H .r f, - .~~w Y~ ,~i ~"sact J "~.~ ~.~•5~,~ ..ri.- t„
r z~ti ~ ,?: i + r. `~'~t.rY .3.. ae y. 5':, - 4,~r_; ~' ~-;, ~~i. ~r~ ,~~ w.~ r -y
t., - ?t,S:." ':7 s,..,1:;,„zA i"~ ~~..~ .~t;r.: vc .~ .zr._ • u ;~ *ti-~ ~3"~. -J._ 1~ - - .},~, --
,:'~S,u a -~iy~` rrs +~ ~~ , EJ_ ;~ yr +~t ~~ r 1^ ,#~ ~fR, ~~+ ~ ~r.~r.
,:~ .~;'~ ~, ~~~ +: ~'. _, ~ vt ~ M ~ - f .;~y,- 3 ,:F r - t~+'T~' : G. ~1' ''•~"l, ,~~a:?~fi: •'~~~, r .
i; r ,r. ~''~-id~~'~'.~.~c i~~-'' e`' ~ a`.er,. ~' arjl'f`'~ z~ ~ ' z s`i.`
w~,~ - ~ ~: - h
.. 4 '!zr _ ~ y, v.~ L v i f A r - L kf~~. e`1 ~. `';.u ,n~'l ~ r- ~ rae}; ~ ~, :, ~~ :';,~ +, r ls`i ,;
t - ;ven ~7 7a~,. ,r"~ai ,~% } : >sv a~ + . ed F 'y j~ ~;7, „~. ~~"yr,'w ~^~ .y ~f ^
~'+t~ ~*. _.{4. A' ~. ` - err / l ~,~. w.: 7s-,' „~ ~ .,ih,' 7 ~4'....
. ;,RS','. ~~ t;,~: to / ; w~ ~' ..~`.' ~ - ,~. ~ ~'A4'vy `y'Y r s ~(' ,=•" • ~
.a'.. ~' r ~`%4 "~wFi ~: ~u, ' r .'F3 k :'gY a~ ~ i ~ E ~ ;.^,.
f` ,-c t } R y., _ i r~', R , Var. e :~ r7k`~, a t. y'k{ +~ .kx:' *v }.,.
rtr~ ~ r Tea i`r ~' x .. `t -a A ~h.~, ~ft
~' ~. 3 ~ ~ ~ s'~'iN .t ~A r' ~ r~`, 9k Y. z r i+`~.~ ~, L t
r'k~ ~~:3.~ l^''+, 'ie"~',.~;?XT ~ 4;-~°n=~~`i :`~»~ ,r - ~ ~?rf ~n y~," r,;a~~s.~,y ~;~ -
},y d ~ L"' t ,,~ i 'fir 't rr~
-~,, ~; i,7+-'" r Farr. ~ 7 , ir` ~ ~ ~~~~ t ', tan
?~`
t r.; ,w ~Jr~'~~;~~`w ~, ~~M r ~ x ~ ~i ~ !ch Y r< M1sEy ~~-`*r~ ~~ ...~ vp~ 1 r ti,~...
4 V y ~ .~ ' k1t t v' "~+ ~ ,~.~~ . ~ ~ ~ 1`0 1~ ~'sh "5 ~` ~ ~,y, ~ ~,,
,~ ~;. :g r 1: 'R•. ai` ". .~ht~ x~ ~~ .rr`~- '2~'~,,,+ r~, °:~;'F 1 -~1 ~' ~:Ia ~ -pa ,*e
'kxJ~l~` ~, aq-y,t', .4j ~, aS ar. F +r.~ ~~`>:._~,~:- :!~ r~ kf~ ~~'' ~:rR-y i ,S. ~.»s"~ .}, ~or!!P~,t'~ Q. kF~ "-fir",.:
r row ti .? t tr4#,#~ N°~ ~ .,xi{ ~ ~"'L ,-.,. F 7 ~f ,t ~ ,f } k~'! x f '~ -~ !"h'
k:f,. 1 r s ~ ~ may, ~ ~ ~~ {F ~
.spy-r~ ~+~~ Y ' .at`n ~` "'~~: y a~r~i ~'f ~ t~~~ 7.. e .t
~~,+~ :k: y'X` ~ ~ ~ IE~" tam..,. ,r+ '"' ,` --• ~ ~+
~ 2,
~~ fi
~fi r„ s , .- .- r m+ ~+ Asa-. s ;.~
,~
- ~ .r., ( ~ ~., ic
~~r --.~:,+i ~' v.. ~,~-,- ~t.w'.~., ~ ~A^... t • u-r r.tr a +.. ~ 't~ ""' ~ - ~ i ~'.+~(" t<1t ' r'•y'
: U}..s ,+N+.,e+ {.. ~ rak ~ ..fin i.r .lzi_ 1y ~"s -iL( ~s:..~~((. ~~j ~;.3~'eC i~ a:"1~ f~: 7`L~ 7.Y x.~; ~ ~~.
r, ~ ~ ~ Y , 7~ ~ xki, 2 r+r ~r.:ty,~ '~"'!'' y ~ ~,~ ~ =t~ ~' .i .?a V ;'^~„ .~i<, , '; ~~~ S .,''~;"~ ~~;~JU'~ ~ # ~ ` ~,
;,
>;, ~., {": tti,. ~.,„~ r2 air{~'. ,~,r ~a ..-X,+n jy ~A~ vy~ '~~(,~, Jr h +~ -~~y :'" ipr, T: tr'r ~' 1~, `i-»5rq~
' v2 T!b A f r4 .
~z-:-k,r~ -E~a"+''I-~Y" n~~:;t:t 4 r~x~/y k~}~ .~~`' f ~.A~ _F ;~ ~~ :z, r7''•,-~r,^k '~Y iy,~,'~R 1~'fi. ,A ty~ r.~~3 r.
r ,;
2 ~~_',s ~.~:;"--•1'~~ic..1~' +N ~,~"_ . ~`r , L~ ~-~:, ~. "`~a~.. -< ,~ r:a. ~~ , .-f < r ':7 ~ti"r` i "`."4,, ' c ~ ~,rN '~4 ~''~% ~f p'r+t
~[~ .4r/,ii, ~ ~ ~i y ~ bra `~ 'l~SS ~ti4j. a t '~` ;a<' 1::~: A r-, ~, . ~ i$
y A..''~~}~,,~..,,,r. 1 'i ~' 'i .#',"i: °S' ,~.t.{~,..~. .3i. ;tea ~5., ``r+?, ~S r _~, z+k ^`" "f } tv:, Y ~,..,~~ N :.v,
~::, ,F'*.. t,, ~:, , o.: :~x _ ~, ri( y't _ . ~ „yy.-: r.~~ , y ';.ty 1tx ~,;~
f..~f K"~'x'.~w.1 ~ ~ .'~_bi.~ ~' "1.~`. ¢~+y,, .'~." v f`z f.~s; '~ ~ i ~'ir.~ja ; ` r' y,.
'u,w•i`~-1~ -,;i. Al t .'yla!.; ,j ''}x~.. .h, - ~~ ~~ v{y~ Y ~ :~ .:. ,~• Ktise,,'( .e: ~ :~~x ~'.•, ,B. ,~~'F'rc,+'.~;J, ,5 ~ .r ~.s~,~ •'.~..
rflr 4Jl ~ 1 r•1 1 ~.. ~ +4
rti"~Y. • '~ 1. ~ F"~~.l~r r y".:~ A µS'... ~"^RWr '8~:' ti .^3~, .~'~ = ~~rn.. ~. - `' ~c ,~ ,,~zw rr' *r. ..'
~ ` ~~~ ~~
~r: <.-; :r r' :l,t F ! ~ ~k >• ,~ ,.,~~i _ l _ L ~''~Ai Y ~j<s.,,;... r~ F'?::W t +~Ky . b ~, ' ~ .4~~n - - t`.
n..: .c~,~~. to ~ ~ ~. ;^~ u• ;, y {
"'~~ '~ - r `a 'S , f~f _ K,. ~f'~f r, 4l ,rr ,• ~ ~S '. ,4^ 7 ,,.•-.Y d,~~~
r.,.,`" -~,:, _~-~.`,-.qv:'+ ~' r,.,~c,"` Y ~~'~;.~'~ •~ .„~.,~ G, y~.rr ;L..~ ~r..~ ~~~~ ~~4 '~'~ ~~~: ~+r ~ ,sr,.'{n:~;
&. - ~° `'}.~ ~°'4'~ g~.~.. !w i v. ~ ~ ,s,`:, vt"'`.- +...~; xf .~ ~ '~,~f~ f S~~ ~~ w 1'''~'`
'~ , `~ •k~'/,,:~ -r :~1 ~, i ~!; ~ ~i r '_"{~ .fv y1`, r . .~~ ^~nr~~,~ ,~.fi~ ~1j'l~ f:' irt; ~ ~i-w
,w4 1 , y ,.yr ~ ''t- k, ~ i r,~k •r I i F ~~ ~ ~~. - 1!r .~, 'r +~. .:~3y ~~'~' WAS .~ },:
1 + e ~ "~''•+ y > ~ ~t 'sb'F~, ~, ~~ r y/t~., ~ ~ . art aN`~.')~~•'^1s f ~; 4^r
A~ ~i ~ v ,~ 4 ry ~ ~ '~ Q1K,~.~ ~" ~!:~ ~ ~`N ~ ~ ~r,q ,r x •+ry
t ~ ~ ~~Y~~~~ ~°».~' ^~ ,/f~ 'hyE ~. ~+ .,+,• r[ `~"'"I-rr a .Q' rJ `e~.r~~^~a.,~4~f
,rT'Y{;+ k. .z'.,ar-.r` ~ ~?;~^aa~~ z..irl~ -~ ~r j ~ ,r G. ~~~ ~_., ~`~~ ., ~,'~
r_
3
'~ ~ +.1 i. Z~ r r tier .r ~•~„~.. '~'~ S~~ ~ r ~ rry $~`~- ~':`?4Y..o ~'-..`~}s
~' a1~. tir '. >~' fir... / .i t :~.~ ~~~r.`Vyy~
~,~i
~y y~ r / F Wr,%fi' ,; ~ f!' ~ r~ ~ ~- x, -- '~~ 3' * is R'~~"..1
,~!>,. ~t z i ~ a A1M'' z~.,0- . ,~ rYp+m Mai' e- f, k`
a tGt ~-n ~
r-~ ,
Y' p e ~ ;.~. ~ . < t ~~ r..~
~'+k r t
~~ifs"~' °~ s y~!"R ~ ~ „f~' '. ~'y~„w°t~ a,. t l I."" ~ ~+ `
M
44 ~ix ~' ~ by
f ~ ., y.,~, ~ ~~ ~. is .>-t`x Y { a s ~ . ,<~ ~ ,~,`~;
,
F ~ 'r.; ~` 4j{ ~ ~ #~~ c :~1~C ~A ~~ ., ! t'~~' ~f5' } ~•.Yt a 'act~n+~S ~ f ~ ~t ~ r :. ~ .
,
Jz, 'S,'74ftN-f y ~' ~ r . t;i,y ~, y
.:+1 ~` _ k 'C A .'`r I ~.yi
~'
r 1
.^
'~' ~ y':'.i, f
ri`S t ~: f
4 R n, ~7Y

~ \
~ ~ \
\
1
.~ \

~ \

~~
r \
~.

-~-Z-Q
C ~
nn

N ^O
~ N
O
m ~ O d
L pd ~ W
.y ` .C W N
T
~ > ~ 7 ~ +;
W O~ O v~o ~
~ `' U ~ a ° o
~Q~~~ ~ a
mVl~ pM ~ ~O
Za~ZN ~; ~, av
M CO d ~ c «z
T 3 ~ c ~ o
O N+, ~ m a~ v •X ° ° H
ON ~ y ah
~ Z ` m to 3 ~m°
m0 ~ I ( I W~
~~ m I
a ,

a~
..

~ o
o

0
0

0
0
o
- o
''- N
O

v O

U ,~

O
O
O O
v