I-5987 PJD comments for Field Day May 15_NCDWR.pdf

May 15, 2019 Field Day Notes for 1-5987
Figure 26- Southbound side - TZ is good. The feature starts at the roadside ditch. There was no pipe
found that lead us to believe that it went under the service road or 1-95. The feature is deep and is
holding water, so I think the Trib call is valid.
Figure 2C — Northbound side — SM does carry across 1-95. They should probably check for wetlands
adjacent to it as well.
Figure 2D — Northbound side -If TY is a Trib on Northbound side (flowing westward) then it should
continue on the Southbound side. (we did not make the stop for it on the southbound side) TY on the
northbound side looks more like wetlands and Liz should check it out.
Figure 2E — Southbound side — checked out TU and it looks good.
Figure 2F -Southbound side — TAA — No pipe under 1-95 that we could find. High ground on both sides.
Looks like a ditch to me. Why is TAA denoted as a perennial stream (dark blue). There does seem to be
wetlands (the aerial shows grey woods going west on TAA that may be wetlands) close to TAA up Bucket
Road that Liz should probably see.
Figure 21— Southbound side —TP and WG TP looks more like a man -made feature that has naturalized
and goes into WG and Cowpen Branch. Liz needs to look to check it out.
Figure 2.1 — Southbound and Northbound —TN on both sides are out (toss). High ground on both sides of
feature.
Northbound —TO feature is out (toss) — high ground on both sides of feature. To on SB side is a dry
ephemeral feature.
Figure 2K — Southbound — Northbound TL— nothing on Southbound side and on Northbound side it
looks like a ditch feature that eventually drains to a stream, but within the project limits looks to be a
man-made feature. I am game to toss out, but Liz should look at it as it is holding water within the
project limits. There is a driveway pipe within the ROW that is causing a scour hole on NB side.
Northbound TM — looks like a man-made feature draining to a stream/wetlands further off the project
limits. Game to toss out, but Liz should see.

Figure 2L- Southbound side — TJ is good. Liz needs to check wetlands.
?? Does TJ cross under 1-95 to Northbound side?
Figure 2M -northbound side- TG may be a dug out intermittent UT to Mercer's Branch. Need Lidar to
check this. There is a pipe under 1-95, so does the feature cross under 1-95 to the southbound side?
Figure 2N — Southbound side — The weird finger that comes under 1-95 is a part of Brisson Branch (but in
looking at Brisson Branch it does not align well with the Northbound side of the feature). On the
Southbound side there are no wetlands adjacent to the stream. There is a pipe that comes in at the
head of the weird finger that carries Brisson Branch under 1-95.
Northbound side — SJ in the interchange. The southern side of SJ is concreted and the other side is a
man-made ditch feature. There is a small section of it (SJ) that is a part of Brisson Branch, but I am
having an issue with the alignment of Brisson Branch over all in this drawing. Maybe a ldar image
would help.
We still need to check out the wetlands in WL adjacent to Brisson Branch on NB side.
Figure 20 — Southbound —TE on SB side is an ephemeral ditch, on Northbound side it has high ground
on both sides. I think it should be tossed, but since it is in an old Carolina Bay, Liz should look at it.
There is a pipe under 1-95.
Figure 2Q— Southbound side — did look at area Liz was concerned about (near center of page). The area
did not look wet up to the CA fence. Beyond the fence, there did seem to be a topo break.
Figure 2S- Southbound side- Look at SB side of Long Branch (aerial does not show anything on
southbound side). Long Branch is perennial on the SB side (and most likely on the NB side as well,
should probably check Lidar). There are wetlands adjacent to the stream (on SB side) that doesn't show
up on the aerials. We did see flagging there, so most likely it has been delineated, but for whatever
reason is not showing up on the aerials.
Figure 2U — We did look at the features PD and TC on 1/15/19 and made the call that PD was a borrow
pit. I still agree with that call. I would like Liz to check her notes for TC and see if TC fits into a 'Trib'
category if there are no wetlands adjoining it, but in looking at it from a different view (going to the
section that parallels 1-95), 1 am thinking it may be a man-made feature like PD and could be tossed. I
am NOT sure about TB, as it looks like a rim -ditch feature. Lidar would help with these. We may need to
revisit otherwise.
Figure 2V and 2W — Feature TK — is a part of the Bridge replacement over NC 59 (B-4491). The back of it
is high ground, due to it being a relocated ditch. It does connect to a stream on the other side of
Marraco Drive (SR2274) behind Grandsons Buffet. Lidar would be helpful here as well to see if within
the project area is a stream or just a man-made feature going into a stream outside the project limits.