20011809 Ver 1_Complete File_20011211

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
•
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
January 28, 2002
DWQ No. 011809
Johnston County
Re: Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 188 over Beddingfield Creek on SR 1553 (Shotwell
Road), Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1553(1), State Project No. 8.2312001; TIP B-3199.
Beddingfield Creek [27-37; C NSW]
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval. in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 0.13 acres of protected riparian
buffers (0.07 acres or 3003 square feet in Zone 1, and 0.06 acres or 2626 square feet in Zone 2) for the
purpose of replacing Bridge Number 188 over Beddingfield Creek on SR 1553. The project shall be
constructed according to your application dated December 5, 2001 and any conditions listed below. This
approval shall act as your Authorization Certificate as required within the Neuse River Riparian Area
Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated December
5, 2001. If you change your project, you must notify us and you maybe required to send us anew application.
If the property is sold, the new olamer must be given a copy of this authorization and approval letter and is
thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the
conditions listed below.
• Compensatory mitigation for impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers in Segments BA and BB shall be
provided for as described below.
Zone of Impacts Replacement Total Square
Impact (Square Feet) Ratio Feet of
Mitigation
Required
Zone 1 3,003 3:1 9,009
Zone 2 2,626 1.5:1 3,939
Total 12,948
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirn=ive Action Employer 50`b recycled/ 10% post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
LT?W,A
AMMON
Michael F. Easley, Governor NC ENR
William G. ROSS, Jr., Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
Mitigation for unavoidable impacts to Neuse Riparian Buffers shall be provided through an in-lieu
payment the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) at a rate of $0.96 per square foot.
Therefore, a total payment of 512,430 shall be submitted to the NCWRP to offset the impacts incurred for
the project. No construction activities in buffers shall begin until payment for buffer mitigation is made to
the NCWRP.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition,
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleisit. N.C. 27611-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives"
determination required in 15A NCAC 213 .0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy
at 919-733-5694.
incerely,
horpe, Ph.D.
kinDirector
Cr US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files
ct"otkTlP 13-3199\wgc\baffcr authoriation.doc
?0F W A rF9 Michael F. Easley, Governor
\0 G William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
Vj y North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
p Acting Director
Division of Water Quality
Mr. Phil Harris
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Re: TIP #: B-3199
DWQ 011809
County: Johnston
COE #: 200220264
RECEIPT
June 27, 2002
1``?+...
tI
The North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) has received a check
in the amount of $ 12,430.08 check number 1314294, as payment for the compensatory
mitigation requirements of the 401 Water Quality Certification and/or Section 404 Permit
issued for the subject project. This receipt serves as notification that the compensatory
mitigation requirements for this project have been satisfied. Please note that you must
also comply with all other conditions of this certification and any other state, federal or local
government permits or authorization associated with this activity.
The NCWRP, by acceptance of this payment, acknowledges that the NCWRP is
responsible for the compensatory mitigation requirements associated with the subject
permit and agrees to provide the compensatory mitigation as specified in the permit. The
NCWRP will restore 12,948 square feet of riparian buffers in appropriate portion of the
Neuse River basin.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Crystal
Braswell at [phone].
Sincerely,
cc: Rob Ridings, Wetlands/401 Unit
Todd Tugwell, USACOE
file
9CIAerr IProgram Manager
Wetlands Restoration Program 1619 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1619 [phone] Customer Service d
320 West Jones Street Raleigh, NC 27603 Fax: [phone] 45EN-R
f

U11 9
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Michael F. F,asley 11.0, 13OX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
December 05, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Jean Manuele
NCDOT Coordinator
Lyndo Tippett
SECRurARY
SIJ133ECT: Johnston County, Bridge No. 188 on SR 1553 (Shotwell Road)
over Beddingfield Creek; Federal Aid No. MABRZ-1553(l ); State
Project No. 8.2312001; TIP No. B-3199.
Dear Sir:
during construction.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT)
and signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on October 17, 2000. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 188 over Beddingfield Creek on SR 1553 with a
new bridge on the existing alignment in Johnston County. The bridge will be replaced
with a 26 meters (85.3 feet) long bridge in the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. The cross sections of the bridge will consist of two 12-foot (3.6 m) lanes
with 7.6-foot (2.34 m) offsets. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Approach
work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing roadway. The total project
length will be approximately 750 feet. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion Type II(B)" in accordance with 23CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under
Nationwide Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996,
Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241.
Under notice from the USACOE representative Eric Alsmeyer the NCDOT is
aware that the NWP 23 will be expiring on 2/11/02. Mr. Almeyer brought to our attention
that projects affected by this expiration date for NWP's can be grandfathered in if they
have significant planning cost associated with them. The NCDOT is requesting that this
project B-3199 be grandfathered in due to the expense burden that has accrued during the
planning process of this bridge replacement project.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE Action Classification Form has been
provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
There are two juridictional surface waters located within the project area,
Beddingfield Creek and an unnamed tributary to the creek. Beddingfield Creek has a best
usage classification of C NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The
supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which
require limitations on nutrient inputs. The unnamed tributary runs parallel to SR 1553
until it empties into Beddingfield Creek. Surface water impacts to Beddingfield Creek
will not result from the bridge replacement. There is the potential during the bridge
demolition for components of the bridge to fall in the water. The existing bridge consists
of three spans that are reinforced concrete deck on timber joists supported by timber caps
on piles. There is potential for the concrete deck to be dropped into waters of the United
States. The resulting potential temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is
approximately 62 yd3. All temporary fill will be removed from the creek as soon as
possible. This bridge demolition is a case 3 (there are no special restrictions other
than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters). There will be no wetland impacts associated with this project.
This bridge replacement project is located in the Neuse River drainage basin.
Beddingfield Creek and the unnamed tributary both appear on USGS topographic and
county soils survey maps. These surface waters have a 50 foot buffer that will be
impacted during the construction,of the new bridge. The buffer impact on the existing
transportation facility that crosses' Beddingfield creek are allowable. The buffer impacts
to the unnamed tributary that runs parallel to SR 1553 are considered parallel buffer
impacts and exceed the 150 feet threshold. These impacts were minimized twice from the
original design plans for this bridge replacement. For the unavoidable impacts that
remain, the NCDOT proposes to make a payment to the NCWRP for the amount
calculated from the fee schedule for buffer mitigation. A request letter was sent to WRP
on 11/30/01 requesting 0.30 acres (12,948 sq. ft.) of buffer mitigation. The impacts
include 0.07 acres (3,003 sq. ft.) in zone 1 and 0.06 acres (2,626 sq. ft.) in zone 2. These
impacts are detailed in the buffer permit drawings located in the permit application.
As stated in the CE action classification form for this bridge replacement, the
DOT commits to the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed
Sedimentation Control Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Clay Willis at [phone], Extension 334.
Sincerely,
klk- William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Jim Trogdon, P.E., Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Dave Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS

SCALEo. A000'
DIVISION OF HIGHW.?
LOCATION JOHNSTON CO UNn
.RFYLACE BR G. NO.18 U l rFiR
MAP B EDDINGFLELD BRANCH
ALONG SR 15.33
sa:?rs ??t;o??cr,?x?;r_avr (a-lrs l?
SHEET 2 OF
I
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® MITIGATABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
MITIGATABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
® ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE I
ALLOWABLE IMPACTS ZONE 2
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
¦ DRAINAGE INLET
-BZ- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE
-BZI- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE I
9.2m (30 FT)
-BZ2- RIPARIAN BUFFER ZONE 2
15.3m (50 FT)

ROOTWAD

?- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
T13
? TOP OF BANK
ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER

WE
- -
EDGE OF WATER O
5 OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
_ -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL ? PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
-? - PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE ® LEVEL SPREADER
--TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - ?- - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X LIVE STAKES
X X
BOULDER
COIR FIBER ROLLS
DITCH
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2312001 (B-3199)
II SHEET 3 OF 6 _J
?, r I ? II
?I ? o ? I ?I ,v° I w n
o = r II I al '`? m
FF] ? II I I -n ?
r- n
Lo II (J) C-
F- I I I ?I or =°
0
--{ 0/?j''OOdNV O m / I OI m O
U) / I I
°z / XI I I /lam m
- Art / ? I I I I-? -'
mi / / z I II I I? X
KA/ x / ?I ' I I I
CD Q>
0
° <0 -+
r 3K o?ov \ I I xI I ?(
o o a
o°ooo Q, F rl I V) I I
tC ??N? m\ I I I I W
txj
o
o > c?? 1 orm 1 I I al I // r
14 m0 I I vl / / o
M
O N N /'
W z o o V) I I I / ,, v
-D
N o Cl.)
6?f I I / y " __
\I / / DD
mm
y ,
z rn °
W day /
'4 (Z 5; v 0
o% G i.• v Y ?L _ !
r
00 r o x
?o 00
x?Z??C Y y \?'iC 1j
v
o y `f' y ell I ?- ? _ ,I
I
y

N
ti
1
?f

M 7-
IF m <I I ?I I
,,? !? I I B 1 \
?o > >
rco (n
??',? I i I 3151 -?? `<l
-c °
- -0 N I II I m? I I
\? I I I 1 1 0 4
xr u
QD ?' I 1 I I I r- -n- JI
00 .u 0 V)
0 0 00+ ?? I I I o Cr)
00 °oo_'o°_om D I i I I I v OM
N 33?n ? r I I I I I, 0 rO
3r, f -uN m r
a CA (A rr, C n . M x m cn o
C) 0 C- m Fri
_ I I ICI m
z _ II I I I?? ?? ?
? ? I I I I ? n r
C?7 zv d o IXI??I I I 1 1 ?J J 0 o
w O ,'CJ c. C Ito y I -- I- N v
d?rooo ?' IZ? I I __?I I--I ooooA
y o x
o rz???(Az o ICI I I °?O°
Z. h d '? ?-3 `? ? I I I I 3-
ado rSo x z ol e80brv
00 ' ' I ? °??? JN
,..to >? G1 ?n o
> cm?z x '? II o
?el .j
O I I I
z
n ? s??yc? \ ' ? JI _ _ I I ? Icy
\ I
o e?? 's, z T ?I . I
ti
y - 6Z I \+1
loo
m .? \
x 'I
? m I I ',
m
a _ ?
r
cn

?c
mx
m
m
0

o z

x N?

D m
x y?

ni in C
r 'n

N

o D
b r
O
N ° ?m ? D n

o >
r UI
o C
z
n? o N m 3i
a

N
O W
r
? m
o .. r
0

?z
Nm
C
o
o n z
N m
m
v N Z
O
G

N
o ?
m
m pp
C
o n -n
T
m m
N

M m
m

7D
ro
v
N
O
C

, re
01 1809
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3199
State Project No. 8.2312001
Federal Project No. MABRZ-1553(1)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 188 on SR 1553 (Shotwell Road)
over Beddingfield Branch in Johnston County. The bridge will be replaced with a
26 meter (85.3 foot) long bridge in approximately the same location and the
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The cross sections of the bridge will
consist of two 12-foot (3.6 m) lanes with 7.6-foot (2.34 m) offsets. Guardrail will
be installed where warranted. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and
tying in to the existing roadway. The total project length will be approximately
750 feet. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 188 has a sufficiency rating of 33.3 out of a possible 100. The
deck and superstructure of this 48-year old bridge are in poor conditions.
Therefore, the bridge needs to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers

-%V,
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Od Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7.' Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
2
.`
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total construction $ 650,000
Right of Way $ 25,500
Total Cost $ 675,500
Estimated Traffic
Current - 1700
Year 2025 - 2600
Dual - 3%
TTST - 1%,
Proposed Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-
foot shoulders.
Design Speed:
50 mph (There will be a design exception due to vertical curves on the
approach and trailing end of the new bridge)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Four Office concurs with the recommendation of detouring
traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 188 consists of the following three spans: 17 ft -9 in (5.4 m),
17 ft - 0 in (5.2 m), and 17 ft - 9 in (5.4 m). The existing bridge consists of a
reinforced concrete deck on timber joists supported by timber caps and piles with
spill-through type approaches. Replacement on new location to the east or west
are not recommended, as either would create a poor horizontal alignment. The
substrate and guard rail will be removed without dropping any of their
components into the waters of the United States. However, there is potential for
the concrete deck to be dropped into waters of the United States. The resulting
potential temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately 62 yd3
r,
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? x
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? x
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
x
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been ?
evaluated? x
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
x

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? x
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
x
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X_
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? x
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? x
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? x
4
M
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the a
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? D
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
5

(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? a
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Reauired for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item 2 - Suitable habitat for the Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and the
Tar spiny mussel (Elliptio steinstansana) does exist in Beddingfield Creek within
the project vicinity. A survey was conducted for these mussels by Tim Savidge
on October 27, 1999. The survey reported no Dwarf wedge or Tar spiny mussels
living within the project vicinity. In addition to this survey the NCNHP database
was reviewed for observations of the Dwarf wedge and Tar spiny mussels within
the project vicinity. No observations of the mussels were recorded by NCNHP.
Therefore, project construction will have no effect on these species.
6
r
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3199
State Project No. 8.2312001
Federal-Aid Project No. MABRZ-1553(1)
Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 188 on SR 1553 (Shotwell Road)
over Beddingfield Branch in Johnston County. The bridge will be replaced with a
85.3 foot (26 meter) long bridge in approximately the same location and the
roadway elevation as the existing bridge: The cross sections of the bridge will
consist of two 12-foot lanes with 7.6-foot offsets. Guardrail will be installed
where warranted. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and tying in to the
existing roadway. The total project length will be approximately 750 feet.
Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
x TYPE II(B)
Approved:
/o -1 ?- 00
Date
10 ? v
Date
03 D
'D Ate
Development &
Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
/0 f7 2PW _
D to E
F
Highway Administration
7
PFolect Planning Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 188
on SR 1553 over Beddingfield Creek
Johnston County
Federal-Aid No. MABR --1553(1)
State Project No. 88.2312001
T.I.P. No. B-3199
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Structure Design Unit,
Division Four Construction
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the demolition of Bridge No. 188 in Johnston County.
Green Sheet
Pre-construction Pa_ue I of I
October 2. 2000

bum
DETOUR ROUTE
tt11????t????tr?f?11?111?
2 Gyc 25G2''???tr?tu? 2553
---?
s
2558 '• • ~
Wake County
n . 1
ti Johnston Cout'
o Bridize.?io.188
• ?f
(AJ
1- l D iuf
C
10
l + Q r?1 J 1

North Carolina
Department orTronsportation
g, Division or Highways
Plrnnitt--, S Environmental Branch
Johnston Count\
Replace Bridge No. 1.1:i on SR 15-53
07 cr Branch
B-3199

? •_tir_ t1n?
!?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
April 3, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
P. Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Clay Willis, Natural Systems Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 188 on SR 1553 over
Beddingfield Creek in Johnston County, TIP No. 13-
3199, State Project No. 8.2312001; Federal Aid No.
MABRZ-1553(1).
ATTENTION: Kristina Solberg
Project Planning Engineer
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with
analyses of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of
project construction. Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected
species is also provided, with respect to regulatory concerns that must be
considered. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report
copied onto disk format.
cc: Hal Bain, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: B-3199
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 188 ON SR 1553
OVER BEDDINGFIELD CREEK
JOHNSTON COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3199
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2312001
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. MABRZ-1553(1)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-3199
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
CLAY WILLIS, NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
April 3, 2000
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ...................................................................................................................................... 1
1. 1.1 Bridge Demolition and Removal. ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology ..............................................................:................................................................................2
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ...................................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ....................................................................................................................... 3
2.1 Regional Characteristics ............................................................................................................................. 4
2.2 Soils ............................................................................................................................................................ 4
2.3 Water Resources ......................................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.1 Best Usage Classifrcation ................................................................................................................... S
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ....................................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Water Quality ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.3.1 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ................................................................................. 7
2.3.3.2 Point source and Nonpoint source dischargers ................................................................................ 7
2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................... 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................. 8
3.1 Terrestrial communities ............................................................................................................................... 9
3. 1.1 Disturbed/maintained roadside community ..................................................................................... . 9
3.1.2 Disturbed streambank community .................................................................................................... . 9
3.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife ............................................................................................................................ . 9
3.2 Aquatic Community .................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................................................. 11
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts ................................................................................................................................ 12
3.3.3 Natural resource recommendation for alternates ........................................................................... 12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................................................ 13
4.1 Waters of the United States ...................................................................................................................... 13
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................................................ 13
4.1.2 Permits .............................................................................................................................................. 13
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .............................................................................................. 14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ....................................................................................................................... 15
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................................................................. 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................................................................... 18
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................ 20
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Aerial Photograph of Project Area
Table 1. Soils within Project Area ...................................................................... 4
Table 2. Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities .......................12
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Johnston County ..........................16
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Johnston County ...........................19
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of
this report is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the
proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural
resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures that will minimize
resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern that may affect
the selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria.
Such environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning
stages of the proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most
efficient and effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant
only in the context of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If design
parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed bridge project crosses Beddingfield Creek in Johnston County
about 2 miles North of the town of Clayton (Figure 1). The project calls for the
replacement of Bridge No. 188 over Beddingfield Creek on SR 1553 in Johnston
County. Bridge No. 188 will be replaced with a two lane bridge with a shoulder section.
The project length is approximately 750 feet. The existing right-of-way is assumed 60
feet. The proposed right-of-way is 60 feet with a temporary easement for Alternate 2
(on-site detour). The existing speed limit is 45 mph with a proposed limit of 50 mph.
There are two alternates being considered for this project:
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 188 in place with traffic detoured off-site.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 188 in place with on site detour to the east of the
existing bridge.
1.1.1 Bridge Demolition and Removal
Bridge No. 188 is located on SR 1533 over Beddingfield Creek in Johnston
County. It has three spans totaling 53 feet in length. The bridge deck and railings are
composed of concrete. The substructure is composed entirely of timber. The bridge
2
. railings and the substructure will be removed without dropping any components into
Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the deck to be
dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary
fill associated with the concrete deck is approximately 21 Cubic Yards (yd3). Bridge
demolition is classified as a Case 3 - (there are no special restrictions other than those
outlined in the Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters).
Due to the potential sedimentation concerns resulting from demolition of
the bridge, where it is possible to do so, a turbidity curtain shall be included to
contain and minimize sedimentation in the stream.
For the protection of Surface Waters, Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be adhered to.
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources
utilized in this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Clayton, 1973).
• NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• USDA Soil Conservation Service, currently known as Natural Resource
Conservation Service, Soil Survey of Johnston County, North Carolina (1992).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base
Maps of Johnston County (1995).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
the Environment and Natural Resources (DENR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from
the US Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and candidate species
(December 20, 1999) and from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed for documented
occurrences of state or federally listed species and locations of significant natural
areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Natural Resources Specialist, Tim Savidge on September 27, 1999. Water resources
were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible, and plant
taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Vegetative
communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions
3
regarding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative habitat
assessment based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved
using a variety of observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on
vegetative communities, active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). On September 27, 1999, cursory surveys of
aquatic organisms were conducted and tactile searches for benthic organisms were
administered as well. Organisms captured during these searches were identified and
then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environment Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in
North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were
classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project
area, and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented
by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e. [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi)].
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
. Soil and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate
water movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive
soil disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow
and quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil
characteristics and the availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of
these resources.
4
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
About 65 percent of Johnston County is located in the Southern Coastal Plain
physiographic region. The northern 35 percent of the county is in the Southern
Piedmont physiographic region. The area of.transition between the two regions is
known as the "Fall Line". The county is located in the Neuse River basin. About 15
percent of the county is on the flood plains and terraces along the Neuse River and its
tributaries. Several areas in the county are poorly drained which lie in the Neuse River
valley and other large stream valleys. Elevation in the county ranges from 75 feet above
sea level in the eastern part, to more than 370 feet above sea level in the western part
bordering Wake county. Topography varies throughout the county. The eastern and
southern parts of the county are nearly level and have low relief. In the northern region
and western parts of the county, the interstream divides are relatively narrow and relief
in the adjoining stream valleys can vary from 50 to more than 150 feet.
The project area topography is representative of the western region of Johnston
county bordering the Wake county line. The project area is in the Southern Piedmont
physiograhic region and lies in a terrace bordering the Neuse river. Elevation above sea
level is around 200 feet. There are gently sloping well drained areas on either side of
Beddingfield creek. The low banks of the creek are comprised of a sandy loam which
are residues of crystalline bedrock, characteristic of soils in the Piedmont region.
2.2 SOILS
Generally, soils are characterized into Soil Associations or "General Soil
Mapping Units" with consistent patterns of soil, relief, and drainage. The project study
area in Johnston County lies in the Wedowee "General Soil Mapping Unit". The
Wedowee grouping is located on flood plains and stream terraces.(USDA 1994) There
are three soil types located in the project area.(Table 1) A brief description of these soil
types is provided following Table 1.
Table 1. Soils occuring in the project area, Johnston Coun
Map Symbol Specific Mapping Unit % Slope Hydric Capability
Classification Unit
Wt Wehadkee loam 0-2 Hydric Vlw
WoD Wehdowee sandy loam 8-15 Non-hydric IVe
RnF Rion sandy loam 15-40 Non-hydric We
5
• Wehadkee loam frequently flooded (Wt) is nearly level, poorly drained soil located
on flood plains, generally along streams. The surface layer is dark brown loam 7
inches thick. The upper 11 inches of the subsoil is light brownish gray loam that has
brown mottles. The lower 31 inches is gray clay loam that has brown mottles. The
underlying material to a depth of 63 inches is mottled gray and strong brown clay
loam. Permeability is moderate. The seasonal high water table is at the surface or
within a depth of 1 foot. Surface runoff is slow. This soil is poorly suited to urban and
recreational uses because of the flooding and the wetness.
• Wedowee sandy loam, 8 to 15 % slope (WoD) is well drained soil on side slopes in
the uplands. It is in areas that are dissected by numerous drainageways. The
surface layer is grayish brown sandy loam 9 inches thick. The upper 6 inches of the
subsoil is strong brown sandy clay loam. The next 13 inches is strong brown clay
that has red mottles. The lower 4 inches is strong brown clay loam that has red
mottles. The underlying material to depth of 60 inches is mottled yellowish red,
brownish yellow, and white clay loam. Permeability and available water capacity are
moderate. The shrink-swell potential also is moderate. Surface runoff is rapid. This
soil is suited to most urban and recreational uses.
• Rion sandy loam 15 to 40 % slope (RnF) is well drained soil on strongly dissected
hillslopes. The surface layer is dark grayish brown sandy loam 8 inches thick. The
upper subsoil is strong brown sandy clay loam that has yellow mottles. The lower 6
inches is strong brown sandy loam that has brown mottles. The underlying material
to a depth of 60 inches is mottled brown and yellow saprolite that has a texture of
sandy loam. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is low or
moderate. Surface runoff is very rapid. The hazard of erosion is very severe. This
soil is poorly suited to urban and recreational uses.
2.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Best Usage Classification
Water resources within the study area are located in the Neuse River Drainage
Basin; Division of Water Quality sub-basin number 03-04-02; United States Department
6
of Interior Hydrologic Unit is 03020201. There is one water resource, Beddingfield
Creek, in the project study area crossed by SR 1553. (Figure 1)
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. Unnamed tributaries receive the
same classification as the streams to which they flow. The classification for
Beddingfield Creek [ DEM Index No. 27-37, 05/01/88 ] is class C NSW. Class C waters
are freshwaters protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including
propagation and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters shall be classified to protect these
uses at a minimum. NSW refers to nutrient sensitive waters, indicating waters that are
subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on
nutrient inputs.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Source (WS I or
WS 11), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area. Beddingfield Creek is not designated as a North Carolina
Natural and Scenic River, nor is it designated as a National Wild and Scenic
River.
2.3.2 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
As Beddingfield Creek crosses SR 1553 at the study area, it's streambed is
approximately 6.09-7.62 m (20.0-25.0 ft) wide with a channel width of 1.8-2.4 m (6-8
ft.). The depth of the creek within the project area ranges from 5.08-15.24 cm (2.0-6.0
in.). The substrate in the study area is composed of a coarse sand with some gravel.
This creek has a moderate southeast flow with some evidence of streambank erosion.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area.
Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made
based on published resource information and existing general watershed
characteristics. These data provide insight into the value of water resources within the
project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
7
2.3.3.1 BENTHIC MACRO INVERTEBRATE AMBIENT NETWORK
The Benthic Macroinverteb rate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the
DWQ, is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by
sampling at fixed sites for selected benthic macroinvert ebrates organisms, which are
sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa
present of intolerant groups [Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and a taxa
richness value (EPT S) is calculated. A biotic index value is also calculated for the
sample that summarizes tolerance data for all species in each collection. The two
rankings are given equal weight in final site classification. The biotic index and taxa
richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are a poor
measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. There are no BMAN
monitoring stations within the project vicinity.
2.3.3.2 POINT SOURCE AND NONPOINT SOURCE DISCHARGERS
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no permitted dischargers
located within the project vicinity.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through
stormwater or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms
of nonpoint source pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree
where they are susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams.
Sediment is the most widespread cause of nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina.
Pesticides, chemical fertilizers, and land application of animal wastes can be
transported via runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate concentrations of
toxic. compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of bacterial
contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of stormwater into surface waters
(DEM, 1993). The primary source of nonpoint source pollution within the projects
vicinity would likely come from the application of fertilizers and pesticides on maintained
lawns. Runoff from SR#1553 surface will likely transfer petroleum product residues left
from automobiles into Beddingfield creek, through the drainage of roadside ditchs.
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing
and grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction,
fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation, and pavement installation. The following
8
impacts to surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned
construction activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. Limiting instream
activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the completion of
grading can further reduce impacts.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section
describes the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses. These classifications
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species
that are likely to occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are
also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism refer to the common name only. An asterisk placed beside the name indicates
it was observed during the field survey.
9
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Descriptions of the two terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Terrestrial wildlife relationships are discussed after the two
terrestrial community descriptions.
3.1.1 Disturbedjmaintained roadside community
This community is located on both sides of SR 1533. The east side of SR 1533
could be impacted by alternative two. Because of mowing and the use of herbicides
this community is kept in a constant state of early succession. The ground cover of this
community is composed of several species of herbaceous grasses and weeds, such as:
fescue (Festuca sp.)*, foxtail (Setaria sp.)*, crabgrass (Disitaria sp.)*, wild onion (Allium
canadensis)*, violet (Viola sp.)*, narrow-leaved plantain (Plantago lanceoleta)*, morning
glory (Ipomea sp.)*, Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica)*, sourgrass (Oxalis
grandis)*, and Virginia copperleaf (Acalypha virginica)*.
3.1.2 Disturbed streambank community
This community is broken up into four sections according to location around the
bridge that crosses Beddingfield Creek on SR 1553. Each of the four sections lie
adjacent to the stream and bridge. The Southeast portion of this community could be
impacted by alternative two. The canopy cover is comprised of river birch (Betula
nigra)* and yellow popular (Liriodendron tulipifera)*. The shrub layer is comprised of
saplings of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda)*, box elder (Acer negundo)*, sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis)*, black willow (Salix nigra)*, and Blackberry (Rubus sp.)*. The herbaceous
layer is comprised of Ragweed (Ambrosia sp.)*, daisy fleabane (Erigeron annuus)*, and
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans)*. The northeast portion of the streambank
community could be impacted by alternative two. It is mostly cleared with a sparse
canopy of magnolia (Magnolia grandifolia)*, and mimosa (Albizia julibrissin)* with a
vegetation layer comprised of predominately sweet fennel (Foeniculum vulgare)*, and
silverling (Bacchads glomeruliflora)*. The northwest corner will not be impacted by this
project. It is a maintained mowed lawn area made up of predominately Fescue. The
Southwest corner of this community will not be impacted by this project. It is forested
with a tree canopy made up of sycamore (Platanus sp.)*, and yellow poplar*. The
understory is comprised of saplings of box elder, red maple (Acer rubrum)*, green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica)*, and pokeberry (Phytolacca americana)*.
3.1.3 Terrestrial Wildlife

The disturbed/maintained roadside and communities adjacent to forested tracts
provide rich ecotones for foraging, while the forests provide forage and cover. Common
10
birds associated with ecotones between these communities are ruby-crowned kinglet
(Regulus calendula), Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), bluebird (Sialia sialis),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta carolinensis),
northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus
colubris), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus
americanus), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus)*, song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia)*, house finch (Carpodacus mexicanus)*, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)*,
common crow (Corrus brachyrhynchos)*, blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), tuffed titmouse
(Parus bicolor), acadian flycatcher (Empidonax trailli?), and mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura). The red-tailed hawk (Bueto jamaicensis) is a major predator in this habitat,
feeding on small mammals, reptiles, and amphibians.
Small mammals may inhabit these early successional habitats along forested
areas, roadsides, and streams for nesting and feeding. Some of these small mammals
include, white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), least shrew (Crypototis parva),
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), hispid cottonrat (Sigmodon hispidus),
and eastern cottontail rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus).
Larger mammals may be present in these habitat areas during the four seasons
for foraging, feeding, watering, bedding, and mating include: raccoon (Procyon lotor),
white-tailed deer (Odocoilus virginiana), opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Reptiles and amphibians that may inhabit these community types include,
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon)*, queen snake (Regina septenvittata), black rat
snake (Elaphe obsoleta), copperhead (Aghistrodon contortrix), garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousit), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and five-lined skink (Eumeces
laticeps).
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITY
This community consists of Beddingfield Creek. Research has shown that a
large amount of food chain energy of stream communities is derived from allochthonous
(produced outside the river ecosystem) sources, in the form of terrestrial detritus.
Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks, etc.), and low velocity areas in the river trap detritus
within the river. The detritus is then decomposed by heterotrophic microorganisms,
such as bacteria and consumed by macro i nve rteb rates, such as aquatic insects. In
turn, the aquatic insects are then consumed by larger organisms. The amount on
allochthonous energy input within a river varies seasonally. Autochthonous (produced
within the river ecosystem) energy sources include planktonic and benthic micro and
macro algae as well as aquatic vascular vegetation. Fallen logs in the water offer an
attachment substrate for algae.
11
Aquatic insects found in this community can include the water strider (Gerris
spp.), water beetle (Dytiscidae), stonefly (Plecoptera), cranefly (Tipula spp.), caddisfly
(Trichoptera), stream mayfly (Ephemeroptera) and black-winged damselfly (Calopteryx
maculata).
Aquatic insects found in this community may be eaten by gamefish and other
fishes that may occur in Beddingfield Creek. Gamefish such as largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), and sunfishes (Lepomis sp.) may occupy Beddingfield Creek.
Other fishes, such as shiners (Notropis sp.), golden shiners (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), darters (Etheostoma sp.), chubs
(Semotilus sp.), daces (Clinostomus sp.), and catfishes (Ictaluridae) may occupy
Beddingfield Creek and its tributaries, as well.
Several other animals representing all vertebrate classes are integral parts of the
aquatic system. The northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus) and the two-
lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata) may occur under rocks and logs within the
riverbed. Frogs, such as pickeral frog (Rana palustris), southern leopard frog (R.
sphenocephala), and bullfrog (R. catesbeiana), may occur in this habitat along stream
banks feeding on aquatic invertebrates. Other reptiles and amphibians occurring in this
habitat feeding on small fish and aquatic organisms, include, northern water snake and
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have .the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
potential impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are
considered here as well, along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial communities may result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Table 2 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are
derived based on the project lengths described in section 1.1, and the entire proposed
right-of-way width of 18.28 m (60.0 ft) for the bridge replacement and the on-site detour.
12
However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore,
actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated Area Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community
acted Aei ha ac
IM )
Bridge teplacettiient*
Alteirnate 1' . On=S to Detour**
Alternate 2
Maintained/Disturbed/Roadside 0.22 ha (0.56 ac) 0.18 ha (0.44 ac)
Disturbed Streambank community 0.00 ha (0.01 ac) 0.01 ha (0.03 ac)
Total Impacts 0.23 ha (0.58 ac) 0.19 ha (0.47 ac)
*Permanent Impacts
**Temporary Impacts
3.3.2 Aquatic Impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of Beddingfield Creek will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 188. Impacts are likely to result from the physical
disturbance of aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of
aquatic habitats has a detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing
species diversity and the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to
aquatic habitats can result in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic ma croi nve rteb rates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to Best
Management Practices (BMP's).
3.3.3 Natural resource recommendation for alternates
Natural resource issues should be major concerns during transportation
improvement project development. The proper alignment chosen will have variable
impacts on natural resources. From a natural resources perspective, alternate 1 is the
recommended and preferred alternate with the least natural resource impacts.
13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because; of federal and state mandates that
regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses
required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. There are no wetlands located within the
project area. Therefore, no impacts will occur to any jurisdictional wetlands due
to the construction of this project. Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
calculated based on the linear feet of the stream that is located within the proposed
right-of-way. Physical aspects of surface waters are described in section 2.3.1.
Combined temporary stream impacts resulting form Alternate 1 and 2 to
jurisdictional surface waters within the project right-of-way could possibly
impact, but not to exceed, 120 linear feet of Beddingfield Creek.
4.1.2 Permits
impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from
various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources.
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit
14
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act
requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts
(to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
15
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not
be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable
compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation and enhancement of Waters of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site.
Compensatory mitigation is required 'for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.202 ha (0.5 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 m (150.0 linear ft) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE;
although, compensatory mitigation is not expected due to limited impacts (i.e.
<150 feet of linear stream; <0.5 acres of wetlands).
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. As of 20 December 2000, the FWS lists four species as federally-protected
for Johnston County.
16
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Johnston County.
CominonName Scientific :Name ° Status;;
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Note:
• Endangered- A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range."
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of
the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus alp ustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at
least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are > 60
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0 acres). This acreage must be
contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1- 15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds the
tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38
days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Red-Cockaded Woodpecker does not exist within the
project vicinity. N.C. Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed for any
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity and none exist. Therefore, project
construction will have no impact on this species.
17

Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are found in
portions of the Neuse River Basin and the Tar River Basin. This mussel is sensitive to
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed
with well oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Dwarf wedge mussel does exist in Beddingfield Creek
within the project vicinity. A survey was conducted for this mussel by Tim Savidge on
October 27, 1999. The survey reported no Dwarf wedge mussels living within the
project vicinity. In addition to this survey the NCNHP database was reviewed for
observations of the Dwarf wedge mussel within the project vicinity. No observations of
the mussel were recorded by NCNHP. Therefore, project construction will have no
effect on this species.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar spiny mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 7/29/85
The Tar spinymussel has been found in streams and tributaries of the Tar and
Neuse River drainage basins in Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax, Johnston, Nash, Pitt, and
Warren counties. This mussel is endemic to North Carolina.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral
pH water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water
needs to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as
an intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar spinymussel is a very small mussel. This mussel is named for its spines
which project perpendicularly from the surface and curve slightly ventrally. As many as
18
• 12 spines can be found on the shell which is generally smooth in texture. The nacre is
pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the Tar spinymussel does exist in Beddingfield Creek within
the project vicinity. A survey was conducted for this mussel by Tim Savidge on October
27, 1999. The survey reported no Tar spinymussels living within the project vicinity. In
addition to this survey the NCNHP database was reviewed for observations of the Tar
spinymussel within the project vicinity. No observations of the mussel were recorded by
NCNHP. Therefore, project construction will have no effect on this species.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. The fruit, which develops from August to
September on female plants, is a red, densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION
NO EFFECT
Habitat for the Michaux's sumac does not exist within the project vicinity.
NCNHP database was reviewed for observations of this species within the
project vicinity. The database showed no recorded observations of this species
within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will have no effect on
this species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal protection under the
Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section
7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. However,
the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
19
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered
Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. There are
nine federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Johnston County. (Table 4)
Table 4. Federal Species of
7 L utinus concern Tor .ionnsion %
pinewoods shiner ,ounry
SR
YES
Ellipt.0 lanceolata yellow lance T YES
Fusconaia masoni atlantic pigtoe T YES
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T YES
Lasmigona subviridis green floater E YES
Procambrarus medialis tar River crayfish SR YES
Solidago vema spring-flowering
goldenrod E/PT NO
Tot'ieldia labra Carolina asphodel C NO
Trillium pusillum Carolina least trillium E NO
NOTE: NC Status
• "E" (Endangered) any native or once native species whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's fauna is determined by the WRC to be in jeopardy, or one that is
determined to be an endangered species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "T" (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or
one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act.
• "C" (Candidate) species are very rare in North Carolina, with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction.
"SR" (Significantly Rare) species not listed as "E", "T", or "SC" but which exists in the state
• in small numbers and has been determined to need monitoring.
• "P" (Proposed)- a species that has been formally proposed for listing as E, T, or SC, but
has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows one
occurrence of a rare species within the project vicinity.
• Rare Plant - Scutellaria australis Southern Skullcap
Date Observed - April 29, 1957
Location - approximately 4 miles North of Clayton on SR 1553 at a Neuse River
crossing.
10
20
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1997. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality
Review 1983-1986. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina Streams:
Benthic M acroi nverteb rate Data Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality,
1983-1990. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1997. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River
Basins. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
N.C.
21
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1999. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Raleigh, N.C.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA, 1992. Soil Survey of Johnston County North Carolina. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
11

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways

f?
? Planning & Environmental Branch
or Tw?
?
Johnston County
Replace Bridge No. 188 on SR 1553
Over Branch
B-3199
Figure One
,•" 2552
J t
Q
2556 2542 2553
2542 v
r ,
2558
o ?J / N
q C'
V
N
U1 V
of ILit
U1 L4j

2509

Wake County

Johnston Codnty-/• - '
Bridge` No. 188
Y to
L d
IV 1