20020812 Ver 1_Complete File_20020517

1?
M 4,
01081 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 14, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele.
Regulatory Specialist
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MAY I
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 for the proposed widening of
westbound direction of US 70 from NC 42 to SR 1553 (Shotwell
Rd) in Johnston County; Division 4. Federal Project No. STP-70
(50), State Project No. 8.7331013, T.I.P. No. W-4409.
Dear Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to widen existing
US 70 from NC 42 to SR 1553 (Shotwell Rd) in Johnston County. The westbound
direction of US 70 will be widened to add an additional through lane. This section of US
70 exists as a 24 ft (7.3 m) to 36 ft (11 m) wide two-lane facility, with several right turn
lane sections, and a paved shoulder with variable width. The proposed widened US 70
will be a 36 ft (11 m) wide, three-lane section, with a paved shoulder. The project length
is 1.2 mi (2.04 km). All construction is to be performed within the existing right of way.
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". One wetland area was identified adjacent to the
project area. This wetland is associated with UT#L5 and is located northeast US 70 just
southeast of the intersection of US 70 and SR 1553 (approximate location shown on
Figure 1). This wetland area falls outside of the project construction limits. Therefore,
there will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: K4M.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Jurisidictional Surface Waters
Five jurisdictional surface water crossings exist along the project length (See Figure 1 for
stream locations). This project proposes to impact two of these jurisdictional surface
waters, each of which are unnamed tributaries to Little Creek [(DWQ Index No. 27-43-
12), class C NSW]. (Sites 1 and 2 within the attached permit drawings correspond with
UT#L3 and UT#L4 on the attached project map, respectively). Current proposed impacts
are less than those estimated in the attached Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR). The decrease in proposed impacts is contributed to avoidance and minimization
measures to reduce the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of road
shoulder widths.
Proposed impacts to these two surface waters total 21 feet, which includes 12 Meet of fill
in channel at Site 1 and 9 feet of fill in channel at Site 2. (See Table 1 for a Summary of
W-4409 Impacts). There will be no construction associated with UT#L 1, 2, or 5.
Table 1. Summary of W-4409 Impacts
Site Number -
from
Permit Drawin s
UT#
Station
(From Ro
Structure
Size Surface Water
Impacts
(ac) Existing Channel,
Impacts
(ft)
no construction L1 -- -- none none
no construction L2 -- -- none none
Site 1 L3 53+37 5711/11CP 0.000716 12
Site 2 L4 41+34 66"/RCP 0.000386 9
no construction L5 -- -- none none
TOTALS 0.001102 21
NEUSE RIVER BASIN BUFFER RULES
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin (subbasin 03-04-02, HUC 03020201),
therefore the regulations pertaining to the Neuse River Buffer Rules apply. According to
the buffer Rules, road crossings that impact equal to or less than 40 linear feet of riparian
buffer are EXEMPT. Uses designated as EXEMPT are allowed within the riparian
buffer. EXEMPT uses shall be designed, constructed, and maintained to minimize soil
disturbance and to provide the maximum water quality protection practicable. This
project meets this threshold and is therefore EXEMPT from the buffer Rules.
Consequently, a Buffer Certification from the Division of Water Quality is not required.
P
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 26, 2001
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected species for Johnston
County (Table 2). The Biological Conclusions for each of these species remain valid.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Johnston County

Common Name
Scientific Name Federal
Status'
Biological Conclusion'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E No Effect
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E" No Effect
Endangered species are a taxon which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
• indicates a historical record: last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
SUMMARY
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23
(FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate a 401 General
Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of this application to
the North Carolina Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,

!C-? William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/hwm
cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
1 f c
r
4p????
air
r f- CT3
i?
or,
77 S
W
IL a
000,
W , ? ¦ ? ? mil' , ~/
Aw )a IL
r
NORTH CAROLINA
5?? r•
C L_-
10HNST0'
ffi
1709
•? ---- l 1709 !M?Raksr St.
N' 1553 - $ - St Horton St
1004 --_ Front sliwvs
SL _ --Sf.
?wnd -r Main \\ - -- - - _ Stalllnpa
_ St 8 N - `- Sf.
St ?• .. - -\
00 St _ MOny h .
N -__ond 1004
0' .\ St. o- ILf K
BEGI ROJECT K+oo, st --
- s qco?
` ? J Lf a Marna
-- 6rOOk
r_ St Bla'- ---__ Lf
Pe __ CenSt
\ ,\ 11552 nny St 1756 Masmt?,, Oak
_St LAYTON y mi St
-
Iona Blan- chard - i
/ - - St St -
1592
1615 - - a \
-,553 ,--- - --- END PROJECT
i' 1552 42 F \
VICINITY
MAPS
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT 8.7331013 STP-70(50) W-4409
US 70 WBL FROM EAST OF SR 1553
(SHOTWELL ROAD) TO NC 42
INTERCHANGE IN CLAYTON.
DATE: 4-23-2002
SHEET 1 OF 5
LEGEND
DENOTES FILL IN SURFACE WATER
DITCH
-T- -_= FLOW DIRECTION
- - F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
- - - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - EXISTING RIGHT OF WAY
EXISTING PIPE CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
SINGLE TREE
s ` - WOODS LINE
RIP RAP
0

;i
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
JOHNSTON COUNTY
PROJECT 8.7331013 STP-70(50) W-4409
US 70 WBL FROM EAST OF SR 1553
(SHOTWELL ROAD) TO NC 42
INTERCHANGE IN CLAYTON.
DATE: 4-23-2002
SHEET 2 OF 5
IV o-
Z i
O ? ? QV
M ? Y I ? ? 0- O
M N 52 W I LO W
CL ? ?-v I J V H
CLv WJ I Q?? ZN
Co< Z? I 0 Lo J CL w
v? I = ?V o
Z oc N-.
LLI
V) LU
W V
C oLL
ZoC
w
o cn
?- v
4
I V c?
LO
I
I 0- f'7
O to
z n
CL C4
LU in 0
J 3 Z° o z? N
,^ o o
v C00?No"?jo
? Z= U N? Z ch
z Cl N M
_ 0 o o cc
LL.1 N oZNM??Q w F-?
o = ^ = o =
o ?o0
pc Z ?
w I °D
cC
D LU
?v
~ W
0 J
W
J
Zo
D --
Cl?
?V
3
yu-
H W
DJ_
LL
QJ
LU
W
H
?ad
Cl:t
W Co
4w
os
Cie
V
I
I
V?

C
?ml
W I
N
S JI
V?
z
J V
0sog
uQa x 0
0
F-
U

W CL
N
N..

z F--

J N
o-
W
CL ce
N O_
w
a
N
0
C_
0
CL
W
0
z
N
W
N
lql:t
=00V
V
C r)
X
1.1J
74
I
I
--? ' W
II > _
II
0 W
U I I CC
co I I \
II `, 28'-
0-
W W
I I
0 ui 0
II I N
II 0- Z
III 0 cn
1--
II 0- W
m
O LEI

(.l
II
__
I I
II
U_.

? _) I I
-_ II
0011
- I-1
II
O
Zce N
W
JQ
3
N W
W V
OQ
zU-
W
0 cn

N
I I
W
J
V
V)

Z
o
?

°
%
Q
F-
°

0
V
Z

}

Q
3
3:
0
=
Z
°
?n

j

Z

:)
O
V
Z
?
Z
=
0
-, o?
o

3

o
1
N
M
2
mm
^

ao
V
W ch
LO
'n
N
U-
°
N
u?

°
u'
m

o
^

?

?
z
O

O
°`
J
W

0
N

0

?
g
u
Z
W
Z
Q

V
cL
Z

o

N
ri

W
Q
N
cL D
Cl.
l
0
E Z
i2
w c
6 v
rn
Zcn.N
Cl

?
C C
r r
N
U yy
N
Q 'X t m
w u E "

w
U

E
W N
~
W
V
Q d
> U o

C C

C
G (D

!? (D
00
M N
O
r
U) m
0 0
(J? C Z Q 0 O O O
1? LL v O O O

i
79
O
<

13
C
U
C C
-
L y £
Q

H
V c O
CL s
v
?
C1 Q
LU
Q
?
^ x

VJ
0 ?
w N
z 3 E
g
C)
N
C c y
U

Q
LL

U
?? U
U ~

cn Ul w
0
o
c?7
M
, m
o
N v
N
M r
v

o
Z

r

N
J
a
F
"
cn p

Z O
O
?

CIO
Lr)
0
v 04

z
N LO z
Q , LL.
o ? z ? o 0 -
o Lo
U) o U) p N O
= Z (n 4 O W N
' LO
X LL
0 0 M
- 2 W o ? I-

O
z I-
(Q 0_
M; O
w J
? Z
< W
--' w
u1
O Z ce) LL W = Q =
C o 06 ca
LLJ O (n Z
V
Z
0 ?
V)

0 2 0 8 1 2.
A
B.
C
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
W-4409
8.7331013
STP-70-(50)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location and refer to the attached
project location map.)
rri?E
rn?
v
TIP Project W-4409 involves the improvement of existing US 70 from NC 42 to
SR 1553 (Shotwell Road) in Johnston County. The westbound direction of US 70
will be reconstructed to provide an additional through lane. This section of US 70
exists as a paved shoulder with variable width. The proposed widened US 70 will
be 36 feet (11 m) wide, three lanes , with a paved shoulder. It is anticipated that
widening can be performed by connecting several sections of right turn lanes, and
reconstructing shoulders between those sections, all within the existing right of
way. The existing and proposed ROW limit is 135 feet (41 meters) to 200 feet
(61 meters). The project length is 1.27 miles (2.04 km). The existing speed limit
is 45 mph to 55 mph and the proposed speed limit is 60 mph.
Purpose and Need:
The Purpose of this project is to improve the exisiting capacity, improve safety,
and extend the service life of the subject section of US 70 by improving sections
of the westbound side to provide an additional through lane.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
proj ect:
0 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
Modernizing gore treatments
Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
0 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
6 Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
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
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
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
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.
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 UNIT 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
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: (Include Environmental Commitments and Permits
Required.)
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Watersupply Watershed Best Management Practices will be implemented
on this project, due to its location inside the Neuse River Basin. A
sedimentation control program will be used for the protection of surface
waters. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be used during the
entire life of the project.
Any action that proposes to place fill material into the "waters of the United
States" as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR)
requires a Section 404 permit which falls under the jurisdiction of the Army
Corps of Engineers (COE).
Estimated Costs and Project Schedule:
Cost Schedule
Right of Way
Construction $925,000* FY 2001
Total $925,000*
*TIP Estimate
Estimated Traffic:
Year
2000
2025
2025(with Outer Loop,
and Clayton Bypass)
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Vehicles Per Day (VPD)
41,800
98,000
46,500
A 36 foot, three lane section, with a paved shoulder in the westbound direction.
Design Speed:
65mph
Functional Classification:
Principal Rural Arterial
Division Office Comments:
There are no comments at this time.
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
F
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? N/A
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
F
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

4
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)? F X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(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? F 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 ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
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
5
volumes?
0 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? N/A
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or ?
environmental grounds concerning the project?
(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?
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ?
important to history or pre-history?
(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)?
(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?
(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?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable_Resnonses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
X
1-1
X
X
X
X
X
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
4. The project does not involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW). However, project
is located within the Neuse River Buffer. Therefore, any action that
proposes to place fill material into the "waters of the United States" as
defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) requires a
Section 404 permit which falls under the jurisdiction of the Army Corps of
Engineers (COE).
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. W-4409
State Project No. 8.7331013
Federal-Aid Project No.
STP-70-(50)
Project Description: (Include project scope and location and refer to the attached
project location map.)
TIP Project W-4409 involves the improvement of existing US 70 from NC 42 to
SR 1553 (Shotwell Road) in Johnston County. The westbound direction of US 70
will be reconstructed to provide an additional through lane. This section of US 70
exists as a paved shoulder with variable width. The proposed widened US 70 will
be 36 feet (11 m) wide, three lanes , with a paved shoulder. It is anticipated that
widening can be performed by connecting several sections of right turn lanes, and
reconstructing shoulders between those sections, all within the existing right of
way. The existing and proposed ROW limit is 135 feet (41 meters) to 200 feet
(61 meters). The project length is 1.27 miles (2.04 km). The existing speed limit
is 45 mph to 55 mph and the proposed speed limit is 60 mph.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
S-Z-o/
Date
O
Date
g z(0
Date
Lubin Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cy is D. Sharer, P.E., Project Development Unit Head
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
?w
Stephanie Ledbetter, roject evelopment Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
:
:
i?
i
i
N
METERS
0 200 400 600 800 1000
0 1000FE2000 3000
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
,'. „ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
Clayton, Johnston County
US 70 from NC 42 Interchange to
east of SR 1553 (Shotwell Rd)
TIP W-4409, State Project No. 8.7331013
F.A. Project STP-70(50)
Vicinity Map
< J?STVt?
y M?
Qu
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAH, F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Memorandum To: Cindy Sharer, P.E., Unit Flead
Project Planning Unit
From: Jill Holmes, Natural Systems Specialist '--
Natural Systems Unit
Subject: Proposed widening of westbound direction of US 70 from NC 42 to SR
1553 (Shotwell Rd) in Johnston County. TIP No. W-4409; State Project
No. 8.733 1013, Federal Aid Project No. STP-70 (50).
Attention: Stephanie Ledbetter, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and descriptions
of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information concerning waters of
the United States and protected species is also provided.
26 June 2001
LYNDO Twi)i:,i-i
SEC'RIAARY
File: W-4409
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROI ECT IA EVI-..LOP\ILNI AND FNVIRONM FN1 Al. ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SLRVI('E CLN II:R
RALEIGH NC 27699-1;.18
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
II'FHSl7l:; H'II'II'.UON.I)lll..S'l;l77f.:V('.(CC
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
I SOU111 WILMIINCI'ON STRHA
RALnau. NC
Proposed widening of westbound direction of US 70 from NC 42
to SR 1553 (Shotwell Rd) in Johnston County.
Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP No. W-4409
State Project No. 8.7331013
Federal Aid Project No. STP-70 (50)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMEN"I' OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PRO.IEC"I' DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL, ANALYSIS BRANCII
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
Jill Holmes, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
26 June 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... I
1.1 Project Definitions .............................................................................................................. l
1.2 Project Description ........................................................................................................... ..1
1.3 Purpose ............................................................................................................................... ..1
1.4 Methodology ...................................................................................................................... ..1
1.5 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ......................................................................... ..3
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS .................................................................................... ..3
2.1 Soils .................................................................................................................................... ..3
2.2 Water Resources .................................................................................................................4
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources .............................................................................. ..4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................................................................. ..5
2.2.3 Water Quality ................................................................................................................ ..6
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ................................................. ..6
3.0 1310TIC RESOURCES ...........................................................................................................7
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................................. ..8
3. 1.1 Disturbed Community .................................................................................................. ..8
3.1.2 I-lardwood Forest ........................................................................................................... ..8
3.2 Faunal Component ............................................................................................................ ..8
3.3 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................................... ..9
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources ......................................................................... 10
3.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts ........................................................................................................ 10
3.4.2 Aquatic and Wetland Impacts ....................................................................................... 10
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ............................................................................................... I1
4.1 Waters of the United States .............................................................................................. 1l
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .......................................................... 11
4.1.1.1 Jurisdictional Streams ............................................................................................ 11
4.1.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................................................................................... 11
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................. 12
4. 13 Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy ........................ 12
4.1.4 Permits .......................................................................................................................... 13
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .......................................................................... 14
4.2 Protected and Rare Species .............................................................................................. 14
4.2.1 Federally-protected Species .......................................................................................... 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern .......................................................................................... 17
5.0 REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Study Area and Stream/Wetland Location Map .........................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Soil Series and Characteristics of the Project Area ....................................................4
Table 2. Characteristics of the Tributaries of Little Creek ......................................................5
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .............................................................10
Table 4. Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area .......................................................12
Table 5. Estimated Impacts to Riparian Buffers .....................................................................13
Table 6. Federally protected species in Johnston County .......................................................15
Table 7. Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County ......................................................18
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources 'T'echnical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of an Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (I'CE) for the proposed project. This
report inventories the natural resources occurring within the project area and identifies any
natural resource concerns which must be addressed in the planning stages ofthis project.
Estimations on the type and degree of impacts to the ecosystems, along with recommendations
which will minimize impacts are given.
1.1 Project Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area
denotes the area bound by proposed right-of-way (ROW) limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map centered on the project.
1.2 Project Description
The project involves the widening of existing US 70 from NC 42 to SR 1553 (Shotwell
Rd) in Johnston County. The westbound direction of US 70 will be widened to add an additional
through lane. This section of US 70 exists as a 24 ft (7.3 m) to 36 ft (1 1 m) wide two-lane
facility, with several right turn lane sections, and a paved shoulder with variable width. The
proposed widened US 70 will be a 36 ft (1 1 m) wide, three-lane section, with a paved shoulder.
It is anticipated that widening can be performed by connecting several sections of right turn
lanes, all within the existing right of way. The existing and proposed ROW limit is 135 ft (41 m)
to 200 ft (61 m). The project length is 1.2 mi (2.04 km). The existing speed limit is 45 mph (72
kph) to 55 mph (89 kph) and the proposed speed limit is 60 mph (97 kph).
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions are relevant only in the context of existing design concepts. If design parameters
and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.4 Methodology
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Clayton, NC; Garner, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project study
area (1:4200) and Soil Survey of Johnston County (USDA, 1994). Water resource information
was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources (NCDENR), and the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
via
..-? ; 4 `? s??? .? -?'?/A 1.
A M i r
,.r
i?
000.

r
"Yo
PqL
?-
co)
? 7
X55_ i
/ 6 /I l
COE
CL r-
r\ r ? ??? ter: ?? ?rt
% `r?, 0?,? ,,r'te' ? ! ? r
,?± ``i
C=V

Resources (NCDEHNR). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern, By County, in
North Carolina (26 February 2001) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Jared Gray and Jill Holmes on May 25, 2001. Plant communities and their associated
wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observational techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows).
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator. Jill J. Holmes
Education: B.S. Wildlife Management, Minor in Biology, Texas Tech University, Lubbock,
Texas
Experience: North Carolina Dept. of Transportation, Mar. 2000-present
Noble Foundation Agriculture Div. Ardmore, OK, May 1998- Aug. 1998
Virginia Tech Dept. Fisheries and Wildlife Sciences, May 1997-Aug. 1997
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed below.
Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Johnston County lies along the Fall Line between the Coastal Plains and the Piedmont
Physiographic Province. The project study area is primarily in Piedmont, however it is very near
the Fall Line (the transition zone between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plains) so it has
characteristics of the Coastal Plain also. Land in the project study area is characterized as gently
sloping to steep. The project is located in Clayton and is predominately an urban area with
restaurants and small businesses located along the project study area. The project study area is
located approximately 250 ft (76 m) to 290 ft (88 m) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
The project study area is located within one soil association, 6 soil series, and 5 soil map
units. The Wedowee Association is comprised of well- to poorly-drained soils located on gently
sloping to moderately steep uplands of the Piedmont and Coastal Plain. Table 1 describes soil
characteristics of the 5 map units that are located in the project area and defines which series
they are categorized in. The soil map units are defined following the table.
Table 1. Soil Series and Characteristics of the Project Area
Soil Map
Unit In
Series,
Soil Series
Topographic Location
Drainage
Permeability
Hydric
AmB Appling (45%) uplands between Coastal Plain and well moderate non-hydric
Marlboro (30%) Piedmont
CoB Cowarts uplands in Coastal Plain well moderate-slow non-hydric
to slow
NuA Norfolk (50%) town of Clayton/ Smithfield well moderate non-hydric
Urban (30%)
WoB Wedowee ridges & side slopes in Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
WoD Wedowee side slopes in uplands in Piedmont well moderate non-hydric
' Am B: Appling-Marlboro Complex, 1-6% slopes
CoB: Cowarts loamy sand, 6-10% slopes
NuA: Norfolk-Urban land Complex, 0-3 % slopes
WoB: Wedowee sandy loam, 2-8% slopes
WoD: Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15% slopes
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources' relationship to major
water systems, its physical aspects, best usage classification, and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2 .2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources
The entire project area is located in the NeuSe River Basin in Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) subbasin 03-04-02 and the United States Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit
03020201. "There are a total of 5 streams in the project study area all of which are perennial. All
the streams crossed are unnamed tributaries (UT) of Little Creek and designated UT#L Jable 2
and Figure 1). Little Creek is not located within the project study area.
Little Creek originates northwest of the project study area and flows southeast to its
confluence with Swift Creek. It parallels the project study portion of US 70 and is located
southwest of the project study area.
UT #I,1 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of US 70 and flows southwest to
Little Creek outside the project study area. The banks are approximately 3 feet high, there is a
dense canopy, and no wetlands are associated with this stream. A stormwater ditch enters into
the channel from the east. UT #LI crosses US 70 approximately 0.18 mi (0.29 km) northwest of
the intersection of US 70 and NC 42 west.
UT #L2 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of US 70 and flows southwest to
Little Creek outside the project study area. This stream is located in a very urban area with no
canopy cover and much of the stream has been enclosed. The banks are approximately 3 feet
high and have disturbed vegetation. Crawdads and aquatic invertebrates were observed in this
stream. UT #L2 crosses US 70 approximately 0.64 mi (1.04 km) northwest of the intersection of
US 70 and NC 42 west.
UT #L3 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of US 70 and flows southwest to
Little Creek outside the project study area. The natural channel is 2 to 3 ft wide, however at the
pipe where the stream crosses US 70, it is a 4 ft wide pool that is approximately 2 ft deep. The
banks are approximately 2 to 4 feet high and there is a 10 ft strip of vegetation on both sides of
the stream containing dense disturbed species. Many small fish were observed during the site
visit. UT #L3 crosses US 70 approximately 0.72 mi (1.15 km) northwest of the intersection of
US 70 and NC 42 west.
UT 41-4 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of US 70 and flows southwest to
Little Creek outside the project study area. The banks are approximately 2 ft high and the stream
within the ROW limits is located in the disturbed community and a hardwood forest further
upstream. The stream is sinuous and crawdads were observed. UT #L I crosses US 70
approximately 0.25 mi (0.41 km) northwest of the intersection of US 70 and SR 1553.
UT #L5 is a perennial stream that originates northeast of US 70 and flows southwest to
Little Creek outside the project study area. Within the ROW, the channel is under natural
conditions, however, upstream the channels appears to be manmade and relocated. The banks
are approximately 1 to 2 feet high, there is a dense herbaceous vegetation, and a wetland is
associated with this stream. Tadpoles and a turtle were observed at this site. UT 41-5 crosses US
70 approximately 0.05 mi (0.08 km) southeast of the intersection of US 70 and SR 1553.
Table 2. Characteristics of the Tributaries of Little Creek
Stream Tributary Class Width Depth Clarity Flow Substrate'
of: ft / m In/cm
UT #L1 Little Cr perennial 3 /0.9 2 / 5.1 fair slow co, gr, sa
UT #L2 Little Cr perennial 5 /1.5 5 / 12.7 fair slow gr, co, rr
UT #L3 Little Cr perennial 3 /0.9 3 / 7.6 poor slow co, gr, sa
UT #L4 Little Cr perennial 2 /0.6 2 / 5.1 fair slow sa, gr, co
UT #L5 Little Cr perennial 2 /0.6 3 / 7.6 poor slow sa, qr, co
? sa: sand, gr: gravel, co: cobble, rr: rip rap
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. According to the
DWQ, the best usage classification of Little Creek (DWQ Index No. 27-43-12, 5/1/88) is C
NSW. UTs receive the same classification as the stream into which they flow therefore, the best
usage classification of all of the UTs in the project study area is C NSW as well. Class C waters
are waters protected for secondary recreation; fishing; wildlife, fish, and aquatic life propagation
and survival, agriculture, and other uses suitable for Class C. Secondary recreation includes
wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where such activities
take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on
watershed development activities. The supplemental classification of NSW (Nutrient Sensitive
Waters) are waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs because they are subject to
growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. No water resources classified as High
6
Quality Waters (HQW"s), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-11), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW's) are located within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. This was accomplished with the Ambient Monitoring System
(AMS) which is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality monitoring stations. The
program assesses water quality by collecting physical and chemical water quality data at fixed
monitoring sites every five years. This data is used for basinwide assessment and planning.
There are no AMS stations located in the project study vicinity.
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the
DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive
to very subtle changes in water quality. thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these
organisms are reflections of water quality. BMAN sampling station B-62, located on Little
Creek at SR 1562 (DWQ Index 27-43-12, Johnston County) was sampled July 1995 and received
a bioclassification of Fair. In August 1992, this same station received a bloc lassification of
Good-Fair (NCDEHNR, 1998).
Point source pollution refers to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch,
or other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina
are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program.
Any person discharging pollutants from a point source into waters of the United States is
required to obtain a NPDES permit. Clayton (town) / Little Creek Waste Water Treatment Plant
(Permit No. NC 0025453 Date, 8/7/00) in Johnston County, is a permitted point source
discharger to Little Creek, approximately 0.4 mi (0.7 km) south of where NC 42 crosses Little
Creek. (NPDES).
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or a non-defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that can
serve as sources of non-point source pollution in the Neuse River Basin including land
development, construction, crop production, landfills, roads, and parking lots (NCDENR).
Water quality may be influenced by oil, grease, and toxic chemicals from urban runoff and
energy production. Urban areas increase the amount and speed of runoff which can lead to an
increased sediment load. This in turn will erode stream banks, degrade streamside vegetation,
and widen stream channels. In addition, toxic pollutants such as metals can adhere to the
sediment and be quickly transported to surface waters (EPA). Also, land clearing can cause soil
erosion, which leads to stream sedimentation.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are dependent upon final
construction limits. Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources may result in water
quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the water will result in soil erosion
leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend downstream for
considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality. The
vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in more extreme
fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer portions of the year, the water temperature will
increase, resulting in a decrease in dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen.
Streambank vegetation is also important because it stabilizes streambanks and reduces
sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials can
adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological and
chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend both upstream and
downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may include changes in flooding regime,
discharge, erosion, and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the DWQ, has
developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts formal BMPs for
the protection of surface waters.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of the
stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion as exposed soils are
revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora
within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the
project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate,
community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant
names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used by terrestrial wildlife
and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al.
1980, Webster et al. 1985; Rhode et al. 1994; Potter et al. 1980).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area: disturbed
community and hardwood forest.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community encompasses two types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance including regularly maintained areas such as roadside
shoulder and median, and irregularly maintained roadside shoulder. These habitats are kept in a
low-growing, early successional state. The regularly maintained area is mowed frequently and is
dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Dominant species include fescue (Feslucu sp.), dandelion
(Tcnaxicum officinale), plantain (Pluntagu sp.), panic grass (Punicum sp.), bermuda grass
(0,nndat (lactvlan), wood sorrel (Oxulis sp.), buSllclover (Lespedezu cuneala), dog fennel
(Euputorium capilli/blittm), and white clover (Trifolitun repens). The irregularly maintained
roadside shoulder has denser herbaceous vegetation and shrubs. Dominant vegetation included
common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), dog fennel, goldenrod
(Soli(lago sp.), blackberry (Rebus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), kudzu
(Puerariu lobate), sweetgum saplings (Liqui(.1ambar styraciflua), and loblolly pine saplings
(Pines tae(la).
3.1.2 Hardwood Forest
This community is composed of primarily hardwoods and is located near the intersection
of US 70 and NC 42. The forest is relatively open with denser vegetation near the disturbed
edges. The understory vegetation is composed of predominantly of hardwood saplings and
vines. Dominant species located in the canopy and subcanopy include sweetgum, red maple
(Aces ruhrtnn), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) dogwood (Corn us. lorida), white oak
(Quercus alba), elderberry (Santhucus canadensis), hickory (Carya sp.), box elder (Acer
negundu), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and black cherry (Prunus serotina). Species
located in the herb and vine layer include trumpet creeper (Cantpsis radicans), Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus
quinquefolia), blackberry, muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), violets (Viola sp.), Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), jewelweed (Impatiens sp.), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
plutyneuron), creeping grass (Microslegium vintinetnn), and greenbrier.
3.2 Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The Southeastern shrew
(Sorex longirostris) may be found in the tangles of vines and dominant herbaceous vegetation in
the irregularly maintained areas. The Eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) prefers areas with well-
drained soils in open areas. Birds such as mocking birds (Mintus polvglottos)*, European
starlings (,%rnus vulgaris)*, and the killdeer (Charadrius vociferus)* were observed in the
9
disturbed urban area at roadside shoulders and ditches. Soaring over open areas searching for
carrion, turkey vultures (Cathartes aur(i) can be observed. American crows ((_OrViLv
hrachvrhvnchos)* were also heard in the disturbed community. The Eastern fence lizard
(&eloporus undulatus) can be seen in the open areas, basking in the sum.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail (Svlvilugits floridunus) prefers a mix of
herbaceous and woody vegetation in disturbed open areas such as brushy edges of forests.
Underground, in tunnels dug under woodlands and open disturbed areas, the woodland vole
(Microtus pinetorum) may be found. The white-footed mouse (Peromvscus leucopus) is found in
edge habitat between forests and grassy areas. Both the Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis) and
the five-lined skink (Eunteces fctsiatus) enjoy the open sunny edge habitat. The black rat snake
(Elctplte ohsolet(t) will come out of forested habitat to forage in open areas. The Eastern bluebird
(,Sictliu siulis)* and American robin (Turdus nigrci.vorius) can be observed moving between
forested and disturbed habitats.
Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities. The opossum
(Didelphis viginiano) and the raccoon (Prrocvon lotor)* prefers woodlands but can be observed
as roadkill in open areas as well. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the Southern short-
tailed shrew (Blurina carolinensis) and the white-footed mouse may be found. Gray squirrels
(&iuruc carolinensis)* are often observed in wooded areas but may be seen in residential yards
as well. The spring peeper (Hvla crucifer) can be found under forest litter and in brushy
undergrowth. The Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will be found
near streams in hot, dry weather. Burrowing underground in moist areas, the worm snake
(Caty)hophis mnoenus) is common in forests. Birds such as the Northern cardinal (Cardinalis
ccrrdimrlis)*, Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis), Carolina wren (Thrvothorus
ludovicianus), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)* will forage and nest within the forested
community.
3.3 Aquatic Communities
There are perennial streams located in the project study area. Physical processes such as
flow variability, channel structure, and substrate have a tremendous influence on the ecology of
streams. Physical processes in addition to the chemistry and temperature of the stream water
have a profound influence on the aquatic biota that the stream is capable of supporting.
Perennial streams sustain flow throughout the year. Perennial streams support an
assemblage of fauna that require constant source of flowing water, as compared to intermittent or
standing water. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus viginianus) and raccoons may visit the banks of
perennial streams. The dwarf salamander (Eurycea guadridigitata) and the three-lined
salamander (E. guholineata) both are found in Piedmont streams and creeks. Green frogs (Rana
clantitans), Southern cricket frogs (Acris gryllus), Fowler's toads (Biffo woodhousei), and
Eastern box turtles also frequent forested streams. Fish species that may be located here include
the golden shiner (Notemigonus crysolencas), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblorngus), Eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), Eastern mudminnow (Umbra pygmaea), pirate perch
(Aphredoderus sctyanus), bluegill (Lepontis macrochirusi), and tessellated darter (Ethcostoma
olmstedi).
10
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject 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 impacts to the natural
resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire ROW width, therefore, actual impacts may be less. All measurements are approximate.
3.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community (Table 3). Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of portions
of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the ROW limits within the project
study area.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Area of Impact
Disturbed Community 9.48 ac / 3.84 ha
Hardwood Forest 0.19 ac / 0.08 ha
TOTAL 9.67 ac / 3.92 ha
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of project
construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna.
During construction, species that utilize open disturbed habitat will temporarily be displaced.
Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a disturbed community will be re-established.
Because the species that inhabit disturbed communities are adapted to living in highly altered
habitats, the area should be repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided
following project completion.
The forested habitats located in the project study area and surrounding area are already
relatively fragmented by businesses and residential property. Following construction completion
and revegetation, edge species will still have adequate habitat and the impacts from the loss of
habitat should be minimal. The forested habitat loss will potentially impact fauna not located in
the project study area as well. Interior species may be impacted from the reduced forested
habitat available. If forested tracts become too small in area, interior species will not repopulate.
However, because the impact will be along the already disturbed edge habitat of US 70, and
because the construction will likely take place within the existing ROW, impacts to fauna in the
forest communities should be minimal.
3.4.2 Aquatic and Wetland Impacts
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area as well
as those downstream. 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 macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Road construction impacts can effect the functions that wetlands perform in ecosystem
as well. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm
runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in surrounding and downstream areas.
Loss of wetland communities will result in loss of water storage area. Wetlands have been
documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows
across them as well as decrease the sediment load. In this respect, impacting wetlands can
directly affect the water quality, and theretbre the aquatic organisms, of the streams in the
project study area.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs for
Protection of Surface Waters. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls will be maintained
during the entire life of the project.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or
ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances
do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any
action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
4.1.1.1 Jurisdictional Streams
There are 5 perennial streams located within the project study area. All steams crossed
are Ufs to Little Branch. These streams are thoroughly described in Section 2.2 (Table 2).
4.1.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using criteria specified in the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
12
the following specifications must be met, 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including, saturated soils,
stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
']'here is one wetland area identified within the project study area. This wetland is
associated with UT #L5 and is located northeast US 70 just southeast of the intersection oI US
70 and SR 1553. It is in a disturbed area and has emergent vegetation. Low chroma soil colors
(10YR3/2), drainage patterns, and water stained leaves were observed and the soil was saturated
throughout. Dominant vegetation includes rush (Juncos effirsus), creeping grass, goldenrod,
Japanese honeysuckle, lizard's tail (Scnrran•zts cernims), and various sedges (Curex spp.). The
area of the wetland within the ROW limits is 0.007 ac (0.003 ha). The approximate location of
the wetland is shown in Figure 1.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Approximately 290 ft (88.4 m) of jurisdictional waters are located within the ROW
limits of the project study area (Table 4). Actual impacts to the surface water community may
be less than reported because the entire ROW width and easements are often not impacted by
construction projects. The amount of surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in
roadway design.
Table 4. Stream Impacts Within the Project Study Area
Stream Tributary of: Class Impacts ft / m
UT #L1 Little Cr perennial 25 17.6
UT #L2 Little Cr perennial 100 130.5
UT #L3 Little Cr perennial 50 115.2
UT #L4 Little Cr perennial 55 116.8
UT #L5 Little Cr perennial 60 118.3
Total 290 ft / 88.4 m
There is one wetland system located within the ROW limits of the project. The total
estimated impact to this area by the project is 0.007 ac (0.003 ha).
4.1.3 Neuse River Basin: Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy
As the project is located in the Neuse River Basin, Riparian Area Rules for Nutrient
Sensitive Waters apply. The rules state that roads, bridges, stormwater management facilities,
ponds, and utilities may be allowed where no practical alternative exists. They also state that
these structures shall be located, designed, constructed, and maintained to have minimal
disturbance, to provide maximum erosion protection, to have the least adverse effects on aquatic
life and habitat, and to protect water quality to the maximum extent practical through the use of
best management practices. Every reasonable effort will be made to avoid and minimize riparian
buffer impacts.
13
Estimated impacts to the riparian buffers are quantified in the table below. It is possible
that one or more of the water resources listed below may be exempted when an on-site
determination by the Division of Water Quality is conducted. Therefore impacts may be less.
Table 5. Estimated Impacts to Riparian Buffers
Water
Resource "
Class Biotic
Community(s)" Zone 1
Impacts' Zone 2
Impactsz Total Mitigation
Required3
UT #L1 P HW 0.03 ac / 0.01 ha 0.02 ac / 0.01 ha 0.14 ac / 0.06 ha
UT #L2 P Dist 0.07 ac 10.03 ha 0.05 ac / 0.02 ha 0.28 ac 10.11 ha
UT #L3 P Dist 0.07 ac / 0.03 ha 0.02 ac / 0.01 ha 0.24 ac / 0.10 ha
UT #L4 P Dist/HW 0.06 ac / 0.03 ha 0.03 ac / 0.01 ha 0.23 ac 10.09 ha
UT #L5 P Dist/HW 0.08 ac / 0.03 ha 0.06 ac 10.02 ha 0.33 ac / 0.13 ha
0.32 ac 10.13 ha 0.17 ac 10.07 ha 1.21 ac/ 0.49 ha
*P: perennial; I: intermittent
** Dist: Disturbed; HW: Hardwood Forest
I Zone 1 is the first 30 ft (91 m) of buffer and is to remain essentially undisturbed.
2Zone 2 is the remaining 20 fl (6.1 m) (landward) of the 50 ft (15 m) buffer and is to be vegetated, but certain uses would be allowed
in this zone.
3Zone 1 required mitigation is based on a 3:1 ratio; Zone 2 required mitigation is based on a 1.5:1 ratio
4.1.4 Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be required from the COE for
discharge of dredge or fill material into "waters of the United States." Due to surface water
impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide (NWP) 23 Permit will likely be necessary for this project.
Final decision concerning applicable permits rests with the COE.
A NWP 23 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; that the
activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded form environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively
have a significant impact on the human environment, and; that the office of Chief of Engineers
has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Prior to the issuance of the Section 404 permit, a 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required from the DWQ. Section 401 of the CWA 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. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to
issuance of a Section 404 permit. In addition, an Authorization Certificate for Neuse Riparian
Buffer impacts will be required from the DWQ.
14
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding impacts,
minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical 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 COE, in determining
"appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be
appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in terms of costs, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required
through project modifications and permit conditions. Practical means to minimize impacts to
surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of ROW widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of surface
waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
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.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the
United States. Mitigation will be required for streams with 150 ft (45.7 m) and greater impacts.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Because this project is located in the Neuse River Basin, buffer mitigation will also be
required. Zone 1, the first 30 ft (9.1 m) of buffer, requires mitigation based on a 3:1 ratio. Zone
2, the remaining 20 ft (6.1 m) (landward) of the 50 ft (15 m) buffer, requires mitigation based on
a 1.5:1 ratio
4.2 Protected and Rare 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 activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
FWS. Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
15
42.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA. As of 26 February 2001, there are four federally-protected species listed for
Johnston County (Table 6). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat
follows.
Table 6. Federally protected species in Johnston County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon Endangered
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana Endangered
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered'
Endangered species are a taxon which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
indicates a historical record: last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
Picoides borealis (Red-Cockaded Woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
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
pulustris), 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 500 ac (200 ha). 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 12-
100 ft (3.6-30.3 m) above the ground and average 30-50 ft (9.1- 15.7 m) 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
There is no habitat for the RCW located within the project study area. A review of the
NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 1 1 June 2001 revealed no known
occurrences of the red cockaded woodpecker within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Therefore it can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
16
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf Wedgemussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
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 tile NeLISC
River Basin and in the upper "far River system. 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
A survey for the dwarf wedgemussel was conducted by Logan Williams and Jill I lolmes
on 6 June 2001. No suitable habitat, dwarf wedgemussels, or any other freshwater mussels were
observed during this survey. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats
on 1 1 June 2001 revealed no known occurrences of the dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 mi (1.6
km) of the project study area.
Elliptio steinstansana (Tar Spinymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date listed: 27 June 1985
The Tar spinymussel, one of only three freshwater mussels in the world with spines, is a
medium-sized mussel reaching about 2.5 in (6.4 cm) in length. In young specimens, the shell's
outer surface (periostracum) is an orange-brown color with greenish rays; adults are darker with
inconspicuous rays. The inside of the shell (nacre) is yellow or pinkish at one end and bluish-
white at the other. Juveniles may have as many as 12 spines; however, adult specimens tend to
lose their spines as they mature.
The Tar spinymussel lives in relatively silt-free, uncompacted gravel and/or course sand
in fast-flowing, well-oxygenated stream reaches. It is found in association with other mussels,
but it is never very numerous. It feeds by syphoning and filtering small food particles that are
suspended in the water. Their method of reproduction is similar among freshwater mussel
species. Males release sperm into the water column, and the sperm are taken in by the females
through their siphons as they respire. The eggs are fertilized and develop within the females'
gills into larvae (glochidia). The females release the glochidia, that must then attach to the gills
or fins of specific fish species. The glochida transform into juvenile mussels and drop off the
fish onto the stream bottom.
Two relatively good populations are known to exist in two tributaries of the Tar River.
Although they have been found in one other tributary, the main stem of the Tar River,
individuals are becoming harder to find.
17
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
A survey was conducted by Logan Williams and Jill J. Holmes on 6 June 2001. No
suitable habitat, tar spinymussels, or any other freshwater mussels were observed. A review of'
the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 1 I June 2001 revealed no known
occurrences of the tar spinynu?ssel within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area.
Rhus nrichamvii (Michaux's Sumac) Endangered*
Plant Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceac)
Date Listed: 28 September 1989
Best Search Time: June (May through October)
Michaux's sumac is a di0eeious shrub growing to a height of 1.0-2.0 ft (0.3-0.6 m).
Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of 4-5 parted greenish-yellow to
white flowers. Fruits, produced from August through September, are red, densely short-
pubescent drupes, 0.25 in (5-6 nun) across. Most populations, however, are single sexed and
reproduce only by rhizomes. The entire plant is densely pubescent. 'file deciduous leaves are
composed ol'9-13 sessile, oblong leaflets on a narrowly winged or wingless rachis. The acute to
acuminate leaflets have rounded bases and are 1.5-3.5 in (4-9 cm) long and 1-2 in (2-5 em) wide.
They are simply or doubly serrate.
Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic
provinces ot'Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Most populations occur in
North Carolina. This species prefers sandy, rocky, open woods and roadsides. Its survival is
dependent on disturbance (mowing, clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found
with other members of its genus as well as with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). There is
no longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Marginal habitat for Michaux's sumac is present within the project study area. A survey
for Michaux's sumac was conducted on 25 May 2001 by Jared Gray and Jill J. Holmes. This
species was not observed. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats
Oil 1 I June 2001 revealed no known occurrences of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of
the project study area.
42.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may or may
not be listed in the future. As of 26 February 2001, there are nine FSC listed for Johnston
County. FSC 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. Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened or Special
Concern by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are afforded state protection or
are monitored under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to the state listed species does
not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 7 provides the FSC in Johnston County and indicates the
18
species state status, and whether or not there is adequate habitat for each species in the project
study area.
Table 7. Federal Species of Concern in Johnston County
Common Name Scientific Name State
Status' Habitat
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolate T(PE) Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) Yes
Yellow lampmussel Lampsilis cariosa T(PE) Yes
Green floater
Tar River crayfish
Spring-flowering goldenrod
Carolina asphodel
Carolina least trillium
Lasmigona subvirdis E Yes
Procambarus medialis W3 Yes
Solidago verna T No
Tofieldia glabra C No
Trillium pusillum var. pusillum E No
'Endangered (E) species are a taxon whose continued existence as a viable component of the state's flora/fauna is determined to
be in jeopardy.
Threatened (T) species are a taxon which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Significantly Rare (SR) species are a taxon not listed by the NCWRC but which exists in small numbers and has been determined
by the NHP to need monitoring.
Proposed Endangered (PE) species are a taxon which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, but has not
completed the legally mandated listing process.
Candidate (C) species are a taxon that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state.
Watch (W3) species include species that are poorly known in North Carolina but are not necessarily considered to be declining or
otherwise in trouble.
Surveys for FSC listed in Table 7 were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any
of these species observed. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats
on 1 1 June 2001 revealed no record of North Carolina rare and/or protected species within 1 ml
(1.6 km) of the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goulet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C.

Endangered and Threatened Species of the Southeastern United States (The Red Book). FWS
Region 4 - As of 1/91
f

19
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. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural I leritage Program.
Martof, B.S.. W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptile s of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhinick. F.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resource Commission.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR). 1992.
Basinwide Assessment Report Support-Neuse River Basin. Division of Water Quality.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1998. Neuse
Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Division of Water Quality.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR). 1998. Stream
Bank Classification-Internet Website. Division of Water Quality.
NPDES Permits: List of Active Permits Website (112o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/permits).
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.Y. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Allies, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Ord Approx. . Raleigh, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
United States Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1994. Soil Survey of Johnston County.
Natural Resource Conservation Service.
United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 2001. Non Point Source Pollution Web
site (wwvv.cpa.,tov/ovvovv/nns/index). Office of Water.
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.