20140350_Scoping Comments_20070307

V

Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
March 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee
Through: John Hennessy, Supervisor, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit X
From: David Wainwright, NC Division of Water Quality, Transportation Permitting Unit %j i%?
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed widening improvements to SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from
Randall Parkway (SR 2649) in New Hanover County, TIP U-3338.
Reference your correspondence dated January 2007 in which you requested comments for the referenced
project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to perennial streams
and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Smith Creek Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-63
UT to Smith Creek Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-63
Spring Branch Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-63-1
UT to Spring Branch Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-63-1
Burnt Mill Creek Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-63-2
UT to Burnt Mill Creek Cape Fear C:Sw 18-74-
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other
streams and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are
identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following
environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
W ATF9
QG
Smith Creek and Burnt Mill Creek are class C:Sw; 303(d) waters of the State. Both waterbodies are
listed on the 303(d) list for impaired use to aquatic life due to impaired biological integrity. DWQ is
very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ
recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to Smith and Burnt Mill Creeks. DWQ requests that road design plans
provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the
most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
One
NhCarolin
Transportation Permitting Unit Naturally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htto:/lh2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
An Eaual ODDortunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
L]
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 211.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification..
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. Prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded
that they will need to demonstrate the avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and
streams) to the maximum extent practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management
Commission's Rules 11 5A NCAC 21-1.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater
than 1 acre to wetlands. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be
designed to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement
Program may be available for use as wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project.
NC DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
6. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
7. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or
other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-
vegetate naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
8. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
W
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
9. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
10. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and
Erosion Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
12. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
13. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
14. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
15. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams.
This equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface
waters from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
16. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the.approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
and restored to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted
with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
s
17. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact David Wainwright at [phone].
cc: Jennifer Frye, US Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mason Herndon, Division 3 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordon, US Fish and Wildlife Service
Steve Sollod, Division of Coastal Management
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
File Copy
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0273 County: New Hanover
Due Date: 03/12/2007
Date Received: 02/15/2007
Project Description: Widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Randall Parkway to 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
in New Hanover County; TIP No. U-3338
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area In-House Review
Asheville T Air Soil & Water J Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville T- Water _J Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville T- Groundwater Wildlife T Environmental Health
Raleigh
?
Land Quality Engineer
? Wildlife -DOT Solid Waste Mgmt
Washington -
TT Forest Resources Radiation Protection
_T Wilmington _ Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
T Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
TT_ Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application;
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
R8"xN
11
U-3338 January 2007
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-3338
WBS No.: 1 34932.1.1
Federal Aid No: STP-1175c8
Division: 3
Sent Date: 1-31-07
Revision Date: r
Meeting Date: 3-8-07
Count. New Hanover
H
Widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway) and Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue (Sections B
and C, respectively, as shown in Draft 2007-2013 TIP). USCOE has agreed the project will
not be required to go through the Merger Process since an Individual Section 404 Permit is
not likely. The City of Wilmington plans to transfer Section A (Oleander Drive to Randall
Parkway) to its system and will be responsible for project completion; therefore, the A
Section will not be included in the Environmental Documents and Design of this project.
General Project Need:
Traffic capacity deficiencies along Kerr Avenue
Metropolitan / Rural. Planning Organization
Area:
NEPA/404 Merger Candidate?: ? Yes
Feasibility Study Completed?: ® Yes
Wilmington Urban Area MPO
® No ? Not sure
F-1 No March 1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Section B - FY 2009
Section C - FY 2012
Section B - FY 2011
Section C - Unfunded
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment
Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
? Maintenance ® Attainment
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
A
or
U-3338
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
January 2007
1.7 miles
No control
Structure Inventory: N/A
Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor N/A
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan Major Thoroughfare
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Randall to Market St: 3-lane curb and gutter
Market to MILK: 3-lane shoulder
Proposed: 4-lane curb and gutter with 23-foot median,
sidewalks, 10-foot berms, bicycle accommodations; 12-
foot inside lanes, 14-foot outside lanes
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes
Right of Way:
. (Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:
Traffic (AADT):
? No
Existing
Randall Parkway to New Center Drive: 60 feet - 70 feet
New Center Drive to MLK Parkway: 100 feet - 110 feet
Proposed - 110 feet
45 mph Proposed Design 50 mph
Speed:
% TTST: 1 %
Current Year: E20003 ) 26,000 % Dual: 4%
Design Year: ) ?- 49,200 % DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: L_1 AASHTO L-? 3R
Railroad Involvement:
CSX line at Kerr Avenue just south of Market Street. At one time, it extended across
Kerr Avenue, but is now paved over at the crossing.
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Riaht of Wav: Total Cost:
B: $7,300,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $10,540,000
C: $6,600,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $8,220,000
B: $7,800,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $11,040,000
C: $7,400,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $9,020,000
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
r
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
K
a7
NORTH CAROLINA

U-3338
SR 1175 (KERR AVENUE)
WIDENING FROM
RANDALL PARKWAY TO
SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. PARKWAY)
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
U-3338 - Scoping Information Sheet
January 2007
Natural/Human Environmental Information
Environmental Information
• The project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-23.
• The primary surface waters in the study area include:
o an unnamed tributary to Burnt Mill Creek,
o an unnamed tributary to Spring Branch, and
o an unnamed tributary to Smith Creek
• Spring Branch, a tributary to Smith Creek, is located just outside the northern boundary of the
project corridor.
• Four jurisdictional wetland areas within the project corridor.
• No known historic resources or areas of archaeological concern.
• Geotechnical pre-scoping investigation indicates five possible underground storage tanks (UST)
facilities, one automotive repair facility, and one dry cleaner.
General Information
• Previously scoped in February 2003. At that time, the project included all three segments and
extended from Oleander Drive to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
• Prior coordination with the USACE and NCDWQ indicate that based on the revised limits, the
project may be excluded from the Merger Process since the jurisdictional impacts may not
warrant an individual permit.
• Land use is urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Prior coordination with
City staff indicates land use is expected to transition from single-family to higher density. The
City supports redeveloping the area around Market Street to more viable commercial
development.
• Two public workshops held - April 2004 and June 2004.
Federallv Protected Species Occurring in New Hanover Count
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenserbrevirostrum Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A)
Source: USFWS, December 2006
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
U-3338 - Scoping Information Sheet January 2007
Federal Species of Concern Occurring in New Hanover County
t'f' N federal State
Common Name SClen I Ic ame Status Status
Vertebrates
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC T
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris FSC* SR
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus FSC SC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC* SC
_
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius FSC SC
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC* SC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC* SR
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri FSC T
Greensfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmiurn FSC E
Loammi skipper Atrytonopsis loammi FSC SR
Magnificent rams-horn Planorbella magnifica FSC E
Rare skipper Problerpa bulenta FSC SR
Vascular Plants
Carolina bishopweed Ptilimniumsp. 1 FSC* -
Coastal beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha FSC -
Coastal goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa FSC* -
Dune bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 FSC SR-L
Grassleaf arrowhead Saqittaria weatherbiana FSC SR-T
Pickerina's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC SR-T
Raven's seedbox Ludwigia ravenii FSC SR-T
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC T
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. confusa FSC* T
Small-leaved meadowrue Thalictrum macrostylum FSC SR-L
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC** E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC* SR-L
Tough bumelia Sideroxylon tenax FSC -
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC SR-L, SC
E Endangered
T Threatened
FSC Federal Species
of Concern
PE Proposed
Endangered
PT Proposed
Threatened
SC Special Concern
SR Significantly Rare
C Candidate
-L Limited
-T Throughout
* Historic Record
** Obscure Record
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
A species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.)
A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered but has not yet completed the
legally mandated listing process.
A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Threatened but has not yet completed the legally
mandated listing process.
Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain regulations.
Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
Species which are very rare in North Carolina and are substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. They are also rare throughout their ranges and their fate depends on conservation in NC.
These species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened if habitat destruction continues.
Species which may have 20 to 50 populations in NC, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide.
These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total)
This species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
I `#
U-3338 January 2007
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-3338
WBS No.: 34932.1.1
Federal Aid No: STP-1175(8)
Division: ?3
Sent Date: 1-31-07
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: ?3-8-07
County: New Hanover
Widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway) and Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue (Sections B
and C, respectively, as shown in Draft 2007-2013 TIP). USCOE has agreed the project will
not be required to go through the Merger Process since an Individual Section 404 Permit is
not likely. The City of Wilmington plans to transfer Section A (Oleander Drive to Randall
Parkway) to its system and will be responsible for project completion; therefore, the A
Section will not be included in the Environmental Documents and Design of this project.
General Project Need:
Traffic capacity deficiencies along Kerr Avenue
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Wilmington Urban Area MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ® Yes F] No March 1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Section B - FY 2009
Section C - FY 2012
Section B - FY 2011
Section C - Unfunded
Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
U-3338
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional Classification:
1.7 miles
January 2007
.No control
N/A
Urban Minor Arterial
r N/A
Strategic Highway Corrido
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan Major Thoroughfare
Designation (Facility Type): I- I
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Randall to Market St: 3-lane curb and gutter
Market to MILK: 3-lane shoulder
Proposed: 4-lane curb and gutter with 23-foot median,
sidewalks, 10-foot berms, bicycle accommodations; 12-
foot inside lanes, 14-foot outside lanes
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes
Right of Wav:
(Existing / Proposed)
? No
Existing
Randall Parkway to New Center Drive: 60 feet - 70 feet
New Center Drive to MILK Parkway: 100 feet - 110 feet
Pro osed - 110 feet
Existing Posted 45 mph Proposed Design 50 mph
Speed: SSReed:
Traff ic (AADT): % TTST: 1 %
Current Year: (2006) 26,000 % Dual: 4%
Design Year: 2030 49,200 % DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: C? AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
CSX line at Kerr Avenue just south of Market Street. At one time, it extended across
Kerr Avenue, but is now paved over at the crossin .
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Riaht of Wav: Total Cost:
B: $7,300,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $10,540,000
C: $6,600,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $8,220,000
B: $7,800,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $11,040,000
C: $7,400,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $9,020,000
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
[ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
x
a)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY

1 5[l ? -
r Caraima B
h
} eac
i.? kv,t

U-3338
SR 1175 (KERR AVENUE)
WIDENING FROM
RANDALL PARKWAY TO
SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. PARKWAY)
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
U-3338 - Scoping Information Sheet January 2007
Natural/Human Environmental Information
Environmental Information
• The project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-23.
• The primary surface waters in the study area include:
o an unnamed tributary to Burnt Mill Creek,
o an unnamed tributary to Spring Branch, and
o an unnamed tributary to Smith Creek
• Spring Branch, a tributary to Smith Creek, is located just outside the northern boundary of the
project corridor.
• Four jurisdictional wetland areas within the project corridor.
• No known historic resources or areas of archaeological concern.
• Geotechnical pre-scoping investigation indicates five possible underground storage tanks (UST)
facilities, one automotive repair facility, and one dry cleaner.
General Information
• Previously scoped in February 2003. At that time, the project included all three segments and
extended from Oleander Drive to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
• Prior coordination with the USACE and NCDWQ indicate that based on the revised limits, the
project may be excluded from the Merger Process since the jurisdictional impacts may not
warrant an individual permit.
• Land use is urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Prior coordination with
City staff indicates land use is expected to transition from single-family to higher density. The
City supports redeveloping the area around Market Street to more viable commercial
development.
• Two public workshops held - April 2004 and June 2004.
Federally Protected Species Occurring in New Hanover Count
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenser brevirostrum Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A)
Source: USFWS, December 2006
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
? i
U-3338 - SCoping Information Sheet January 2007
Federal Species of Concern Occurring in New Hanover County
Common Name Scientific Name federal
Status State
Status
Vertebrates
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC T
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris FSC* SR
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus m!mlcus FSC SC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC* SC
Southeastern myotis Myotis austroriparius FSC SC
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC* SC
_
Invertebrates
Arnnns skinner Atrvtone arogos arogos FSC* SR
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri FSC T
Greensfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium FSG E
Loammi skipper Atrytonopsis loammi FSC SR
Magnificent rams-horn Planorbelia magnifica FSC E
Rare skipper Problema bulenta FSC SR
Carolina bishopweed Ptilimniumsp. 1 FSC* -
Coastal beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha FSC -
_
Coastal goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa FSC* -
_
Dune bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 FSC SR-L
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana FSC SR-T
Pickering's dawnflower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC SR-T
Raven's seedbox Ludwigia ravenii FSC SR-T
_
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC T
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. confusa FSC* T
_
Small-leaved meadowrue Thalictrum macrostylum FSC SR-L
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristafa FSC** E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC* SR-L
Tough bumelia Sideroxylon tenax FSC -
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC SR-L, SC
E Endangered A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
T Threatened A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
FSC Federal Species A species that may or may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
of Concern consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.)
PE Proposed A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered but has not yet completed the
Endangered legally mandated listing process.
PT Proposed A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Threatened but has not yet completed the legally
Threatened mandated listing process.
SC Special Concern Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain regulations.
SR Significantly Rare Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
C Candidate Species which are very rare in North Carolina and are substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. They are also rare throughout their ranges and their fate depends on conservation in NC.
These species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened if habitat destruction continues.
-L Limited Species which may have 20 to 50 populations in NC, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide.
-T Throughout These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total)
* Historic Record This species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
** Obscure Record The date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
1, E fi
U-3338 January 2007
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-3338
WBS No.: 34932.1.1
Federal Aid No: STP-1175(8)
Division: 3
Sent Date: 1-31-07
Revision Date:
Meeting Date: 3-8-07
County: New Hanover
Widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr.
Parkway) and Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue (Sections B
and C, respectively, as shown in Draft 2007-2013 TIP). USCOE has agreed the project will
not be required to go through the Merger Process since an Individual Section 404 Permit is
not likely. The City of Wilmington plans to transfer Section A (Oleander Drive to Randall
Parkway) to its system and will be responsible for project completion; therefore, the A
Section will not be included in the Environmental Documents and Design of this project.
General Project Need:
Traffic capacity deficiencies along Kerr Avenue
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Wilmington Urban Area MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ® Yes ? No March 1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Dates: T e of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
Environmental Assessment
Finding of No Significant Impact
Section B - FY 2009
Section C - FY 2012
Section B - FY 2011
Section C - Unfunded
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment
z
? Maintenance ® Attainment
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
"t
U-3338
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits:
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
January 2007
1.7 miles
No control
Structure Inventory: N/A
Functional Classification: Urban Minor Arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor N/A
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan Major Thoroughfare
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: Randall to Market St: 3-lane curb and gutter
Market to MILK: 3-lane shoulder
Proposed: 4-lane curb and gutter with 23-foot median,
sidewalks, 10-foot berms, bicycle accommodations; 12-
foot inside lanes, 14-foot outside lanes
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
? No
Existing
Randall Parkway to New Center Drive: 60 feet - 70 feet
New Center Drive to MILK Parkway: 100 feet - 110 feet
Proposed - 110 feet
Existing Posted 45 mph Proposed Design 50 mph
Speed: Speed: -Traffic (AADT): % TTST: 1 %
Current Year: E20003 ) 26,000 % Dual: 4%
Design Year: ) ?- 49,200 % DHV:
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO L? 3R
Railroad Involvement:
CSX line at Kerr Avenue just south of Market Street. At one time, it extended across
Kerr Avenue, but is now paved over at the crossing.
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Construction: Riaht of Wav: Total Cost:
B: $7,300,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $10,540,000
C: $6,600,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $8,220,000
B: $7,800,000 B: $3,240,000 B: $11,040,000
C: $7,400,000 C: $1,620,000 C: $9,020,000
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and
Interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
N
S
U-3338
SR 1175 (KERR AVENUE)
WIDENING FROM
RANDALL PARKWAY TO
SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. PARKWAY)
VICINITY MAP ?I
FIGURE 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
r
U-3338 - Scoping Information Sheet January 2007
Natural/Human Environmental Information
Environmental Information
• The project is located entirely within the Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-23.
• The primary surface waters in the study area include:
o an unnamed tributary to Burnt Mill Creek,
o an unnamed tributary to Spring Branch, and
o an unnamed tributary to Smith Creek
• Spring Branch, a tributary to Smith Creek, is located just outside the northern boundary of the
project corridor.
• Four jurisdictional wetland areas within the project corridor.
• No known historic resources or areas of archaeological concern.
• Geotechnical pre-scoping investigation indicates five possible underground storage tanks (UST)
facilities, one automotive repair facility, and one dry cleaner.
General Information
• Previously scoped in February 2003. At that time, the project included all three segments and
extended from Oleander Drive to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
• Prior coordination with the USACE and NCDWQ indicate that based on the revised limits, the
project may be excluded from the Merger Process since the jurisdictional impacts may not
warrant an individual permit.
• Land use is urban with a mixture of commercial and residential properties. Prior coordination with
City staff indicates land use is expected to transition from single-family to higher density. The
City supports redeveloping the area around Market Street to more viable commercial
development.
• Two public workshops held - April 2004 and June 2004.
Federally Protected Species Occurring in New Hanover Count
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Shortnose sturgeon Acipenserbrevirostrum Endangered
Seabeach amaranth Amaranthus pumilus Threatened
Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened
Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened
Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Threatened
Rough-leaved loosestrife Lysimachia asperulaefolia Endangered
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Cooley's meadowrue Thalictrum cooleyi Endangered
West Indian manatee Trichechus manatus Endangered
American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened (S/A)
Source: USFWS, December 2006
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
a k,
U-3338 - Scoping Information Sheet January 2007
Federal Species of Concern Occurring in New Hanover County
Common Name Scientific Name 'Federal State
Status Status
Vertebrates
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC T
Eastern painted bunting Passerina ciris ciris FSC* SR
Mimic glass lizard Ophisaurus mimicus FSC SC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC* SC
Southeastern mVotis Myotis austroriparius FSC SC
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC* SC
Invertebrates
Arogos skipper Atrytone arogos arogos FSC* SR
Cape Fear threetooth Triodopsis soelneri FSC T
Greensfield Rams-horn Helisoma eucosmium FSC E
Loammi skipper Atrytonopsis_loammi FSC SR
Magnificent rams-horn Planorbella magnifica FSC E
Rare skipper Problema bulenfa FSC SR
Carolina bishopweed Ptilimniumsp. 1 FSC* -
Coastal beaksedge Rhynchospora pleiantha FSC -
Coastal goldenrod Solidago villosicarpa FSC*
Dune bluecurls Trichostema sp. 1 FSC SR-L
Grassleaf arrowhead Sagittaria weatherbiana FSC SR-T
Pickering's dawnf lower Stylisma pickeringii var. pickeringii FSC E
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis FSC SR-T
Raven's seedbox Ludwigia ravenii FSC SH- I
Sandhills milkvetch Astragalus michauxii FSC T
Savanna indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. confusa FSC* T
Small-leaved meadowrue Thalictrum macrostylum FSC SR-L
Spiked medusa Pteroglossaspis ecristata FSC** E
Spring-flowering goldenrod Solidago verna FSC* SR-L
Tough bumelia Sideroxylon tenax FSC -
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC SR-L, SC
E Endangered
T Threatened
FSC Federal Species
of Concern
PE Proposed
Endangered
PT Proposed
Threatened
SC Special Concern
SR Significantly Rare
C Candidate
-L Limited
-T Throughout
* Historic Record
** Obscure Record
A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
A taxon "likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion
of its range."
A species that may or may not be listed in the future.(formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support listing.)
A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered but has not yet completed the
legally mandated listing process.
A species that has been formally proposed for listing as Threatened but has not yet completed the legally
mandated listing process.
Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North Carolina which is determined by the N.C.
Wildlife Resources Commission to require monitoring but which may be taken under certain regulations.
Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as Endangered,
Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
Species which are very rare in North Carolina and are substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction. They are also rare throughout their ranges and their fate depends on conservation in NC.
These species are likely to merit listing as Endangered or Threatened if habitat destruction continues.
Species which may have 20 to 50 populations in NC, but fewer than 50 populations rangewide.
These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total)
This species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
The date the element was last observed in the county or quad is uncertain.
Widening of Kerr Avenue from Randall Parkway to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway and Kerr Avenue, New Hanover County
TIP No. U-3338
Name of Stream Description
Curr. Class Date Prop. Class Basin Stream Index #
Fishing Creek From source to C;SW
Northeast Cape Fear
River
Dock Creek From source to C;Sw
Northeast Cape Fear
River
Northeast Cape From mouth of Ness SC;Sw
Fear River Creek to Cape Fear River
Ness Creek From source to C;Sw
Northeast Cape Fear
River
Smith Creek From source to C;Sw
Northeast Cape Fear
River
Spring Branch From source to Smith C;Sw
Creek
Burnt Mill Creek From source to Smith C;Sw
Creek
Mineral Springs From source to Burnt C;Sw
Branch Mill Creek
Greenfield Creek From Greenfield Lake to SC;Sw
Cape Fear River
Greenfield Lake Entire Lake C;Sw
Silver Stream From source to C;Sw
Branch Greenfield Lake,
Greenfield Creek
Clay Bottom Branch From source to C;Sw
Greenfield Lake,
Greenfield Creek
Jumping Run Branch From source to C;Sw
Greenfield Lake,
Greenfield Creek
Squash Branch From source to C;Sw
Greenfield Lake,
Greenfield Creek
Barnards Creek From source to Cape C;Sw
Fear River
Mott Creek (Todds From source to Cape C;Sw
Creek) Fear River
Silver Lake Entire lake and C;Sw
connecting stream to
Mott Creek
Lords Creek From source to Cape C;Sw
Fear River
Intracoastal From the eastern mouth SA;ORW
Waterway of Old Topsail Creek to
the western mouth of
Howe Creek
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-59
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-60
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-74-(61)
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-62
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-63
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-74-63-1
03/01/77 Cape Fear 18-74-63-2
08/01/85 Cape Fear 18-74-63-2-1
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76-1
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76-1-1
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76-1-2
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76-1-3
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-76-1-4
04/01/59 Cape Fear 18-80
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-82
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-82-1
09/01/74 Cape Fear 18-84
01101190 Cape Fear 18-87-(11.5)
Page 2 of 7
U-3338, WIDENING OF KERR AVENUE (SR 1175) FROM RANDALL PARKWAY TO SR 2649
POTENTIALLY IMPACTED WATERBODIES

??
.- ? 4 '?
err ?
"
?/ .

CONCURRENCE MEETING
INFORMATION PACKET
FOR YOUR REVIEW
PRIOR TO MEETING
ON JANUARY 19, 2006.
U-3338
COLISTA FREEMAN
Please bring this packet
to the meeting.

e?,sS?D
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
December 28, 2005
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Merger Team Members
FROM: Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
Project Development an nvironmental Analysis
SUBJECT: Widening of Kerr Avenue (SR 1175) from Peachtree Avenue to
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway (SR 2649), extension of Kerr
Avenue from Oleander Drive (US 76) to Peachtree Avenue, and an
interchange at Kerr Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway in
Wilmington; WBS Element: 34932.1.1, Federal Project No. STP-
1175(8), TIP Project No. U-3338
Attached for your files are the agenda and handouts for the Concurrence Points 1 and 2 Merger
Team meeting. The meeting is scheduled for Thursday, January 19, 2006 in the Board Room
(Room 150) of the NCDOT Transportation Building.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact, meat [phone],
ext. 227 or at csfreeman(a,dot.state.nc.us.
CSF
Attachments
CC: File
Bill Arrington, DCM
Brenda Moore, Roadway Design
Rekha Patel, Roadway Design
Allen Pope, Division 3
Nathan Phillips, Congestion Management
Earlene Thomas, TPB
Carl Goode, PDEA - HEU
Phil Harris, PDEA - NEU
Rob Hanson, PDEA
Brian Yamamoto, PDEA
Pam Williams, Mulkey, Inc
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
(w/o attachments)
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
NEPA/404 Merger Team
TIP Project No. U-3338
WBS Element 34932.1.1
Kerr Avenue Widening
From Peachtree Avenue to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway
Wilmington, New Hanover County
Purpose of Meeting:
The purpose of the meeting is to submit information to the Merger Team in order to reach
concurrence on Point 1, Purpose and Need and Study Area,
and Point 2, Alternatives for Detailed Study for
TIP Project No. U-3338.
Agenda:
I. Project Description
II. Project Purpose and Need
III. Alternatives for Detailed Study
Project Manager: Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
[phone] ext. 227
csfreemangdot.state.nc.us

I
j
i PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
' FOR
ADMINISTRATIVE ACTION ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT

? SR 1 1 75 (KERB AVENUE) WIDENING AND
EXTENSION FROM US 76 (OLEANDER DRIVE) TO
SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER KINGS JR. PARKWAY)
' NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
' FEDERAL-AID PROJECT No. STP-1 1 75(8)
j W.B.S. 34932.1.1

i NCDOT T.I.P. PROJECT No. U-3338
' US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION

' OCTOBER 2005

' PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
' 6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 1

' MULKEY

' ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS

1
1

1

1

Table of Contents
1.1 Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1
1.2 Proposed Action .................................................................................................................. ..1
1.3 Summary of Need for Proposed Action .......................................................................... .. 3
1.4 Purpose of Proposed Action ............................................................................................. ..3
1.5 Project Description ............................................................................................................. ..4
1.5.1 Project Setting ................................................................................................................. ..4
1.5.2 History of Project ........................................................................................................... 11
1.6 System Linkage .................................................................................................................... 11
1.6.1 Existing Road Network ................................................................................................. 11
1.6.2 Modal Interrelationships ................................................................................................ 12
1.6.2.1 Railroads .............................................................................................................. 12
1.6.2.2 Airports ................................................................................................................ 12
1.6.2.3 Transit .................................................................................................................. 12
1.6.2.4 Port of Wilmington ............................................................................................ 13
1.6.2.5 Bicycle Accommodations .................................................................................. 13
1.7 Social and Economic Conditions ...................................................................................... 14
1.7.1 Demographics ................................................................................................................. 14
1.7.2 Economic Characteristics .............................................................................................. 18
1.8 Transportation Plans ........................................................................................................... 20
1.8.1 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program ..................................................... 20
1.8.2 Thoroughfare Plan .......................................................................................................... 21
1.9 Roadway Capacity ............................................................................................................... 22
1.9.1 Existing Characteristics .................................................................................................. 22
1.9.2 Existing Conditions ........................................................................................................ 22
1.9.3 Projected Conditions ...................................................................................................... 25
1.10 Accident Analysis ................................................................................................................. 27
1.11 Citizen Involvement ............................................................................................................ 29
1.12 Natural Resources Summary ............................................................................................... 30
1.13 References .............................................................................................................................. 34
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

LJ

E
1

fl
1

Figures
Figure 1. Vicinity Map .............................................................................................................. 2
Figures 2a-e. Environmental Features ...........................................................................................6
Figure 3. Census Map .............................................................................................................16
Figure 4. Traffic Volumes ......................................................................................................23
Figure 5. High Quality Resource Areas ................................................................................32
Tables
Table 1. Project Schedule ...................................................................................................................1
Table 2. Population by Race ............................................................................................................ 15
Table 3. Population by Race in Cenus Tracts ............................................................................... 17
Table 4. Employment by Sector ..................................................................................................... 19
Table 5. Median Household Income and Poverty Status ............................................................ 20
Table 6. Educational Attainment .................................................................................................... 20
Table 7. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Unsignalized Intersections) ........................... 24
Table 8. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Signalized Intersections) ................................ 25
Table 9. 2030 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Unsignalized Intersections) ........................... 26
Table 10. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Signalized Intersections) .............................. 27
Table 11. Crashes by Type ............................................................................................................... 27
Table 12. Anticipated Stream Impacts in Linear Feet ................................................................. 31
Table 13. Anticipated Wetland Impacts in Acres ......................................................................... 31
Table 14. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ....................................................... 33
Appendix A - Supporting Information
Figure A. Existing Conditions Map
' Figure B. Thoroughfare Plan (1999)
Figure C. Wilmington Watersheds
Figure D. Burnt Mill Creek 100-Year Floodplain
' Figure E. Smith Creek 100-Year Floodplain
Environm ental Features Map Checklist

1-7

11
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

1 . 1 INTRODUCTION
' This project is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
2006-2012 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as U-3338. An environmental assessment
is underway in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as
' amended. The content of the document conforms to Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. This Purpose and Need
Statement is the first phase in the preparation of the environmental assessment, and will be
' incorporated into that document.

1.2 PROPOSED ACTION
The proposed action will widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Peachtree Avenue to SR 2649
(Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), and extend Kerr Avenue from Peachtree Avenue to US
76 (Oleander Drive) (Figure 1). An interchange will be constructed at Kerr Avenue and
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway; however, the interchange is a separate phase from the road
widening. In the NCDOT TIP, U-3338 is divided into three segments. Segment A is from
Oleander Drive to Randall Parkway, Segment B is from Randall Parkway to Martin Luther
King, Jr. Parkway, and Segment C is the interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
Right-of-way and construction let dates for the segments are as follows.
Table 1. Project Schedule
Segment ' Kerr Avenue Limits - Right of Way
Fiscal Year Construction
Fiscal Year
A From Oleander Drive to Unfunded Unfunded
Randall Parkway
B From Randall Parkway to 2009 2011
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway
C Interchange at Martin Luther King, 2009 Unfunded
Jr. Parkway
The existing roadway ranges from two to three lanes along the project length. The proposed
' action will widen Kerr Avenue to a four-lane divided curb and gutter section with a raised
23-foot median, 12-foot inside lanes, 14-foot outside lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic,
and a 10-foot berm with a 2-foot planting strip and 5-foot sidewalk.

1
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

Wilmington
i
International
Airport

°° }hnna NORTH CAROLINA
I? DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
z0m I :' ooc3
-r PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
]005
- - p ? b RJ1
2 -
Zf 64 ^ Sf ? ?mow !I
h0zz --
? till
III z00?
III a,zi
? -r- I 4,R9
l
_1059 %t,35
-? a J
- se
-132 ,
II S
?I
j NORTH CAROLINA
U-3338
SR 1175 (KERR AVENUE)
EXTENSION AND WIDENING
FROM US 76 (OLEANDER DRIVE)
TO SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER
KING, JR. PARKWAY)

a
OJECT
VICINITY MAP
FIGURE 1
NEW HANOVER COUNTY

1.3 SUMMARY ?F NEED FOR PROPOSED ACTION
The priman' needs of the proposed action are as follows:
• Tizl/fic eabacity deficiencies etiist aloe, KerrAl,enue.
Level of sen-ice analyses on unsignalized and signalized intersections in the project corridor
indicate that the majority of these intersections have a bevel of Service F in the years 2006
,Ind 2030 v-ith the existing infrastructure. These results indicate that there is more traffic
demand th.lii r( , ul capacity.
• S aJC'O! CrIW ei1T present dlte to tnrnino movements and traffic conoestlon, edpeclally at sereral
I n/cl-sedl oils.
\ safety analysis of the proposed project area indicated a total of 582 reported crashes on
Kerr Avenue during the period from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. Forty-nine
percent of the crashes were angle/left-turn related and thirty-live percent were rear-end type.
Data indicate that most angle/left-turn crashes were related to signal phasing and turning
movement problems, and most rear-end crashes were related to traffic congestion problems.
' 1.4 PURPOSE OF PROPOSED ACTION
The primary purpI>se Of the proposed action includes the following:

• Increase capacit ! to irnprote level of service along Kerr, -4
Improvements will be needed to increase capacity in order to raise level of service conditions
at most intersections in the proposed project area. The traffic capacity analysis summary is
presented in Section 1.9.
• 1: nhance safety on Kerr A ,enue.
A safety analvsis indicates that enhancements in signal phasing and changes in left-turn
movements will improve angle/left-turn crash types. Data also indicate that road widening
will enhance safety by reducing the number of rear-end type crashes. In addition, a median
with appropriate crossovers will contribute to safety by separating opposing traffic lanes,
controlling left-turn conflicts, and lowering crash rates.
J
SR 117; (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

11

1.5 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1 .5. 1 PROJECT SETTING
The proposed project is located in New Hanover County within the city limits of
Wilmington, which is the county seat. The Universitv of North Carolina at Wilmington
(UNCV) is located nearby. Kerr Avenue has been identified as one of three Education
Corridors, which form a triangle that connects the campuses of Cape Fear Community
College and UNC\X-. The Wilmington Urban Area,Metropolitan Planning Organization
(Wilmington MPO) considers the proposed project one of the top five project priorities in
the planning area.
Current land use in the project area is
urban, with a mixture of commercial
properties and private residences. The
northern end of the project area to
Market Street is mostly single-family
residential, with some multi-family units.
Wilmington International Airpoi-t is just
beyond the northern end of the project,
outside project limits.
Street, facing south. A heavily developed commercial area
exists between Market Street and
L,mcrson >ttect. I he area then transitions back to mostly residential units south to Randall
Parkway. The remainder of the project area south to Oleander Drive is largely commercial,
with single-family and multi-family housing interspersed throughout.
Communist- facilities along Kerr Avenue include New Covenant Church, Believers Destiny
Church, and Winter Park Church. Existing facilities and environmental features are shown
on Figures 2a-2e.
City planning staff evaluated a portion of the project area in a study that included North
Kerr avenue from Market Street to the city limits ('\'orth Ken^ Arerure Lund Use Sturdy, 1992).
The study found a stable pattern of land use, zoning, and redevelopment throughout the
sector. Recommendations included favoring rezoning of a residential area east of Kerr
Avenue between Market Street and McClelland Drive to "Office and Institutional District."
The recommendation suggested that the rezoning be done on an individual request basis
rather than in an overall zoning change.
The Cite- is currently developing a future land use plan. Conversations with City planning
staff indicate that land use in the project area is expected to transition from single-family to
higher density, possibly multi-family development in residential areas along Kerr Avenue
4
SR t 1-_` (herr AVenuC) Widcning and 1-1xtens1on from L S 76 (()Icander Dm-c; n
SR 2641) Martin Luther king, Jr. ParkNvav), New Hanoycr County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

north of Hoggard Drive to city limits. The Cite would be supportive of redeveloping the
area around Market Street into more viable commercial development.
The [Film' ton _y en, Hanorer Coin ly Joint Coastal Area Alanageneent Plan (2005 update draft) -\vas
reviewed for additional information on project setting and future plans. The Plan noted that
the Counn- and City are challenged with wisely allocating land use in the urban, urbanizing,
and rural areas for existing residents and projected newcomers. Between 2000 and 2020 it is
projected that an increase of 30,000 to 38,000 new people will be added to Wilmington and
New Hanover Count-. The Plan noted that during public surveys the major land use issue of
concern was the current growth rate being too fast. Survey respondents also expressed
interest in carefully planned economic growth, environmental protection, improved roads,
and infrastructure costs related to new development being paid for by developers.

i
t

0
t

I

SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover Countv, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

N N- IJ r 1 -• ? ? L .?
amm=o
r ? ? Z ? ? br > ?., ?':1i `t? '? - ? ? L _ ?F .t " 1 ? { ? i.l1e".'?,1' •??
mmm. N w e "kt, ,''
Z m N N `1 ?.+ a d !°°' a• ~'R_:,y,•?l?p _y.i t?..a i?i? , j I?. ?' '`'.` r ??i?'_ ,, '
.- t t!
rl,
Ilk, a ' f .mac- -
?/? i. Q14j?'S q r '? ?, 1.. 1 ' S -? ( y * rY Nd ?i? R { ,??.?''`. 5•, I
{ y'a.5t. ' {t''t d I ?Jty: ?? •?' ?,`, - n ?-;,"7l1,G4?i
0 1'11 :;
.?? ?y?????'i" 4,, t' ? ??` jam, _ r,y;•'q?.
a
Tl ?`? ? ? • f? fi'"?w°?!' ? r a. ?:^ ,? ,? ;fir,! „ + >?Y??? ?` }'7'?1e?`.
-a. t r - , I y 'ale
17
,c ?"??''• q?t... ?b?,•`j' ? J fk?j"' ? ?? ?? -'••r. ??a., ??F-_ "?? ^: ?LajIIy/_..
//D ? Y4. /rx,`?`?'?yf.-u' •. ? .? ? ik r? p I ??e?-y ='J? +?? .rl i ? T.. ?.
/ , + `M ? Y , may' {? rY
CID
CID
?l ? !F •?' °W? Pr'A? ?? '?7 ter per{ ''? 3 f?'? K.(:.. ? a{ •a?.I - 'd ;'
CID
Z +?'1?;r'.-? raAy-.?/?'? r ,. "t?•,at L.JM'ac` 1S'•- i ? ? _ Y4. {?f r?' `.
ii ' ?.. .. A,q,+? r AC ` -. ys-`?°.y ._. Y:t ti•' ` t?,j .
CID
17"e.
W .! ra•'r 1 ?a? a aa?{-.. i .4. w?f f t ? r 41
r'Q r4 ?`f.r" Yr? ?r
co Z /
/V T .??,.•-;'??` ..'a ' ;oar °a? ? t d+? ?.?ti?,': aR4•n-+ ..,.r `;''x`.sh,?Sr'f? ?,,:?2, 'fit"
W rn ??; f N Ali ?n{ z b
.. 1'?• µ
CID
f1 ? r ^ '??` ,? ,- ? t' r ?:,- -ih? •. ? ?? , ,'' !F? ...`A?i k'•?; ?r.. kt r-. y ,SIP' ?. f ?„u '?j?
O . V , i'' ?. _c, 4 ai' 'A 1 T l ? ?? ;'s ? z?" 4 ?`f,?- •? `?' ?? il,r$? ,?? ? ,.. ft 7 _. '?`
71 p to
n 1 Y' CxS? d 4_' e'. r 5 ''C'6?„ ?{•.r? t ` ?l
a It. ??.: a f j r f e J'
C O D D r, c r 15.•.'\ ~ f a? ref t h? E
T
z N N yy mod' . V O y ` t Y r?. AT o II
44
??.1?_;?g • S Y*
~ T o o v IS 1'- ??r R Pik-,;,s??y"?"'?'L• _ , .t °S??,F?°' ?a: _ Il,?.^ „a?.y. pp,?, .lif ?,[ !s ^??- i ???,.? ?
/ •' '
M'-? prV?? L ? 9Pj ?µAV ``w G_ r ?. ;?n. (p• ?4,?Yi'GAI '1
i i T ,??? •„?'. ` i2.. '? ? 14 Oy? k P I ?+4? - ?. ?1111'L?? f, ._. ,.Y.
, A71F f
Vf c f1 :E F,p
= o
N N
A
O r
I, I C?4
p po 7
I m
N om r
m
mT = o
C: P / O
D ?
T-n
c z
>z
t1 /
N c
fC
z
,?
0

F_,Do
?Como
3mm=x
rJJZN '?
CNN- tl
ZmNN
n? ? a¦
na ?
7
)

J
r
rn
W
O
O
Z
CCD
CD m
z
a D <
:0
o
CD 70

O
<
CD - z
rn
n E: C
c ? W
cm w
00
r-
Z go
rn
o
rn D
S
(D C

.
N 70
C/)
O O

Q
z c N °c v o
D Z
N N
Z r)
?0 00
z
Z D w
r N
A f1 2° a'
A N
P P
my Nc?
r) O O
D D
r O
Z
c
n n z
m 2 Z
?n O
? N
A
O
v
m m Oj
A N OJ Q
= O ?'Dp
C
? o z?
C ^ 0 z
m D
N <
N
CD

r -
m
C)
z
O
-n
•
G*
C
I
CD
0
n
O
N
m
m
N

O

rn
rn
N

t
' 1.5.2 HISTORY OF PROJECT
During the 1700s \Vilmington functioned several times as the seat of government for North
Carolina (%vw,?v.insiders.com). The cite flourished as a major port, shipbuilding center and
producer of pine forest products. It was the site of the largest cotton exchange in the world
at one point.
In the carp- 1800s Wilmington began to decline due to poor roads, few bridges, swamps
surrounding the citt,, inadequate medical and sanitation facilities, and navigation problems on
the Cape Fear River. With the advent of steam power and railroad and navigational
improvements to the river, the city began to prosper again, and by 1840 was the largest city
in the state. By 1910 the cite was no longer the state's largest due to the gro-, th of the
tobacco and tLVile industries inland.
Today \\ ilminron is a center for tourism, ,ith the do\v nto, n Historic District d!-avving
many visitors. The cite also is an educational hub. Nearby educational facilities include
t-LC\V', Cape Fear Community College, Mount Olive College, Shaw University, and Miller-
Motte Business College. As North Carolina's principal deep-water port, the North Carolina
State Port at Wilmington and some of the industrial complexes north of downto,-n host
hundreds of ships and barges every year. The cite continues to experience gro-,vth as a
miXturc of families and retirees rclocatc to the area.
Mr. Bill Pcnn,, A\ ilmington City Engineer, was interviewed for project history specific to
Kerr Avenue. Mr. Penny said that a bond referendum provided funds for the Cin to widen
Kerr Avenue from two to three lanes in the late 1980s to early 1990s. The original intent was
to widen the road to a five-lane section; however, the right-of-,vay cost was miscalculated
and did not take into account water and sewer line relocation. The City had to construct
three lanes instead of fire due to the cost.
7

1 .6 SYSTEM LINKAGE
1 .6. 1 EXISTING ROAD NETWORK
11
Kerr Avenue connects to US 17/74 (Market
Street) to the north. US 17 extends along
the Atlantic coast up to Jacksonville and
beyond into Virginia, and south into South
Carolina. US 74 extends ,vest, connecting
\Vilmington to Lumberton, Rockingham,
and Charlotte.
Martin Luther King, ,Jr. Parkwav and
Randall Parkway also intersect Kerr
Avenue. These are major east-,vest
SR 1173 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive's to
SR 2649 (,Alartin Luther hing, Jr. Parkwav), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

?11

corridors in the general urban area. These two routes, along with Market Street, connect to
NC 132, which extends north to Interstate 40 and south to US 421.
Kerr Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the Statewide Classification System. The
posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour. An existing conditions map showing functional
classifications of area roads is located in Appendix A, Figure A.
Sidewalks occur intermittently throughout the project area. There are no existing
accommodations for bicyclists.
1 .6.2 MODAL INTERRELATIONSHIPS
1.6.2.1 RAILROADS
' Railroads play an important role in the area by transporting goods from the Port of
Wilmington. CSX Transportation serves the area twice daily (www.ncports.com). Inland
service is provided by CSX Intermodal and Norfolk Southern. A connecting rail line with
interchanging cars between the port and the CSX system is operated by the North Carolina
Ports Railroad Commission.

1

There is a CSX line at Kerr Avenue just south of Market Street between Cinema Drive and
Franklin Avenue. At one time this track extended across Kerr Avenue, but is now paved
over at the crossing.
1.6.2.2 AIRPORTS
A back entrance to Wilmington International Airport property is located near the northern
end of the proposed project, but outside project limits. The North Carolina Army National
Guard 1 st Battalion Mechanized 120th Infantry facility is also located at this airport
entrance. Wilmington International Airport serves more than one half million people each
year (www.flyilm.com). It has a Federal Inspection Station that provides entry, clearance and
documentation for foreign flights by U. S. Customs, the Department of Agriculture and the
U. S. Immigration and Naturalization Service.
1.6.2.3 TRANSIT
The Wilmington Transit Authority (WTA) was designed to provide public transportation to
the citizens of the Wilmington area. In December 2002, the WTA adopted the name
"Wave," and a new logo to promote greater public awareness. In June 2003, WTA merged
with New Hanover Transportation Services (NHTS) to form the Wilmington/New Hanover
Transportation Agency (WNHTA). The merge agreement was for a time period of one year
to allow the merged Boards of the two agencies to hire a Transit Director and staff, plan for
legislation to create a new authority, and prepare for a long-term agreement
(www.wavetransit.com). In July 2004 the WTA, NHTS, and WNHTA were dissolved and
12
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

1
7

merged into a new transportation Authority called the Cape Fear Public Transportation
Authority. The new Authority kept the Wave name.
Wave operates six fixed transit routes Monday through Saturday, the Seahawk Shuttle that
serves UNCW, the Front Street Trolley, a downtown circulator, a taxicab voucher program,
and Dial-a-Ride Transportation for the mobility impaired. Route No. 4, Eastwood
Road/Cape Fear Hospital, uses the southern portion of Kerr Avenue from Wrightsville
Avenue to Randall Parkway. Route No. 1, East Wilmington/Long Leaf Park, travels briefly
on Kerr Avenue between Franklin Avenue and Market Street. Route No. 2 crosses Kerr
Avenue at Market Street.
Fixed route and human service transportation are offered on a countywide basis. The system
uses a 16-passenger mini-bus to take passengers to transfer points in the Wilmington area.
According to City planners, a bus transfer facility and maintenance facility are planned for
construction in the vicinity of New Centre Drive. The project is already funded and will be
approximately 4.5 to 6 acres in size. Once it is operational, all existing bus routes will be
restructured around it.
1 .6.2.4 PORT OF WILMINGTON
North Carolina Ports has extensive facilities at the Port of Wilmington, on the east bank of
the Cape Fear River approximately 26 miles from open sea (www.ncports.com). The Port of
Wilmington includes over one million square feet of covered storage, road and rail access to
all storage buildings, and an array of equipment to serve various operations. The U. S.
Department of Agriculture, U. S. Customs, and Immigration and Naturalization are present
at the port.
1.6.2.5 BICYCLE ACCOMMODATIONS
There are presently no accommodations for bicyclists on Kerr Avenue. The NCDOT's
ililmington Bike Map (April 1991) classifies Kerr Avenue north of Market Street as a
"Touring Route." Touring Routes are roads suited to recreational cyclists interested in riding
in the countryside. These routes are considered low-volume roads with little or no
congestion. It is likely that if the map were updated, this classification would change to
reflect higher traffic volumes and growth in the area.
Kerr Avenue south of Market Street to Wrightsville Avenue is classified as a "Busy Through
Route." These routes are defined on the bike map as arterial roads with an abundance of
through traffic.
' The City of Wilmington favors bicycle accommodations on Kerr Avenue for two reasons: to
make the city in general friendlier to cyclists, and because Kerr Avenue is an Education
Corridor close to UNCW. UNCW policy requires that students living within one mile of the
' 13
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338
1
' university either walk, use public transit, or bike to campus. No parking permits are issued
for students within a one-mile radius.
1.7 SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC CONDITIONS
' 1.7.1 DEMOGRAPHICS
New Hanover County is the second smallest county in the state. It encompasses just 198
' square miles, most of which is the city of Wilmington (www.insiders.com). According to the
Insiders Guide to North Carolina's Southern Coast and illilmington, the county's 2002 population
reflected a 31 percent growth rate from 1992 to 2002, making it one of the highest growth
' rates in the nation.
Information from the US Census Bureau reveals that between 1990 and 2000, the
' population of New Hanover County grew from 120,284 to 160,307. This reflects a 33
percent increase in population. During the same time period, Wilmington grew from 55,530
to 75,838, or approximately 37 percent. According to the North Carolina State
' Demographics Unit (April 2005), New Hanover County is projected to grow from 176,575
persons in July 2005 to 262,828 persons by April 2030, an increase of 49 percent. In
comparison, the State of North Carolina population is projected to increase by
' approximately 43 percent between July 2005 and April 2030.
On a percentage basis, the county is fairly comparable to the state in racial characteristics
' (Table 1). The county's White population is somewhat higher than the state, and the Black
or African American population is about four percent lower (www.census.gov). The county's
Hispanic or Latino population is about one half of the state's.
il
i
m
W
ngton has a slightly higher Black or African American population than the state. When
comparing the city and county characteristics for persons in this racial group, it is evident
that the city is an area of concentration for this population. The percentage for the Hispanic
or Latino population is about one half of the state's and is not notably higher than the
county.

1
' 14
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

1
Table 2. Population by Race

1

1
Race Wilmington New Hanover Co. North Carolina
53,516 128,098 5,804,656
White
70.6% 79.9% 72.1%
19,579 27,203 1,737,545
Black or African American
25.8% 17.0% 21.6%
American Indian/Alaska 266 627 99,551
Native 0.4% 0.4% 1.2%
682 1,333 113,689
Asian
0.9% 0.8% 1.4%
Native Hawaiian/Other 67 96 3,983
Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.1% 0.0%
868 1,266 186,629
Other Race
1.1% 0.8% 2.3%
860 1,684 103,260
Two or More Races
1.1% 1.1% 1.3%
Total 75,838 160,307 8,049,313
100% 100% 100%
Hispanic or Latino (any 1,991 35276 378,963
race) * 2.6% 2.0% 4.7%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000
*Hispanic or Latino populations are included within other racial totals. This row is provided in order
to better portray this portion of the population.

L

1
1
Kerr Avenue serves as a dividing line for several census tracts (Figure 3). Census Tracts 103
and 105.02 lie to the west of Kerr Avenue, and Tracts 116.01 and 105.01 lie to the east.
Census Tract 106 is located south of Oleander Drive and is not currently connected to Kerr
Avenue; however, when the Kerr Avenue extension is constructed this tract will abut the
new intersection at Oleander Drive, so it is included in this study.
Tract 103 has a high level of Black or African American persons (Table 2). Census data
indicate that within Tract 103, Black or African American persons are concentrated in Block
Groups 1 and 2. Block Group 2 is not adjacent to the project corridor.
15
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

VK?
C Census Tract 103.00
Block Group 1
F ensus Tract 103.00
ock Group 2
0 00
O
a

E PROJECT
O
Census Tract 105.01
m .... Block Group 1
Randall Pky N , ::::.. .
'?, sh o Census Tract 105.01 D o
Block Group 2
O/eanae?
r Dr
Legend
a B II PROJEC
Census Tracts
aD
Census Tract 103.00
Shipyard gtvd Census Tract 105.01
Census Tract 105.02
Census Tract 106.00
Census Tract 116.01
I_ CENSUS MAP Figure
U-3338
M U L K E Y SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension
from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King. Jr. Parkway)
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Prepared For:
1:50.000
Miles
VVV 0 0.5 1 2
"" n-" 2000 Census TIGER/Line Data

' Other notable statistics at the tract level are the percentages of Asian and Hispanic or Latino
persons in Tract 105.01. The Asian population in this tract is 2.7 percent. Although this is
not a very high percentage, it is noticeably higher than city, county, and state levels for this
' racial group. Census data indicate that Asian persons are fairly evenly distributed in Tract
105.01 between Block Groups 1 and 2.
' Tract 105.01 has a Hispanic or Latino population of 8.5 percent. Census data indicate that
Hispanic or Latino persons are more highly concentrated in Block Group 2 of this tract.
This block group is comprised of 12.9 percent Hispanic or Latino persons, and is adjacent to
' and east of Kerr Avenue between Wilshire Boulevard and Randall Parkway.
Table 3. Population by Race in Census Tracts

Race Tract 103 Tract 105.02 Tract 116.01 Tract 105.01 Tract 106
1,594 4,202 6,457 2,397 3,489
White
35.1% 75.9% 82.2% 71.8% 96.4%
2,829 1,097 1,119 660 79
Black or African American
62.4% 19.8% 14.2% 19.8% 2.2%
American Indian/Alaska 12 24 45 20 7
Native 0.3% 0.4% 0.6% 0.6% 0.2%
11 69 70 90 22
Asian
0.2% 1.2% 0.9% 2.7% 0.6%
Native Hawaiian/Other 5 2 3 4 1
Pacific Islander 0.1% 0.0% 0.0% 0.1% 0.0%
41 55 78 93 4
Other Race
0.9% 1.0% 1.0% 2.8% 0.1%
44 89 87 76 19
Two or More Races
1.0% 1.6% 1.1% 2.3% 0.5%
4,536 5,538 7,859 3,340 3,621
Total
100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
Hispanic or Latino (any 71 114 177 284 32
race)* 1.6% 2.1% 2.3% 8.5% 0.9%
' Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000
*Hispanic or Latino populations are included within other racial totals. This row is provided in order
to better portray this portion of the population.
' The number of persons 65 years and over is 15.3 percent at the city level, 12.8 percent for
the county, and 12.0 percent for the state. The slightly higher rate of older persons in the city
' 17
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
' SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

may be indicative of those who have migrated to the area upon retirement. The percentage
of persons 65 years and over is lower than city and county figures in all census tracts except
106. This age group comprises 30.8 percent of Tract 106. The tract consists of three block
groups, which have distributions of persons 65 years and over ranging from 20.2 percent to
34.8 percent.
1 .7.2 ECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS
The largest employment sector in New Hanover County is Educational/Health/Social
' Services. The Retail Trade and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation/Accommodation/Food
Service sectors are also strong (Table 3). Wilmington has similar statistics on a percentage
basis, which is not surprising since it encompasses such a large part of the county. The city's
' strong showing in Retail Trade and Arts/Entertainment/Recreation/Accommodation/Food
Service reflects the growing tourism industry, as well as the presence of the film industry at
EUE/Screen Gems Studios. The film industry is notable in the local economy, as more than
' 300 movies and seven television series have been filmed in Wilmington since 1983
(www.insiders.com). General Electric, Corning, and International Paper are large industrial
' employers in the county.
Retail Trade and Educational/Health/Social Services are strong employment sectors at the
state level. The state is notably higher than Wilmington and New Hanover County in
Manufacturing, which is the largest state employment sector.
' At the time of writing this document, 2004 annual unemployment averages had not been
calculated by the North Carolina Employment Security Commission (www.ncesc.com).
Unemployment rates in 2003 were 5.5 percent for the Wilmington Metropolitan Statistical
' Area, 5.3 percent for New Hanover County, and 6.5 percent for the state.

1

1

18
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

Table 4. Employment by Sector

11

Sector Wilmington New Hanover North Carolina
County
99 369 61,185
Agriculture/Forestry/Fishing/Mining
o
0.3/0
0.50 0
1.6%
3,193 8,130 312,038
Construction
8.7% 10.0% 8.2%
2,839 8,001 755,252
Manufacturing
7.8% 9.8% 19.7%
847 2,480 131,330
Wholesale Trade
2.3% 3.1% 3.4%
5,209 11,407 439,868
Retail Trade
14.2% 14.0% 11.5%
Transportation/Warehousing/Utilities 1,410 3,349 176,412
o
3.8 /0 0
4.1 /0 0
4.6 /o
1,105 2,013 89,797
Information
3.0% 2.5% 2.3%
Finance/Insurance/Real 2,349 5,060 231,222
Estate/Rental 6.4% 6.2% 6.0%
Professional/Scientific/Management/ 3,514 7,693 296,075
Administrative 9.6% 9.5% 7.7%
Educational/Health/Social Services 7,558 16,202 733,440
20.6% 19.9% 19.2%
Arts/Entertainment/Recreation/ 4,970 8,761 265,585
Accommodation/Food Service 13.6% 10.8% 6.9%
3,536 7,773 332,537
Other Services
9.6% 9.5% 8.7%
Source: United States Census Bureau, Census 2000
The median household income in Wilmington is about $9,000 lower than New Hanover
' County, and about $8,000 lower than the state average (Table 4). As expected, this correlates
with Wilmington's high percentage of persons below the poverty level. Of the five census
tracts studied for this project, the lowest median household income is found in Tract 105.01.
' The median household income in this tract is $23,441. Although Tract 103 has a higher
median household income at $28,338, the percentage of persons below the poverty level
(28.2 percent) is higher than that of Tract 105.01.

19
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

LI

1
1

Table 5. Median Household Income and Poverty Status
New Hanover
Characteristic Wilmington
County North Carolina
Median Household Income $31,099 $40,172 $39,184
Percent Below Poverty Level 19.6% 13.1% 12.3%
Poverty level statistics in general can be associated with educational attainment. Persons with
a higher level of education generally have higher incomes and therefore are less likely to be
in the category of persons below the poverty level. Although Wilmington has a lower
percentage of people with less than a high school diploma when compared to the state
(Table 5), the city still fares worse in the percentage of persons below the poverty level. It
may be that on a statewide basis there are better paying jobs for those less educated than in
the comparably small area of Wilmington.
Table 6. Educational Attainment

Population 25 Years and Over
Wilmington New Hanover
County
North Carolina
Less Than High School Diploma 16.9% 13.7% 21.8%
High School Diploma 23.1% 24.5% 28.4%
Bachelor's Degree or Higher 31.0% 31.0% 22.5%
1 .8 TRANSPORTATION PLANS
1.8.1 NCDOT TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM
' Projects in the NCDOT 2006-2012 TIP that are near the proposed Kerr Avenue project are
presented below.
' Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway (TIP No. U-92) is under construction and is partially
completed. The project is a four-lane divided highway on new location and extends from
US 17 to US 74.
' 20
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338
1

171

1

1

Other projects that are locally funded and
regionally significant include Randall
Parkway widening and Independence
Boulevard widening.
The Randall Parkway project consists of
widening 1.7 miles between Independence
Boulevard and College Road. The
Independence Boulevard project consists
of widening 2.9 miles from two to four
lanes between River Road and Shipyard
Boulevard.
There is a new location portion of New Centre Road has been constructed by a private
developer. It intersects Kerr Avenue near the northern end of the proposed project, across
from Sunglow Drive.
' 1 .8.2 THOROUGHFARE PLAN
' The proposed project is shown on 1999 Vilmington MPO Thoroughfare Plan mapping as a
Major Thoroughfare. The proposed extension to Oleander Drive is shown, as well as the
proposed interchange at Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway (U-3338). Earlier versions of
' 21
t SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338
• TIP No. U-4733 proposes to widen Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1148) at the intersection of
Independence Boulevard (SR 1209), and make improvements between Wilshire
Boulevard (SR 2313) and Forest Hills Drive.
• Independence Boulevard Extension (TIP No. U-4434) will have partial funding for
right-of-way beginning in 2010. The project proposes 1.8 miles of new construction
between Randall Parkway and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
• TIP No. U-4718 proposes to provide intersection improvements at College Road and
Oleander Drive.
• FS-0503A is a feasibility study to construct a freeway on new location from Kerr Avenue
to I-40.
North Carolina Department of Transportation Moving Ahead Projects in the project area
are listed below.
• NC 133 and US 117/NC 132 intersection at Castle Hayne proposes redesign of the
intersection and a possible roundabout.
• NC 132 and SR 1272 (New Center Drive) proposes dual lefts on NC 132 northbound
and upgrading a signal.

1
1

1
1

Wilmington thoroughfare plans do not include the Martin Luther King, Jr. interchange (U.S.
Department of Transportation, FHWA, and NCDOT, July 1991). Thoroughfare Plan
mapping in the City's Transportation Plan (City of Wilmington Transportation Planning, 1999)
shows Kerr Avenue in the project area as nearing capacity (map dated October 25, 1993). In
year 2025 Kerr Avenue is shown as over capacity. A portion of the Thoroughfare Plan map
in the project area is provided in Appendix A, Figure B.
1 .9 ROADWAY CAPACITY
1.9.1 EXISTING CHARACTERISTICS
Kerr Avenue is classified as a Minor Arterial in the Statewide Classification System. The
existing roadway consists of a three-lane curb and gutter section from Peachtree Avenue to
Wilshire Boulevard, three-lane shoulder section from Wilshire Boulevard to Market Street,
and a two-lane shoulder section from Market Street to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. The
posted speed limit is 45 miles per hour.
The primary need for improvement on Kerr Avenue is to increase roadway capacity to meet
current and future traffic demand. There is also a need to enhance safety, which can be
achieved by construction of a median, increasing capacity, signal phasing, and changes in
left-turn movements.
1.9.2 EXISTING CONDITIONS
The 2006 average daily traffic (ADT) along Kerr Avenue ranges from 10,300 to 26,500
vehicles per day (vpd) (Figure 4). The percentages of truck traffic are three percent dual tired
vehicles and two percent truck-tractor semi trailer. Level of service (LOS) in 2006 on
' existing infrastructure is presented in Tables 6 and 7 for unsignalized and signalized
intersections.
1

1

1
1
The LOS information in Tables 6 and 7 provides a qualitative measure that characterizes the
operational conditions within a traffic stream and the perception of traffic service by
motorists and passengers. The Transportation Research Board's Highway Capacity Manual
generally describes these conditions in terms of such factors as speed and travel time,
freedom to maneuver, traffic interruptions, and comfort and convenience. Six levels are
used, ranging from A to F. For roadways, LOS A indicates no congestion. LOS F represents
more traffic demand than road capacity and extreme delays.
As shown in Table 6, 17 of the 21 unsignalized intersections have an LOS F in one or both
of the peak hour conditions. Table 7 indicates that three of the five signalized intersections
have an LOS F in both AM and PM peak hour conditions.
22
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
It9 6 p _?
20J8
393 "? ? X666 i s, - ?, PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
J? / 3383 ` \? ??-+._ 3858 132
p ?i 190 _ , 13005 _
International R05' 1004
2006 ADT
Airport 17,400
a
_J /wo s , 2030 ADT
2-
32,200 662 17,600 -
4f: ]851 B B _ 2056 1013
a 32° 32,400
William zsse
AND PROJECT 299 ?, - =I

> - 30,000
Maids ?r?aK'n
Park Jr. DS
J NORTH CAROLINA
53,600 r -
55,700
McClelland Dr. 95,400 Y
100,000 n75 4 a -
Louis Dr. 17,200 1 13'a 1 Ilzt2e
r p93 i31
30,000
2104 5 J 7-1
SMITH CREEK Aw daZ °J 629
°
J14 g'I? -.1089 25
N8 is i 1960 _,w..
SSS
n
1175 1979 L2. L? -
ntree Rd. ' - _
7 -- -
x Martin Lug 2649
Jr P 32
Qj q 17,200
W B 1301
Elementary
Sch __ ej?q IM a(Ke 1272.., o t
? t I 4 Jli
y 13
?) inema Or 0
? ', prankGn _ pv? 26,500
GS/? 46,277
1175 NEW HANOVER COUNTY
24,200
?
/ Emetsorts? oAnwaL Ave- \` 41,600
LMI.NGTON
_Rani
Randall Pk Patdd?
Burnt I 3%
18,700 -?Yco„_ ?C? v
a
/3: l 1175
Q f.
18,700
3 X600
?? ??? C?darA
a
m Maple ;Ave.
'? 11]5 A L Bi ,(/ T-?
_ , ? Av??? _ eso I
A ?
10,300 _ °
/'nter
18,200 Pai
,277 entz
- - - _??
n 149,
36,600 - 57,300
- - 67,800 111,100 _ ?'
_I
x'1209
AT?nnan Rolarttf-GriSBi
Elementary Sch. Middle
I / o
University of
North Carolina
At WilmingtQn
23,100
40,000
,200 U-3338
I ? 11133,800
SR 1175 (KERR AVENUE)
I^ WIDENING AND EXTENSION
66,700 FROM US 76 OLEANDER DRIVE)
67,700 TO SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER
ry KING, JR. PARKWAY)
OJECT
TRAFFIC VOLUMES
FIGURE 4

Table 7. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Unsignalized Intersections)
0

1

1

1

u
1

1
Kerr Avenue intersection 2006
with: AM Peak PM Peak
Alandale Drive WB F F
Greentree Road WB F F
Sagedale Drive WB F F
Fairlawn Drive EB F F
McClelland Drive EB D D
McClelland Drive WB F F
Cinema Drive EB F F
Store Entrance WB F F
Franklin Avenue WB F F
Emerson Street EB F F
Greenway Avenue WB F F
Millcreek Court EB F F
Patrick Avenue WB F F
Kimberly Way WB D C
Hoggard Drive EB F F
Fountain Street WB F F
Cedar Avenue WB F E
Maple Avenue EB F F
Maple Avenue WB F F
Park Avenue EB D D
Park Avenue WB C C
24
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

u

Table 8. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Signalized Intersections)
Kerr Avenue intersection with:
2006
AM Peak PM Peak
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway C C
Market Street F F
Randall Parkway F F
Wilshire Boulevard F F
Wrightsville Avenue C A
1 .9.3 PROJECTED CONDITIONS
' The projected 2030 ADT ranges from 18,200 to 46,200 vpd. Truck traffic remains at three
percent dual tired vehicles and two percent truck-tractor semi trailer. Projected peak hour
' characteristics on existing infrastructure are presented in Tables 8 and 9 for both
unsignalized and signalized intersections in the year 2030.
' Table 8 shows that by 2030, all unsignalized intersections will have an LOS F on the existing
infrastructure. Table 9 indicates that four of the five signalized intersections will have an
LOS F on the existing infrastructure by the year 2030, and the remaining intersection will
' have an LOS E, which is still below the minimum acceptable LOS D.

I

25
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

Table 9. 2030 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Unsignalized Intersections)

7

7
Kerr Avenue intersection 2030
with: AM Peak PM Peak
Alandale Drive WB F F
Greentree Road WB F F
Sagedale Drive WB F F
Fairlawn Drive EB F F
McClelland Drive EB F F
McClelland Drive WB F F
Cinema Drive EB F F
Store Entrance WB F F
Franklin Avenue WB F F
Emerson Street EB F F
Greenway Avenue WB F F
Millcreek Court EB F F
Patrick Avenue WB F F
Kimberly Way WB F F
Hoggard Drive EB F F
Fountain Street WB F F
Cedar Avenue WB F F
Maple Avenue EB F F
Maple Avenue WB F F
Park Avenue EB F F
Park Avenue WB F F
26
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1.10
Table 10. 2006 LOS on Existing Infrastructure (Signalized Intersections)
Kerr Avenue intersection with:
2030
AM Peak PM Peak
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway E E
Market Street F F
Randall Parkway F F
Wilshire Boulevard F F
Wrightsville Avenue F F
ACCIDENT ANALYSIS
Traffic accident information was analyzed along Kerr Avenue from NC 132 (College Road)
to Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway. A total of 582 crashes were reported during the period
from January 1, 2000 to December 31, 2002. The reports included 221 non-fatal injury
crashes and 361 property damage only crashes. Table 10 provides a summary of crashes by
type for the study area, and comparisons to New Hanover County and statewide data for
urban secondary roads.
Table 11. Crashes by Type

Exposure Type SR 1175 from NC

132 to SR 2649 New Hanover

County
Statewide
Total Crash Rate 1091.40 288.95 426.57
Fatal Crash Rate 0.00 0.40 1.14
Non-Fatal Injury Crash Rate 414.43 101.66 144.21
Night Crash Rate 217.53 55.54 92.65
Wet Crash Rate 206.28 45.20 71.92
Note: Crash rates are in accidents per 100 million vehicle miles of travel.
27
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

' The largest percentage of crashes on Kerr Avenue occurred within two predominant crash
types:
Crash Type Number of Crashes Percent of Total
Angle/Left-turn 283 49%
Rear-end 206 35%
The overall safety and operation of Kerr Avenue can be enhanced by widening and
improving the travel lanes of the existing roadway. In addition, the following safety
' enhancement measures are offered for consideration:
Traffic congestion at Kerr Avenue and NC 132 during peak hours is resulting in
' numerous rear-end crashes due to the queue from other signals backing up into this
intersection. Re-evaluate signal timing during peak hours and coordinate with others in
' the vicinity.
• There are a number of left-turn crashes at Kerr Avenue and Wrightsville Avenue caused
by drivers not yielding properly on the permitted phase. Re-phasing the left turns from
permitted to protected on Kerr Avenue should help reduce crashes.
• A specific pattern of angle crashes indicates a possible sight distance problem at Kerr
Avenue and Park Avenue. Consider realigning the horizontal curve on Kerr Avenue
south of the intersection to improve sight distance.
' • Removal of late night flash mode or delaying the start of late night flash until 1:00 a.m.
for the following intersections should help reduce the number of angle and left-turn

F1
L
II

1

failure to yield crashes:
Kerr Avenue at Randall Parkway Kerr Avenue at Wilshire Boulevard
Kerr Avenue at Market Street Kerr Avenue at Wrightsville Avenue
There were a large number of crashes along Kerr Avenue from NC 132 to Market Street
caused by vehicles turning into the center turn lane and/or drivers improperly traveling
in the center turn lane. Consider dividing the facility and limiting turn lanes to major
driveways and intersections only.
• There were a number of left-turn crashes at the intersection of Kerr Avenue and Randall
Parkway caused by left-turning drivers on Kerr Avenue trying to sneak through at the
end of the phase on the yellow or red. Re-phasing the left turns from permitted to
protected on Kerr Avenue should help to reduce these crashes.
A large number of crashes occurred as vehicles turned left into or out of the Hardees
driveway just south of the Kerr Avenue/Market Street intersection. The proximity of
this driveway to the multi-lane intersection is hazardous. A raised median to prevent left
turns should alleviate this crash pattern and allow the driveway to remain open.
28
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

u
1

1
• General traffic congestion on Kerr Avenue is causing rear-end crashes along the project
length because of stopped and slow-moving traffic. These crashes should be alleviated
with the widening of the roadway and re-timing of all signals along Kerr Avenue.
1 .1 1 CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT
Two Citizens Informational Workshops have been held for the proposed project. Notices
were posted and newsletters were mailed to citizens prior to the workshops. The first
workshop was held on April 26, 2004 at the Roland-Grise Middle School in Wilmington.
Handouts and displays were provided to introduce the project to attendees. Eighty-three
citizens attended the workshop. Comments and concerns included the following:
Topic of Comment
Concern about driveway access.
Consideration of a five-lane section in lieu of a median.
Concern that the median will promote commercial
development where it is residential now.
Concern for Winter Park Church and church parking.
Opposed to the median due to possible loss of parking
space and customers.
Concern that a two-foot allowance for bicyclists is not
enough. Request for a minimum of four feet.
Desire to maintain an opening in the median on Oleander
opposite Capital Ford (not part of this project).
29
Number of Comments
Received
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

The second Citizens Informational Workshop was held on June 24, 2004 at the New
Hanover County Commissioner Chambers in Wilmington. Forty-eight citizens attended the
' workshop. A summary of comments is provided below.
Topic of Comment Number of Comments
' Received
Against a median. 3
Supportive of four lanes. 3
' Access and loss of parking concerns. 4
Preserving sensitive natural areas. 1
' Supportive of bike lanes. 1
Recommend full intersection at Oleander and Kerr. 1

' 1.12 NATURAL RESOURCES SUMMARY
Natural resources field investigations were conducted for the proposed project from August
' to October 2003 (Mulkey Engineers and Consultants, May 2004). The objective of the field
investigations were to: determine existing natural conditions; document the occurrence of
waters of the U.S., natural communities, and wildlife; and determine the presence of
threatened and endangered species or their habitats. Investigations were conducted using a
study corridor approximately three miles long and 300 feet wide, which covered
approximately 110 acres. The following summarizes the results of the field investigations and
' natural resources report.
• The project is located within Cape Fear River subbasin 03-06-23. Burnt Mill Creek, an
' unnamed tributary to Burnt Mill Creek, an unnamed tributary to Spring Branch, and an
unnamed tributary to Smith Creek are the primary surface waters in the study
area. Spring Branch, a tributary to Smith Creek, is located just outside the northern
boundary of the project corridor. Maps depicting Wilmington watersheds and Smith
Creek and Burnt Mill Creek 100-year floodplains are located in Appendix A, Figures C
D, and E.
"
"
• Burnt Mill Creek, Smith Creek, and Spring Branch are currently designated as
C, Sw
by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ. The USGS hydrologic unit
' for the streams is 03030007. Burnt Mill Creek is designated as a 303(d) stream. Spring
Branch and Smith Creek are not classified as 303(d).
' Hydraulic design in the watershed of Burnt Mill Creek and within 575 feet of
Outstanding Resources Waters (ORW) or High Quality Resources (HQR) must adhere
to design standards of sensitive watersheds. The Kerr Avenue extension from Peachtree
r 30
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338
1
Avenue to Oleander Road is located in a High Quality Waters/ORW area. Figure 5
presents High Quality Resources near the project area.
• Anticipated stream impacts are shown in Table 11. Impacts were calculated using a worst
case maximum right-of-way of 120 feet on Kerr Avenue, plus a larger area to
compensate for the proposed interchange and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
• Stream and wetlands were delineated within the project corridor. Estimated impacts are
provided in Tables 12 and 13.
Table 12. Anticipated Stream Impacts in Linear Feet
Stream
Number#
Stream
Impacts
1 Burnt Mill Creek 0 to 240
2 Burnt Mill Creek UT 10 to 70
6 Spring Branch UT 40
Total 0 to 340
#Numbers correspond to Environmental Features Map (Figures 2a-2e).
Table 13. Anticipated Wetland Impacts in Acres
Wetland Impacts
C 0.20
D (northern) 0.01
D (southern) 0.29
E 0.07
F 0.03
L
Total 0.60
31
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338
T?
E, V -i "I
Eq7f?END PROJECT

0

BEGIN PROJECT

0
0

Legend
l
~ /??yo Kerr Avenue
^jl Z- i Tributaries
Streams
U _ -
Roads
ORW, HQW Designated Areas
Fish Nu~sery Areas
HIGH QUALITY RESOURCE AREAS Figure No.
M U L K E Y U-3338
Widening
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension
from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649 (MLK, Jr. Parkway)
New Hanover County, North Carolina
Prepared For: s-70s
Mlles
5 2
Data Source: NCCGIA 1998

Anticipated terrestrial community impacts are shown in Table 14.
Table 14. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Impacts (acres)
Alluvial Forest 0.51
Bottomland Hardwood 1.10
Swamp Forest 0
Mixed Pine-Hardwood Forest 2.21
Man-Dominated Areas 45.5
• A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 14 and a Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification (WQC #3404) are likely to be required for impacts to surface waters and
wetlands determined to be under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the NCDWQ. A
Coastal Area Management Act permit will not be required.
Habitat for federal protected species was not observed during field investigations. No
federal endangered or threatened species are expected to be affected by project
construction.
Natural Heritage Program maps were reviewed on July 11, 2003 to determine if any
protected species have been identified near the study area. The map review confirmed
that two state protected species are located within a one-mile radius of the project site:
Southern hognose snake (Heterodon simus) and Venus flytrap (Dionaea mus(ipula). Both are
classified as Federal Species of Concern. One occurrence of the Southern hognose snake
is documented near the southern terminus of the study area, northwest of the
intersection of Oleander Drive and College Road (Figure 2a NHP site). Three
populations of the Venus flytrap have also been documented near the southern terminus
of the project. These populations are outside the boundaries of project maps.
33
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

1 .1 3 REFERENCES
' City of Wilmington. www.ci.wilmington.nc.us.
' City of Wilmington Office of Planning Staff. 1992. North KerrAvenue Land Use Study.
City of Wilmington Transportation Planning and NCDOT Statewide Planning. 1999.
' Wilmington Urban Area Transportation Plan 1999-2025.
Insiders' Guide to NC's Southern Coast and Wilmington. www.insiders.com/wilmington.
' Mulkey Engineers and Consultants. May 2004. T.I.P. Pr iect U-3338, KerrAvenue Widening &
Extension, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
' New Hanover County. 2004. Comprehensive Plan. www.nhcgov.com.
North Carolina Department of Transportation. 2003. A Safety Analysis of SR 1175 (Kerr Ave.)
from NC 132 (College Ave.) to SK 2649 (Smith Creek - MLK Pkwy) in New Hanover County.
Safety Planning Section, Traffic Safety Systems Management Unit.
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. 1995. Feasibility Study, KerrAvenue (SK 1175)
from Wrightsville Avenue (SR 1148) to Market Street (US 17-74).
' North Carolina Department of Transportation. April 1991. Wilmington Bike Map.
www.ncdot.org.
' North Carolina Employment Security Commission. 2004. www.ncesc.com.
North Carolina State Demographics Unit. Population Overview reviewed on-line April 2005.
http://demog.state.nc.us.
Port of Wilmington. www.ncports.com.
' B
r
ns
ov
C
U
S
eau. www.ce
us.g
.
ensus
u
.
.
' U.S. Department of Transportation, FHWA, and NCDOT. July 1991. Final Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, Proposed Smith Creek Parkway and Downtown Spur.
Wave Transit. vvww.wavetransit.com.
Wilmington International Airport. www.flyilm.com.
' Wilmington-New Hanover County Joint Coastal Area Management Plan (2005 update draft)
' 34
' SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to
SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), New Hanover County, North Carolina
TIP No. U-3338

n

Appendix A
Supporting Information
l
G?
ter,
j

N
CD

n y v Begin Project
?o Sh,pyar?
1-140
?a
?c
?a
'moo
CD
End Project
"Isvill 'Ave
Wilmington MPO
Existing Conditions Map
Functional Classification
Neighborhood Collector
Urban Collector
0) Rural Major Collector

_O Urban Minor Arterial
O -°?--? Urban Principal Arterial
U Rural Principal Arterial
Urban Interstate

a Local Streets
N
Rail Type
Ex sting Rail Access W Ei
Q Water Features
O
O S
?
e'N Map Date 01\19\2004
Dry of ftfl-gton GIs
v.?proje istransp?fcia,supdate?e,,st,ngwndinons.mxd
Prepared for: Existing Roadway Conditions Map
U-3338
SR 1 175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from
US 76
(Oleander Drive) to SR 2649
M U LK EY (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
?! O! TR ANSQ
Figure A
Kerr Ave
INSET ? _ r?-T ??, •M
'Y - -
? ? \ r ? < 111
-- Begin Project
CSY ?\/"L_?' (t ? v ?`, I\\ t?lwpv 7?? \1 4? fNMt ?J/ /i •??? /,
End Project t?
Al
Sav e r '?? ^7 S.. ?.
`
? / J• 1 I ?Adton + L 'V-1
If
I
BELVILLE ?C J f L a bi l\^^ _?? \ ??
1 IT- VL r \\
ss
EAGLE t y l8 r _ ` ( V\``? l? t/ fir. \ \ -?
Proposed r „; ^ y ?? ^\? i s f z, v
ti GREATER WILMINGTON MUNC
URBAN AREA
THOROUGHFARE PLAN SE NOT
ARFA
LEGEND< a?+ow: / 16
EXISTING PROPOSED
FREEWAY \
TxoRWGGHFARE Y?II r' f? ? i J y N
L
MNOR
THOROUGHFARE ......
J r? L i W E
INTERCHANGE
7.' f '
GRADE ,f ` s C
SEPARATI0N J
ROUH0 ABOUT
'- Prepared for: Thoroughfare Plan
U-3338
OF N00.1114R
.? SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension
x from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649
(Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
MULKEY yF?.o,laNS°°Figure B

End Project
4-
Y•.
Beg- P r D ec:
?T
Drainage Routes of Wilmington Watersheds
Watershed Name Drains to
Pages Creek Intracoastal Waterway
Howe Creek Intracoastal Waterway
Bradley Creek Intracoastal Waterway
Hewletts Creek Intracoastal Waterway
Whiskey Creek Intracoastal Waterway
Smith Creek Cape Fear River
Greenfield Lake Cape Fear River
Burnt Mill Creek Cape Fear River
Bamards Creek Cape Fear River
Upper Cape Fear Cape Fear River
Lower Cape Fear Cape Fear River
Prepared tor: Wilmington Watersheds
%' U-3338
P?
01, SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension
from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649
(Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
M U L K E Y yf?. ra Se
Figure C
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1

y4P ` IO
0
29

''\ Goa
ZONE B
'
o I 1A X 13Y li
y4 3 1 ?? ti BONE A5 i?
y?
V .
ZONE B
28\' ?? >_ p9" p
RAID ?a?
ZONE A5
Ir_
T 4 'ZONEB
E DECATUR
k ": t DRIVE
?'?ate
??
y 95 2 _ - - ::D
N O
T_ m z ?c
T_ c; '

"WLN ? 9 ? -MONTCLAI
DRIVE
P?
E B P
'-??R

Il? I< m
ZONE B
. C ?i CEDAR
U ZONE m < I `?
B tib z ? Im
Il 'C ~
,GARDEN AVEJ I?
ZONE C
r:
U111 I Fedenl Flttergency Mmagement Agency
'e 'a otf c'el copy of a paVOn of the etww referenced flood map tt I
n extraoted sing F MIT On Une This map does not reflect changes
a endments wfilch may have been made subsequent to the date on the
e dock For the latest product information about Natonal Flood Insurance
ogram food maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at w.wi mac fema. gov
Prepared for: Burnt Mill Creek 100-Year Floodplain
U-3338
OQ,40RTH SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from
US 76
?o (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649
T9,. PtiP
-- M U LK EY (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
??NrOf TRANSpO
ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
Figure D
I
RM12
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1000 O 1000 FEET
(IIIIIIIIIIIIIIII NATIONAL FLOOD INSURANCE FROMM 1
FIRM
FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
CITY OF
WILMINGTON,
NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
PANEL 5 OF 10
-- COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
370171 0005 C
i MAP REVISED:
NOVEMBER 4, 1987
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
APPROXIMATE SCALE
1000 O 1000 FEET
MMI NOTIONAL FLOOR INSURANCE PROGRAM
IE B
VAli
oRQO ZONE A4 \ FIRM
RM4 x ZONE C FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP
LANDALE GPEEe
DRIVE ZONE A6\
\ (EL 9) CITY OF
ZONE B ZONE> WILMINGTON,
Z NORTH CAROLINA
NEW HANOVER COUNTY
\\ I
PANEL 5 OF 10
'_ONE B \ C0
\ ` \9qT
9,?
COMMUNITY-PANEL NUMBER
3701710005 C
Y \ MAP REVISED:
NOVEMBER 4, 1987
Federal Famsency Madagement Agency
\ / TMs is sn oladal coq of • poman "'the -bow refsnncsd hood r
was extracted using EMIT OmUne. IN% mop don not refteet c
ZONE C or amendmema which may have been made subseque t to the
?. litle block. For the latest product hdoMotim about NadoMl Fla
Pmgnm food maps check the FEMA Flood Map Store at www.r
Prepared for: Smith Creek 100-Year Floodplain
OE,iORi U-3338
l, S1q
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension
* from US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649
(Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
aa?- M U L K E Y ?fhr0, ?ANS=°?
ENGINEERS 5 CONSULTANTS Figure E

I

1

1

J
'l

1

1

1
Environmental Features Map Checklist
SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Widening and Extension from
US 76 (Oleander Drive) to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway)
TIP Project No. U-3338 Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence Concurrence
1 2 2A 3 4
Stud area X
Topography (Separate quad sheet may be necessary) 10' contours
Labeled community features (boundaries, schools,
churches, community centers, hospitals, transit
dependent areas, demographics, potential X
environmental justice areas, worship centers,
cemeteries, etc.
100-Year Flood lain limits if available digitally) X
Known historic properties and possible areas of
archaeological concern: Field delineated starting with

Concurrence Point 2A for new location projects and None
Concurrence Point 2 for widening projects.
Wetlands and Streams: Field delineated starting with
Concurrence Point 2A for new location projects and X
Concurrence Point 2 for widening projects.
River basins (Boundary lines if located within study
Cape Fear
area
Water supply watersheds X
Wildlife refuges and game lands None

areas, parks and greenwa s
None
r ?7-7
' ;r
w « ,
Known hazardous material Sites None
Known threatened and endangered species
X f
1 x
3
information: Field verified starting with Concurrence `
'
Point 2A for new location projects and Concurrence None within } s^
Point 2 for widening projects. study area
High quality resources: Field verified starting with {
Concurrence Point 2A for new location projects and X =
Concurrence Point 2 for widening projects. J.
Major Natural Heritage Program Areas X
Utilities: Only included at Point 2A (for new location
projects) and Point 2 (for widening projects) and 1
subsequent concurrence meetings.
Prime and important farmland: Only included at Point
2A (for new location projects) and Point 2 (for widening None
projects) and subsequent concurrence meetings.
'
Study corridors based on functional design: For new
location projects, this information will be presented at -
Concurrence Point 2 and beyond. For widening X
projects, this information will be determined and
.Y
, b:z
concurred upon at Concurrence Point 1. `
Preliminary design data (Construction limits or right
of way limits) within all study corridors: For new
location and widening projects, this data is presented at
-
Concurrence Points 2A and 3 only.
Preliminary design data (Construction limits or right
of way limits) of LEDPA: For new location and ;t
widening projects, this data is presented at Concurrence
Point 4A only.
Control of access limits: For both new location and
widening projects, this information will be presented at
Concurrence Point 2A and beyond.
Obvious service road locations: For both new
location and widening projects, this information will be
resented at Concurrence Point 2A and beyond.

ALTERNATIVES TO CARRY FORWARD
SR 1 1 75 (KERR AVENUE) WIDENING AND
EXTENSION FROM US 76 (OLEANDER DRIVE) TO
SR 2649 (MARTIN LUTHER KING? JR. PARKWAY)
NEW HANOVER COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. STP-1 1 75(8)
W.B.S. 34932.1.1
NCDOT T.I.P. PROJECT No. U-333B
US DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NOVEMBER 2005
PREPARED BY
MULKEY ENGINEERS & CONSULTANTS
6750 TRYON ROAD
CARY, NORTH CAROLINA 2751 1
MULKEY
ENE3INEERS & CONSULTANTS
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project will widen SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) from Peachtree Avenue to SR 2649
(Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway), and extend Kerr Avenue from Peachtree Avenue to L'S 76
(Oleander Drive). An interchange is proposed at Kerr Avenue and Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
PURPOSE AND NEED
The present and forecasted traffic along the
project limits of Kerr Avenue exceeds the
road's capacity, creating undesirable levels of
service. Improvements are needed to provide
congestion relief. In addition, without
improvements, the number of accidents will
likely rise as traffic volumes continue to rise.
WIDENING ALTERNATIVE TYPICAL SECTION
The design standards will provide a 50 mile per hour (mph) design. The proposed project will widen
herr Avenue to a four-lane divided roadway with a 23-foot raised median. The outside travel lanes
will be 14 feet to accommodate bicycles and the inside lanes -,will be 12 feet. Sidewalks are proposed
along both sides of Kerr Avenue. All-movement crossovers will be spaced a minimum of 1,200 feet
apart. No control of access is proposed along Kerr Avenue except at the proposed interchange with
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway.
L 110 fi. RIGHT-0F-WAY
L 2.!E_ 5 k. _.2.5' 2' _ 7A A. 12 p. 2.3 h. 12 N._ 1A fl. Z? 2. 5 ft 7. .
SIDE- SIDE
WALK WALK
x/77 ? 3:1 0.025 0.025
311
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION
ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated cost of the project as shown in the NCDOT's 2006-2012 Transportation
Improvement Program is 527,788,000.
1
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
NO BUILD ALTERNATIVE
Under the No Build Alternative, no change in the current highway configuration occurs, and no
other improvements are developed for Kerr Avenue. No direct construction costs result from this
alternative.
The public incurs added cost because of more frequent traffic delays and accidents. The No Build
Alternative does not meet the project purpose and need because this alternative does not reduce
traffic congestion and accidents on Kerr Avenue; and the increased traffic volume, traveling at
slower speeds, contributes to decreased air quality in the project vicinity and increases congestion for
local residents.
The potential for a pedestrian-vehicle catastrophe or catastrophe involving bicycles may reasonably
be expected to increase with increasing traffic volume and growth of the University of Wilmington,
which is within one mile of the project.
TABLES OF POTENTIAL IMPACTS
Tables 1, 2 and 3 were developed to provide potential impacts to three scenarios of widening Kerr
Avenue. The interchange potential impacts will be the same for all scenarios and is listed separately.
2
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
Table 1. Widen to the West
Widen to the West

Description
Oleander
to Wilshire Wilshire
s
Randall
Randall
to Market
Market to
Alandale
Total Inter-
change Grand
Total
Length (mile) 0.608 0.899 0.743 0.786 3.036
Interchange(s) 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossing(s) (at grade) (1) No No R/W onl No No No No
Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 0 0 2 3 0 3
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Conflicts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recorder Historic Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Known Federal Listed Species Habitat
(Natural Hertia a Program)
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
100 Year Flood Impacts No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Residences 0 21 1 2 23 13 36
Businesses 12 3 2 1 18 2 20
Hazardous Material Sites
Wetland Impacts
Crossings 0

0 1

1 1

0 1

0 3

1 0

4 3

5
Acreage
Stream impacts (jurisdictional)
Crossings 0

0 0.02

2 0

0 0

0 0.02

2 0.36

2 0.38

4
Length 0 310 0 0 310 395 705
Potential Riparian Buffer Impacts No No No No No No No
Water Supply Critical Areas No No No No No No No
Greenwa Crossings No No No No No No No
Potential 4(f) Impacts No No No No No No No
Low income/minority populations (2) No No No No No No No
(1) R/W only, the railroad tracks have been removed on Kerr Avenue
(2) Despite the fact that there are low-income populations in the Demographic Area, it does not appear that TIP Project U-3338 would
disproportionately impact specific low-income populations.
3
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
Table 2. Widen to the East
Widen to the East

escription
Oleander
to Wilshire Wilshire

Randall
Randall
to Market
Market to
Alandale

Total Inter-
change Grand
Total
Length (mile) 0.608 0.899 0.743 0.786 3.036
Interchange(s) 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossing(s) (at grade) (1) No No R/W only No No No No
Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 0 0 2 3 0 3
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Conflicts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recorder Historic Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Known Federal Listed Species Habitat
(Natural Hertia a Program)
1
0
0
0
1
0
1
100 Year Flood Impacts No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Residences 0 3 10 1 14 13 27
Businesses 12 4 2 1 19 2 21
Hazardous Material Sites
Wetland Impacts
Crossings 0

0 1

1 1

0 1

0 3

1 0

4 3

5
Acreage
Stream impacts (jurisdictional)
Crossings 0

0 0.02

2 0

0 0

0 0.02

2 0.36

2 0.38

4
Length 0 70 0 0 70 395 465
Potential Riparian Buffer Impacts No No No No No No No
Water Supply Critical Areas No No No No No No No
Greenwa Crossings No No No No No No No
Potential 4(f) Impacts No No No No No No No
Low income/minorit populations (2) No No No No No No No
(1) K/ W only, the railroad tracks have been removed on Kerr Avenue.
(2) Despite the fact that there are low-income populations in the Demographic Area, it does not appear that TIP Project U-3338 would
disproportionately impact specific low-income populations.
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
Table 3. Widen Symmetrical
Widen Symmetrical

Description
Oleander to
Wilshire
Wilshire to
Randall Randall
to
Market Market
to
Alandale
Total Inter-
change Grand
Total
Length (mile) 0.608 0.899 0.743 0.786 3.036
Interchange(s) 0 0 0 1 1
Railroad Crossing(s) (at grade) (1) No No R/W onl No No No No
Schools 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Parks 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Churches 1 0 0 2 3 0 3
Cemeteries 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Major Utility Conflicts Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes
Recorder Historic Sites 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Known Federal Listed Species
Habitat (Natural Hertia a Program)
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100 Year Flood Impacts No Yes No No No Yes Yes
Residences 0 2 1 2 5 13 18
Businesses 17 1 2 2 22 2 24
Hazardous Material Sites
Wetland Impacts
Crossings 0

0 1

1 1

0 1

0 3

1 0

4 3

5
Acreage
Stream impacts (jurisdictional)
Crossings 0

0 0.02

2 0

0 0

0 0.02

2 0.36

2 0.38

4
Length 0 190 0 0 190 395 585
Potential Riparian Buffer Impacts No No No No No No No
Water Supply Critical Areas No No No No No No No
Greenwa Crossings No No No No No No No
Potential 4(f) Impacts No No No No No No

Low income/minorit populations (2)
No
No
No
No
No
No HH
(1) R/ W only, the railroad tracks have been removed on Kerr Avenue.
(2) Despite the fact that there are low-income populations in the Demographic Area, it does not appear that TIP Project U-3338 would
disproportionately impact specific low-income populations.
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
L?GICAL TERMINI
An important aspect of developing highway- improvement alternatives is to define the logical
termini, or begin and end project points. The proposed build alternative begins at Oleander Drive
and ends with an interchange at Nlartin Luther Bing, Jr. Parkway. The project is approximately
three miles in length.
G?
T
CD Kerr Ave
a
End Project
MarKet
a
v
CD
Wri htsvill Ave
o Beoin Proiect
w
? oard Blvd
a?
N
0
U
\,a
W E
c°
S
caQiQ v
? t0
O
?O
The termini of the proposed
project are consistent with the
project purpose and need and
do not necessitate other
improvements outside of the
defined project limits. In other
words, the project can function
independently for its design life,
while not requiring or
precluding future adjacent
highway projects. This action
does not change current traffic
compositions on local or
regional routes. Thus, it does
not generate traffic on Derr
Avenue or other regional routes,
nor does it predetermine the
alternative selection in adjacent,
but unrelated projects.
Other alternative routes to Kerr
Avenue between Oleander
Drive and Martin Luther King,
Jr. Parkway exist. One is
considered to require substantial
out-of-direction travel along 23"'
Street and the other is along
already congested College
Avenue. The widening of Kerr
Avenue will improve congestion
and enhance safest- to local
residents and businesses.
6
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
PUBLIC INPUT
Public inN-ok-ement activities haN-e included Citizens
Informational Workshops and a start of stud- letter sent
to local officials, and state and federal agencies. Notices
-%v-ere mailed for two Citizens Informational Workshops
held April 26, 2004 and June 24, 2004; newspaper and
press releases were also used to publicize these meetings.
Approximately 150 people attended and commented at
the two meetings. Most comments expressed concerns
about the lack of access due to the raised median and the
potential loss of parking spaces.

7
U-3338 Kerr Avenue
Concurrence Point 2
June 23, 2004
-MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CONS ULTANTS3
Wilmington Regional Office
127 Cardinal Drive Extension WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
Wilmington, NC 28405-2845
JUL 0 7 2004
Attn: Ms.Noelle Lutheran
WATER QUALITY SECTION
RE: SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Extension and Widening to Multi-lanes from US 76
(Oleander Drive) to north of SR 2649 (Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway)
New Hanover County, Division 3 Federal Aid Project No. STP-1175(8)
State Project No. 8.2251301
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to widen Kerr Avenue in
Wilmington to multiple lanes from Oleander Drive to approximately 1,000 feet north of
Martin Luther King Jr. Parkway and make intersection improvements to several connecting
streets. The proposed project encompasses a study area that is approximately 3 miles long
and 675 feet wide, covering about 158 acres, and includes four major east-west intersecting
corridors (Figure 1). This letter is written in request of a verification of jurisdictional
resources for this project.
In order to avoid and minimize impacts to Waters of the US within the study area, field
investigations were conducted by MULKEY between July 2003 and February 2004 to
delineate wetland boundaries and evaluate streams within the study area. Six wetlands were
delineated and GPS-flagged during field surveys and are identified as WA, WB, WC, WD,
WE, and WF. Dave Timpy of the United States Army Corps of Engineers has provided a
verification of these jurisdictional resources (see Notification of jurisdictional Determination
attached).
Culverted stream crossings within the study area were also GPS surveyed and evaluated
during the field investigations. Both a USACE "Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet" and
a NC Division of Water Quality "Stream Classification Form" was completed for each
stream within the study area. MULKEY personnel completed stream assessments on March
23, 2004 and copies of the worksheets are attached for your review. The location of each
stream, jurisdictional wetlands, and a stormwater wetland constructed by the North Carolina
Wetlands Restoration Program (WRP) is shown in Figures 2a through 2e.
It has been questioned whether the channel associated with the WRP wetland would be
considered headwaters to Burnt Mill Creek and whether it is a jurisdictional stream.
MULKEY has received from Dave Mayes (City of Wilmington stormwater department) a
copy of the design proposal for the WRP stormwater wetland. The document describes the
channel associated with the WRP wetland as a public drainage and utility easement trenched
to maintain conveyance of stormwater from a storm drain outfall. It also states that the
New Hanover county soil survey does not show any stream channels in this area but rather
depicts the area as swampy land. The USGS 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle for
Wilmington also does not show any stream channel in this area. Based on this information
and considering Dave Timpy's statement that the WRP wetland would not be considered a
jurisdictional resource, we request a final decision whether the channel will be considered a
jurisdictional stream by the NCDWQ.
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 27511 PO BOX 33127 RALEIGH, NC 27636 PH: 919-851-1912 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions about the information
provided or if any additional information is needed to make a verification of jurisdictional
resources for this project.
Sincerely,
ulie Gibson
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants, Inc
Scientist
Attachments
cc: Pam Williams, Mulkey
Randy Turner, Mulkey
2002177.00 (I)
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200301069
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property Owner: '
Gregory ,T. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
N.C. Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
County: New Hanover
Authorized Agent: WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
Ms. Cindy Carr
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants JUL 0 7 2004
6750 Tryon Road
Cary, North Carolina 27511 WATER QUALITY SECTION
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, 'etc.): TIP Project No. U-
3338, Kerr Avenue Widening, New Hanover County, North Carolina.
Basis for Determination: Type 328.3(a)(7) wetlands based on positive identification of hydric soils,
dominant hydrophytic vegetation (Greater than 50% FAC) and hydrology (numerous primary indicators)
and Type 328.3(a)(5) waters of the United States. Burnt Mill Creek.
Indicate Which of the Following apply:
? There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be delineated and surveyed.
The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps. will make a final jurisdictional
determination on your property.
? On October 28, 2003, the undersigned inspected the Section 404 jurisdictional line as determined by the NCDOT
and/or its representatives for the subject NCDOT project. A select number of wetland sites were inspected for the
proposed project and all were found to accurately reflect the limits of Corps jurisdiction. The Corps believes that
this jurisdictional delineation as depicted in the March 29, 2004 letter and email dated April 1; 2004 from Mulkey
Engineers & Consultants can be relied on for planning purposes and impact assessment.
? The wetlands on your lot have been delineated and the limits of the Corps jurisdiction have been explained to you.
Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period
not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
? There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the permit requirements of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there is a change in the law or our published
regulations, this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this
notification.
? The project is located in one of the 20 Coastal Counties. You should contact the nearest State Office of Coastal
Management to determine their requirements.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311). A
permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If you
have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact Mr. Dill. e
Timpy at 910-251-4634. /1 ..
Project Manager Signature
Date April 1, 2004 Expiration Date April 1, 2009
CF: Mason Herndon, NCDOT Division 3.
END PROJECT

BEGIN PROJECT "-mw
Feet 1:24,000
0 750 1,500 3,000 4,500 6,000
Meters Figure No.
0 230 460 920 1,380 1,840
MULKEY
USGS 7.5- Minute Topographic Quadrangles: Wilminton Contour Interval 5 Feet
Prepared For: PROJECT VICINITY
W? U-3338
O Kerr Ave. Widening & Extension
New Hanover County, North Carolina
F-ILoc.+c nl'? of - - --- _ -
uJILSH?2?S3LVl?
i
i
11-1
fmmD? m`r
Z
/ ??Rm 41

rNN? v m
l A
7

G : m N
<--
,- N N
r

ZmNN fi
n n EP, ?
7
O ?S
N
3V
m.
D
Z?
1?

I
o
?
o it
o w
Q
Q
z
CD

CD
m

:3 ? m
CD

CD

0- C:
0 CD
c :3
O
"`G (Q W
00

Z 9
O
M Z

r) Fn

O

a

0
X D
'-
?
00
o3: Z
Q
1?
O ,? ()"'o
O 0 -y
Z r-
-n 0
?
N
R =
D
M a
o
a0 o O
O O

0
G
CD
z
0
i
aa? ?
yea

-?? 13 ? -? ?l`d1?V
tl-

'
n
r N
L
N
r JZW
71 p m
{N?? N
J UI p?
ZmNN
n 3 n .,_•

0X N Z
r
D I
Z
-I
in

1
.. r ,
s
c
E rn

C

II
w
Ca
O
z
CD

CD --?
M

m
O CD V)
.
C

? a: c >
O CD ?

00

z g
0 C
' i" i'7 Z

Q
?. m
O 0

Q

oo ? cn
O : Z ?'

vQ
o3:
0
:5 Z

-v
n

r_ 0
O
O O? Z -n
>Z
D rn
y rn Q D

-? .-I
M :l m O
Z0
-9:? Z
0
0

O
0

I ?- -?,
C/DUea9 bUUds
D
DZ 133HS Ol HDiVW
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): T. Barrett
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 8/19/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: 6Vetland
TransectlD: 6VA
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Taxodium distichurn Overston, OBL 9. Lobelia cardinalis herbaceous FACW+
2. Nvssa aquatica Overstory OBL 10. Pontederia cordata herbaceous OBL
3. Acer rubrum Overston, FAC I l .
4. Typha lurifolia Herbaceous OBL 12.
5. Cvrilla racerniflora Understory FACW 13.
6. Alnus serrtdata Underston, FACW+ 14.
7. Clethra alnifolia Understory FACW 15.
8. Fra.rintts pennsylvanica Overstorv FACW 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Re marks:
cypress-gurn black eater swamp
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
X Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6" (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) X Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
tree buttressing, cypress knees, ghost crabs
U V 1LJ

Map Unit Name t
(Series and Phase) Dorovun Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Topic Medisaprist Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 0i
7-18 A 2.5Y513 line roots, organic matte, ISL
18-24 B 2.5Y4/2 fSL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present'? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUJAC h 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): T. Barrett
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 8/19/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Upland hardwood
Transect ID: 4VA
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species- Stratum Indicator
I. Ligustrum sinense Understory FAC 9.
2. Magnolia grandi/lora Underston, FAC+ 10.
3. Liquidambar sn-raci/lua Overstory FAC+ it.
4. Plutanus occidentalis Oversiorv FACW- 12.
5. Frmxinus pennsylvaiica Overstorv FACW 13.
6. Anoulinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW l4.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 16 (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
vviLJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Bawneade Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Arenic Hapludult Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12 A 10YR211 fSL
12-18 B IOYR311 fSL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime _Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks
Visual observations confirm hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by Hl1UJAC h 319L

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): T. Barrett
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 8/19/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID: WB
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. TVpha lati/olia Herbaceous OBL 9.
2. Nvssa apuatica Overston, OBL to.
3. Impatiens capensis Herbaceous FACW 11.
4. Juncus e/fusus Herbaceous FACW+ 12.
5. Alnus serrulata Understorv. FACW+ 13.
6. Arundinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
-Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
X Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0-2 (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12 (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
J V 1LJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FN]
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon Rvlunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 Oi fine roots
4-6 A JOYR312 SL
6-I5 B 2.5 Y612 organic streaking, LS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor X Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No obvious hydrologic indicators.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present'? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
`a
Approved by HQUSACh J/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): T. Barrett
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 8/19/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID: WB
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species- Stratum Indicator
I. Li,tustrumsinense Underston FAC 9.
2. Liriodendron adipifera Overston, FAC 10.
3. Liquidumbarstrraciflua Ovetstory FAC+ ll.
4. Quercus nigra Overston' FAC 12.
5. Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC 13.
6. Parthenosisis quinquefolia Vine FAC 14.
7. Myrica cerifera Undenrtory FAC+ 15.
8. l6.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
-Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
-
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Cumulic Humaquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes M.
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A IOYR41I fSL
4-9 B 2.5Y411 fSL
9-18 E 2.5Y613 /SL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Y Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
No obvious hydrologic indicators.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes. No
Remarks:
Approveo by HQUJAC:E 3192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue) Date: 9/24/2003
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: New Hanover
Investiuator(s): C. Carr State: NC

Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes H Transect m: 4VC-I
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes
N. Plot ID: located near GPS pts 2&3
(If needed, explain on reverse)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Suecies_ Stratum Indicator
I. Ilex glabra Underston FACW 9. Arundinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW
1 Per sea burburnia Underston FACW 10. Hl'drocohde sp. Herbaceous FACW/OBL
3. Pteridium aquilinum Herbaceous FACU l 1. Salix ni,gi-a Understorv OBL
4. Ouerc•us falcata var. pagodifolia Overston, FAC 12.
5. Q. virKiniana Overstorv FACU 13.
6. Juncus effusus Herbaceous FACW- 14.
7. Rhus cupallinum Underston, 15.
8. Aralia spinosa Underston' FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations con/irm wetland hydrology.
V V 1LV
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FN.
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
manyfine roots, fibrous.
0-1 Oa 2.5YR2.512 organic matter
2-10 A 10YR211 LS
10-16 81 7.5YR411 S
16-20+ B2 7.5YR2.511 5YR511 large common distinct S
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Y Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
% Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric soil appearance.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by Ht1USAC h 3/91
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue) Date:
Apphcant/Owner: NCDOT County:
Investigator(s): C. Carr State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(If needed, explain on reverse)
9/24/2003
New Hanover
NC
F Yes No Community ID: Wetland
Yes No Transect ID: WC-2
Yes No Plot ID: located near GPS pts 13 & 14

VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies. Stratum Indicator
1. llex glabra Underston, FACW 9.
2. Liquidantbarsn,raciflua Urnderston' PAC 10.
3. Pteridium aquilinum Herbaceous FACU
.
H.
4. Ouereus falcata var. pagodifolia Overstory 12.
5. Sassafras albidum Underston, FACU 13.
6. Arundinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. Solidago rugosa Herbaceous FAC 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -
X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm wetland hydrology.
JV1LJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FNjo
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
ni ny fine roots, fibrous,
0-1 Oa. IOYR211 organic matter
1-10 A IOYR411 S
10-12 BI 2.5Y711 S
12-20+ B2 IOYR611 7.5YR312 large common distinct S
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime % Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Y Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present'? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? [Yes] No
Remarks:
HpprOVea Dy t1yU6AI.C 3tyL
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date:
County:
State:
Community ID: Upland
Transect ID: WC
Plot ID:
9/24/2003
New Hanover
NC
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species_ Stratum Indicator
I. Quercus lattrifollu Overston, FACW 9.
2. Euonymous americanus Overstorv FAC- 10.
3. Q. marilandica Overstom H.
4. Cann tomentosa Overston 12.
5. Liquidambar strracillua Understory FAC+ 13.
6. Pin us palustris Overstory FACU+ 14.
7. Hamemelis virginiana Underston, FACU 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). <50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
-Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
-
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
V V 1LU
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplay«ocl Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-4 A 7.5 YR 2.511 VFS
4-12 7.5YR60- VFS
12-19+ IOYR314 IOYR711 few rnecli«rn distinct
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol -Concretions
-Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfdic Odor _Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Y Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Hpprovea by HQUJAUt S/yG
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 9/24/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID: WD-I
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
L Murdannia keisak Herbaceous OBL 9. Asclepias sp. Herbaceous
2. Polvgonum sagittatum Herbaceous OBL 10.
3. Scirpus sp. Herbaceous OBL 11.
4. Cvperus sp. Herbaceous 12.
5. Carex sp. Herbaceous 13.
6. Pteridium aquilinum Herbaceous FACU 14.
7. Aristida stricta Herbaceous FAC 15.
8. Woodwardia sp. Herbaceous OBL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: X Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: .<3" (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm wetland hydrology. Adjacent sections of this wetland had 10+incher flowing water, with surrounding trees
showing evidence of beaver activity.
0"1110
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Nlunsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 10YR211 S, few organic matter
2-14 BI 2.5Y411 S
14-21+ B2 2.5Y2.5/1 SL
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
_Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic.Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
I
.
r+NNruvcu Dy r1yU3AL_r,.)tyZ
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
,. (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
lnvestigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 9/24/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID: WD-2
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. Kabnia angustifolia Understmi- NI 9.
2. Sufic ni„ ra Overston' OBL to.
3. TIpha angustifolia Herbaceous OBL 11.
4. Iles ,4labra Understo)- FACW 12.
5. Juncus effusus Herbaceous FACW- 13.
6. Pteridium aquilinum Herbaceous FACU 14.
7. Scirpus cyperinus Herbaceous OBL 15.
8. Hvdrocotvle sp. Herbaceous FACW108E 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Y Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations conf-inn wetland Ayclrology.
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FNJ
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
many fine roots, organic
0-2 - O IOR2.5/2 matter
2-6 A 10YR411 S
6-12 BI 2.5Y2.5/1 LS
12-17 B2 IOYR414 10YR211 dew, large, distinct S
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
-Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sultidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Ayuic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric .roil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydri c Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YNo
Remarks:
AppCOVert by HCIUJAC t S/91
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date:
County:
State:
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID: 4VD-3
Plot m:
9/24/2003
New Hanover
NC
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Abuts serrulata Underston- FACW 9.
2. Salix nigra Overctorv OBL 10.
3. Typha latifnlia Herbaceous OBL 11.
4. Apios americans Herbaceous FACW 12.
5. JL1f1cus ef/irsas Herbaceous FACW- 13.
6. Berchernia scandens Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. Mvrica herterophrlla Undercton, FACW 15.
8. Hvdrocon-le sp. Herbaceous FACW/OBL 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
-Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
X Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
-Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 10 (in.) -Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
-Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
This section of the wetland is part of a beaver impoundment with surface inundation to /0+ ittclues and flowitu,? water.
6U1L6
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon sand Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FN]
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-3 Al 10YR311 medium and fine roots; S
3-16 A2 IOYR711
few medium roots; S
16-24 B21 h 5YR212 S
24-40 B22h 5YR2/2 S
40-60 C IOYR711 S
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_Aquic Moisture Regime Y Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
-Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
This soil profile is from the New Hanover County Soil Survey. Sail was not investigated in the.feld due to the high water level.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present'? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approves oy IIQUZSAUt St92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue) Date:
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County:
Investigator(s): C. Carr State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
9/24/2003
New Hanover
NC
Community ID:_ Upland
Transect ID: WD
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
I. Quercus falcata var. pa,r;odifolia Overstory 9.
2 Aristidu sp. Herbaceous 10.
3. Pteridium apuilinum Herbaceous FACU 11.
4. Pinus tueda Oveiston? FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). <50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
- Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: -Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
6"1L6
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Leon said Drainage Class: P
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Aeric Haplaquod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes 7N.
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-2 A 2.5Y4/2 S
2-13 BI IOYR711 10YR612
few medi« m fctiru $
13-21+ B2 2.5Y614 IOYR416 few medium distinct S
7.5YR314 few medium distinct
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gieyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
i (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes No
(If needed, explain on reverse)
Date:
County:
S Late:
Community ID: Wetland
Transect ID: WE
Plot ID:
9/24/2003
New Hanover
NC
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species„ Stratum Indicator
1. Acer rubreon Overston• FAC 9. Murdannia keisak Herbaceous OBL
2. Liquidambarsnwac'ifluu Overston- FAC 10. Ludwigia alternifolia Herbaceous OBL
3. Tvpha angustifolia Herbaceous OBL 11. Lvonia rnariata Undetstorv FAC
4. Liriodendron tulipiAra Overston• FAC+ 12. Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC
5. Pinus serotina Overstorv FACW 13. Quercus nigra Overston, FAC
6. Osmunda cinnamomea Herbaceous FACW 14. Hexasndis sp. Herbaceous
7, Arundinaria ggan tea Herbaceous FACIV 15. Woodwardia areolata Herbaceous OBL
8. Xanthrorhiza simplicissima Herbaceous FACW- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Y Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
-Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Water from stormwater culvert off Martin Luther King Boulevard
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Cumulic Hunta quepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes Flo
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
many,fine roots, oxidized
0-2 A 2.5Y611 _ rhizomes, LFS
many fine roots, oxidized
2-4 Bl JOYR211 rhizomes, SCL
4-13 B2 10YR211 2.5Y411 few, large, distinct organic matter, SCL
13-23+ B3 2.5Y2.511 LS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observation confirms hydric soil appearance.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present'? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? FYes] No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSAC h 5192
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
' (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site:
Applicant/Owner:
Investigator(s):
U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
NCDOT
C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site?
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)?
Is this area a potential Problem Area?
(if needed, explain on reverse)
Date:
County:
State:
9/26/2003
New Hanover
NC
Fy-es No Community ID: Upland
Yes No Transect ID: WE
Yes No Plot [D:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus nigra Overstoti, FAC 9.
2. Persea burbunia Underston' FACW to.
3. Acer rubrum Overstory FAC 1 l .
4. Pinus palustris Oveistorp FACU+ 12.
5. Pteridium aquilinum Herbaceous FACU 13.
6. . Arundinaria gikantea Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
_Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
J V 1LJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Johnston Drainage Class: VP
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Qonulic Hrrurquept Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FN].
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
many fine roots, organic
0-1 Oa 7.SYR2.5/3 matter, fibrous
1-4 A 2.5Y411 LFS
4-12 BI 7.5YR612 VFS
12-20 B2 7.5YR613 10YR¢11 few medium cistinct VFS
20-23+ B3 10YR514 7.5YR416 few small distinct VFS
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime % Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
-Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes

dric Soils Present`' Yes
El Hy
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Ll
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes (If needed, explain on reverse)
Date:
County:
State:
Community ED: Wetland
TransectID: 4VF
Plot ID:
9/26/2003
New Hanover
NC
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species_ Stratum Indicator
1. Quercus virginiana Overstorv FACU 9. Yanthorhiza simnlicissima hrbaceuus FACW-
2 Ligusa-ean sinense Understo?-y FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum Overstory FAC If.
4. Liyuidambar styraciflua Oveistory FAC 12.
5. Sassafras albidurn Understorv FACU 13.
6. Osrnunda cinnamomea Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. Arundinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW 15.
8. Vitis rotundifolict Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
X Water Marks
Drift Lines
_
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 6" (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
X Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
tree buttressing and root hummocks
JV1LJ
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Seagate fine sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Typic Haplohumod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FN]
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-5 A 10YR211 tew fine roots. LC
5-12 B 7.5YR2.511 saturated, LC
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon -High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sulfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Y Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions -Listed on National Hydric Soils List
% Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Visual observations confirm hydric soil.
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? FYe No
Remarks:
Hpproveu oy r1 `/UJHI.r, ,S/`JL
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
f (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: U-3338 (Kerr Avenue)
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT
Investigator(s): C. Carr
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes Ld
Is this area a potential Problem Area? Yes (if needed, explain on reverse)
Date: 9/26/2003
County: New Hanover
State: NC
Community ID: Upland
Transect [D: WF
Plot [D:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Oueretts vbrgirtiana Overston, FACU 9. Xanthorhiza simplicissima herbaceous FACW
2. Ligustrum sinense Underston, FAC 10.
3. Acer rubrum Overston, FAC 11.
4. Liquidarnbar styraci/kta Overstorv FAC 12.
5. Sassafras albidurn Underston? FACU 13.
6. Osmunda cinnamomea Herbaceous FACW 14.
7. Arundinaria gigantea Herbaceous FACW 15.
8. Vitis rotundifolia Vine FAC 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). >50`70
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
Y No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
_ Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: N/A (in.) _
_ Local Soil Survey Data
FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: N/A (in.) _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Seagate fine sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Trpic Haplohumod Confirm Mapped Type? Yes FNJ.
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-7 A 2.5Y614 IOYR211 large, common, distinct SCL
7-14 B1 IOYR514 7.5YR516 few, small. distinct LS
14-20+ B2 2.5Y714 10YR618 few, fine, raint S
5Y7/2 few, fine, raint
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol _ Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_Sutfidic Odor -Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime r X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions _ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION

Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
wee . oZea
USACE AID#
DWQ#.
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: / e / ?So» _
1. Applicant's name: M 1 07 2. Evaluator's name: V/ N D i 12 ?l UL/« rCyl YS
?u ---?V ?l
3. Date of evaluation: 3 - y i 4. Time of evaluation: 42,30 5. Name of stream:- cam(`. 1-1A 'ti ir-14:11? i N, 6. River basin: (x-02 ??GL?
7..Approximate drainage area: ^' O y 8. Stream order: 022 dY LLCwv
9. Length of reach evaluated: 46 0 10. County: New J72Y! 0 ?e k-
11. Site coordinates (if known): preter in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): 3f / • ; 679 52
12. Subdivision name (if any):. Ale if--
Longitude (ex. -77.556611): - 7 7• 92 78 0 S
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): AT ?
dVe /LeeP An S E SA6Lz , hoyA a-f- M C-K Pa r, ?,?,
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: /)'U d SO of ?{ S /j2l ?Gf WlrlGi'S Cie i'Q« 41 r 312,1
16. Site conditions at time of visit:_M (d Mon'r- n lt,f l
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 40) If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 6D NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 1% Residential "9 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested Cleared / Logged / 0 % Other(
_? oGe?S
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight V' Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments: PJ'0 Cf Cdr% QOY ?h ? o a Y. 'e C
_r ? La- l1J l .300 e i
Evaluator's Signature Date 0 7
This channel evaluation form is i • ended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
r=. e
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
i
CHARACTERISTICS
E LION POLNi GE
® R4V

"
S C ORE
• ?
oa a Piedmont °•.,NlountainG' . . .
l Presence of flow ( persistent pools in stream
_
(no flow orsaturation= O: sfro? • flow .= max points) 0-5 0-4 '- p 5- '_"
Evidence of past human alteration '
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max outs) 0 - V I 0 5 = 0
3 Riparian zone
no buffer . 0, conti uous, wide buffer = max oints) 0- 6 (7 4 t` 0 '>
Evidence of nutrient or chemical' discharges --
(extensi.ve discharg6s'.= 0-, no discharges = max `points) 0 - 0 - # 0
.a

U

. Groundwater, dischar-e

no discharge = Q-;---seeps
wetlands, etc
= mar
oints)

0 - 3

0 -4

4
%
. ;
.
p
6' Presence of adjacent tloodplain .
(no floodplain= 0 extensive:flood lain= max points}
0' 4
0` 4
0
y/
"rr
? 7„ _ Entrenchment/ tloodplain access
0
' (deep( entrenched = 0;' frequent flooding = max points) 0 4 0 2
g, Presence of adjacent wetlands ?

no wetlands= 0; lar e ad acenttwetlands - max omts) 0 _ 0 4 • 0 2
9 Channel smaosity
(extensive channeliiatton = 0
natural meander= max
ints) 0 _a 0 4 0 3
,
po

1Q Sediment input -
`
(extensive deposition 0;`Tittleor.nosediment-max points) 0-5 0 4
- 0 4 f
1I Sizeccdiversrty_ -ofchanfie]bedsubstrate
(fine, homo enous = 0; laree
diverse sizes =max'points)' * )
NA
0 -4 7J 0 5, ;`;,
,

12 vt
en
.o
c
an
el inci
ion or widening
(deeply incised = 0"s' bed & banks= max points)
13' Presence of major bank.failvres .?
(severe erosion=0
no
erosi
st
bl
b
nks=
x
i 0 0-.` 0 0` 5
;
.
on,
a
e
a
ma
po
nts)
p
14_
Root depth and density on banks
0 3
0 «
F- (no visible roots 0; dense roots throughout
max points)-
I5:- Impact by agriculture, livestock; or timber production
bs
a
i
c
0
5 O
4
5
(su
t
nt
al impa
t =0; no evidence = max oints) N
;
v - 16 Presence,of riffle-poollripple-poolcomplexes 0 3 0 0' ?6
Fr
(no riffles/Hp tes or ools = 0, well=.develo ed = max oints) _
17 Habitat-*complexity-
(little or n6-habitat = 0; frequent; varied habitats maY oints)
0 6
0 6 ` 0 6 )i
d
ce
f
h
n
s

18 -:Canopy coverage over streambed
b

0
- _(no shadin vegetation --0;'contmuous-canopy=maxpoints}. 5r--? '7`1

19 ' Substrate embeddedness-
(dee l embedded =-0; loose structure - max)
>NA*
0 4
20 Presence_of stream invertebrates (see page-4)
no evidence = 0; common, numerous- es = max "points) - 4 0 S Q - a
C.`J
O 21 ; Presence of amphibians,

(no evidence - 0; conunon, numerous pes = max points) - 0 p 4 $ `
0r4 '..
Presence of fish
.D-4 ?)--4,i ?.
(no evidence= 0; common-.numerous t?Oes_=`fiii:,-
point;
23 Evidence of wildlife-use
?(no evidence'= 0: abundant evidence _'max points)
Total Points Possible 100] itoo
TOTAL SCORE' (also?ente'r an- first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
r
bro.
JA/ - NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: ZJ 378 g River Basin: 4e r-eA? Coun , / / /
G?i y' a v,t ilm ty: NCcJ ? ttchb ile? Evaluator: [mac`[ ? ?^?
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Y o l S /3
42.r_Yz Signature.
Date: 3a3 v'?' USGS / QUAD: wtwntn?4oi AlajMLK
Longitude: 7?7o5-3//&,l()W Location/Directions: Dn K<rt av
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream---this rating system
should not be used*
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed

5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a 'Continuous 'Bled & Bank Present? V 3
(*NOTE: lfBed & Bank Caused By Drtchine And 77
HOUT SinuoOsity Then Score 0*) 1 2 3
10) Is a 2n° Order Or Greater Channel (Andicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: /U
II. HVdroloffv Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischar a Present? 0 1 2
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
K L"e. J
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
IS
Primary Field Indicators' (Circle One Number Per Line)

Natural Draina e Way? 0 5 r 1? 1 5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: I
H. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 ( S) I
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1.'
1 1.5
Last Known Rain? 'NOTE.- f Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski This Ste ,4nd #S Below"
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 I 1.5`
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6 Are H dric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel Or In Headcut ? i Yes=1.5 No=0
SECONDARYIYYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.
Ill. Ulutu y Absent
1) Are Fish Present? Weak Moderate Stron
0
2 Are Am hibians Present? 0 .5 1.5 "

3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0 1
.5 1 1.5
1
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0
5) .5 OloSG+d
Are Macrobenthos Present? 0
6) A 5 1
re Iron Oxidizme Bactena/Fungus Present? r0
7) Is Fi
lamentous Aleae Present? (0 .5 1 1.5 GSc??Ti:b
.

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? S Mostly OBL
' 5 1 1.5

Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly
'tc9 lit
UPL ps2C-SC101
(
NOTE: If Total Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 J5 5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present').
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.
.TOTAL POINTS (Prmary+ Secondary) (I Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is

At east Intermittent) ,
Notes: ^ / r
C?? CiWh plp Drv- 0 gie.,V f lpr?f' ?1
p?C(? ec e.d o b-2 ere ?X
2
See
?? ?.?
E' I USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
L:Lg d
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
A
/llG1J0 J-u[.l e?, 6 1 l3So?1 .7 ` 1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: l_' 6NJb y , tiLULKCV ElU6A S
3. Date of evaluations: 3T? D 4. Time of evaluation: / % d0 n-i
5. Name of stream: I?t Na, R"-ra N.ti". ?JT 6. River basin: ?Pe F2ce.?
7. Approximate drainage area: ?' ?O ?'L[ y 8. Stream order:
9. Length of reach evaluated:--''' ?S L 10. County: ?ew ?00VenP-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):!. fie, ee Ar'15
Latitude (ex. 34.372312): 2ZI, Longitude (ex. -77.556611): - 7
Method location determined (circle): Top. Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby road and landmarks and attach map i entifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: M d 50',,c tentl)s', /72/??(yi??5, ?Q ?e U tr ?'Ci t n >CG /? om 3 21 O c?
16. Site conditions at time of visit: / U /0 , ? ICLY, ?`? n ?L?/
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters _Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YE NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: % Residential
_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: 7 -P1z-f
24. Channel slope down center of stream: C,/ Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight ? Occasional bends
_ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
point? YES 10 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? 1 E NO
219 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared / Logged 10 6% .Other( -F-06,45) 1 N0&rVID"i
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 6'7`
-Gentle (2 to 40/6) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. /
Total Score (from reverse): (D Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date- 3 )Q 31 O -
This channel evaluation form is inten ed to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT -v"RKSHEET
CHARACTERISTICS E GION POLN T R4NGE
4 7r

Piedmont

..-Mountain:
G
1 Presence of floe ![persistent nook in stream
(no flow or.saturation== O
strone flow = max
oints) 0 - 4 : -0
- 5 . -
S
,
p
)evidence of.past human alteration 0 - G ` 0 = 5 t` 0 ?(
extensive alteration= 0, no alteration = max points) ' - - -
3 Riparian zone

(no buffer=. 0- contiguous, wide buffer= max oints) t 0' .6 0- 4 0
Evidence ofnutrient, orchemical:discharges
.
(extensive discharges = 0, no discharges -max Dints) 0-5 _ 0-4 _ 0 4
Groundwater discharge

(no discharge= O; s rtngs, seeps,,; wetlands;.etc. = max points) 0_; - 0- 4 0 4
3
" 6 Presence of adjacent toodplain
_
,..,
(no floodplain = 0, eztensive lain% oints) ' 0-4 4- 4

- , 0
. " 7„ Entrenchment / floodplain access
A? (deeply entrenched 0;•frequent flooding = max points) 0 - 5 0 4 0 ?
Presence of.adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands= 0; lar e adjacent wetlands = max Dints) 0 - 6 -0 -4 _0 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelizatton,= 0, natural' meander- max points) p_ j - 0 4 0 3
10 Sediment input _
(extensive deposition 0; little or no sediment = mar points) 0- 5" 0 4 0 4 J
1-1 Size & dlversity_of channel bed substrate i NA*??' ?0 4
` ---
(fine, homo enous =0; lane, diverse sizes = max points) -
12 Eidence of channel incision or widening 0 -
`0

2
(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks:= max points) p
rL' 1,0 Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion= 0
er
i
st
bl
ba
e
; no
os
on,
a
e
n
s = max points)
R

ti's
IQ' oot depth and density on banks
no visible roots =.0; dense roots throughout = max oints)
0 a ",
0 4
: 0
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or`timber, production 0 5 0 4 0 i5
(substantial impact-0; no evidence.= max points

. 16? Presence of,riffle-pool/ripple=pool-complezes
0 3
0
Ems (no rifflcs/ri les or pools= 0; well-develop ed = max Dints) _
a" 0 6
17 Habitat complexity
_? -
(little or no habitat=
0
f
'u
vari
t
d h
bi
a
s
0 6
0 6
„p_ 6
T
-
,
re
en
,
e
a
t
ts = max point
) -

4 1 g Canopy coverage' over streambed .
(no shading ?e?etation 0. continuous canop max points)
0 5
0 5 s
0 5 "{

19 ' Substrate embeddedness
(deeply embedded = 0"' loose stricture = maxi
NA*
0 4
20 Presence of:stream invertebrates (see page 4)
o
d
0 4
0 5
evi
n
en e 0; common, numerous types = max oints)

O 21 Presence of amphibians -
-(no evidence = 0 conunon, numerous types = max points)
4
0 4 -
0- 4
O
:a
O Presence offish .
no evidence = 0; common, numero
s t
=
i
ts)
4
" Q 4
0 - 4

3
u
ypes
max o
n
Evidence of wildlife use
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence .= max omts).
Total Points Possible' "100 100 l`Oi)

TOTAL SCORE (also enteron tirstpae)
(9 ??
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams

2
?r rrr?t ,? r e ?
A
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form UT 4-o ,-t,
Project Name: v-3$2g River Basin: & F4-r County: / k"1 6 u? an"e?Evaluator: &1
AdCu-,/
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:
P? Latitude: 34. Z S qD l 9 Signature:
Date: 3) 2 3) O? USGS QUAD: w 1 rn.(n 40 r) fo `J I Al6"5 tcf ¢ v6
Longitude: Location/Directions
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary). AIls ? if 5 ? ?tC
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream--this rating system
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
M
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
4) Is The Channel Sinuous?
5)1s There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
('NOTE: It Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score-0'1 1 2 3
?.: 10) Is a 214 Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated _
PRIIVARY GEOMORPHOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS: ) 3
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischar a Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. 3

SECONDARY GEOMORPHOL O GY INDICA TOR POINTS. O- S
Secondary Field Indicators' (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. HvdroloU Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflttter
Present In Streambed? t t n i

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since
0 .5
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 i?
CnndirlnnQ nr Tn ( :rnutinn Qa?ennl?
SECONDARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
.ti-t. nioiow Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1
a
D
2
) Are Amphibians Present? ?fo 5 1 -
1.5
3 Are A uaticTurtles Present? 0 .5 I
1 none obSev«--
4 Are Crayfish Present? 0 .5 1
5 Are Macrobenthos Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
6) Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fun s Present? .5 1 I.5
7 Is Filamentous AI ae Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostl OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(*NOTE. If Total Absence OjA11 Plants in Streambed 2 l `J .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAY Present*)
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS.
17
TOTAL POINTS (Pr mary + Se ondar v)
At Least Intermittent)
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
Notes:
? t?iG ?? S 111???ve? ? vt /Y?? ? Pve ?-t~..? . ?7?^c?rh-?
r

2
?u J?,:n2d : -?)
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;i STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream r
1. Applicant's name: a6- DO % _
3. Date of evaluation: 3 2
5. Name of stream: T
7. Approximate drainage area: D ' Inn 2-
9. Length of reach evaluated: 411=
!ach under assessment: "TJ e- 61
2. Evaluator's name: CeN??D??t,,/,, CARA MUWt-1.1 97iU6RS ,
------------------
4. Time of evaluation: o"? nCJ t .
6. River basin: aoz r?Q V-
8. Stream order:- /3/
10. County: New 7yano ?2t,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): _?__ ! , 0G o6 9 ( 1
12. Subdivision name (if any): nor)E
_ Longitude (ex. -77.556611): -?7,99a 8 7 l G
Method location determined (circle): a Topo Sheet Ottho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearb roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
114 10 Q62?a CniL?a! 8?t 3I? ! o
16. Site conditions at time of visit:I , ?2Q-?? dun nti/
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 . -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES ® 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: ?0 % Residential '2-0% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged /0 % Other ( ?w )
22. Bankfull width: Af - 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ??--
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%°) _Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Evaluator's Signature Date .3 a?1 ?U7
This channel evaluation form is intend 4d to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06103. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT NVORKSHEET
CHAR ACTI RISTICS _ GTONP0_0 RANGE_;''
at Piedmont. - tiTountain ''
1 -Presence of flow/ persistent. pools in stream
(no flow orsaturation -O strop :flow =max points) 0 - - 0 - 4
-, ` Evidence. of'past human alteration "
extensive alteration= 0, no`alteration = max p points) 0 - 6 ' 0 = 0 5
3 12iparian zone
no:buffer = 0; corrtFQuous, wide buffer = max: points) 0,- 6 0 4": 0

4 Evidence of'nutrient or..chernkal.discharues

(ex tens ive:'dischar es = 0; no discharges = max points) 0-5 0 4 0 4 :^ ,
Groundwater discharge

(no discharge 0; s rines,:see s; wetlands; etc.= max points) 0- 3 0 4

6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
?
_
?
"
'
(no floodplain=0; extensive.floodplain-max:points) O?-4 0
7 Entrenchment/floodplain access
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points) ° 0 - 0 4 p
4 Presence of adjacent wetlands
(no wetlands= 0; lareerad acentwetlands =.max points),? 0- 6 ; 0 -4 = 0 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive channelizatton,= 0 natural meander = max points)
0
0 4'
0 e
10 Sediment input,

(extensive deposition=0 little or;no sediment - max points) 0_ 0 4 '' 0 4
1 P Size & div-ersity`of channel bed substrate
.
(fine, homo enous ..O;Aar e, diverse sizes =max Points)' .NA*
= 0 4 p $
12 Rvidence of channel incision-or widening
0
(deeply mcised`= 0; stable bed "8c banks =max points) 0 4 0 5.
Presence of major bank failures
(severe erosion =; Q no
eroston
stable barilcs =max
oints) 0 7
?p
14 .
,
p
Root'depth-and density on banks
'

. (no visible roots = 0 dense roots throughout -max omts) 0 0
15- Impact by agriculture, livestock, or, timber pr(duchon'
(subs tantial:impact ..-0.; no evidence=max points) 0 5 ', 0 4
Q '
16 Presenceo€xiftle pooltripple-pool'co mplezes >`!0 3 =' ' '0 5 0
no riffles/ri pies ar ools: 0 'well-develoed =max points)

r , 17 . ; Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat = 0 fre uent
varied habitats =--m-
oints) 0 6 0 6 0' 6"
.18 ? ,
p
.' Canopy co.verage:ove
r streambed .'

s
s
nohadin ve, pv )
elation -.0;: continuous canopy max points 0 5 = 0 `, Or !J
x
19 Substrateembeddedness
e
NA
0 4
a }
ge
1 embedded = loose.structtzre =max?
-?O < Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
~

?. no evidence 0; 'common numerous. es = max in
. U ts
y
Q 4> '
0 5
21 _ Presence`ofamphibians ?

(n0 evidence =?;..con]n10n; numerOUS tVpeS -maxpoints) 0
4 0 4 -d
0'
?..
x' 22 Presence of fish
(no e?°idenee = 0; common, numerotu [v es maYoints) , '0- ,0 4 0=4-

Evidence of wildlife use ?-
(no evidence = 0; abundant.evidence =max points)
0 6
0 5
A r
Total Points Possible` IOQ i 100 Y,00 "

TOTALRE. also enter on irst:page? . '?
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
S?
f
2
?r
r
2
2
NCDWQ Stream Clan
)' r /Y
Project Name: River Basin: (_%!f,t
K2ir? a Ve ru. e ?_. v .
" V4
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: 7/j?
CZ U??
,ification Form
County: A)QW ?CIYJD?2? Evaluator:
Latitude: 3?.a s?019 Signature:C? r/,-/
Date: 31,Z` U O USGS QUAD: W 11MI )6`a ? Longitude: -77 S?? 3` Y ° Location/Directions: ,Sw U
o? K¢,r? Q,ve ?
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if W-l--
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system j i\_,t?444
should not be used*
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present?
CME. UBed & Bank Caused By DitchinP And WITHOUT S.
10) Is a 2°d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS:
H. Hydrolo2 , Absent Weak Moderate
1) Is There A Groundwater Strong
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
W
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainaee Way9 0 5 1 f 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS. s I SJ
k

17'.
Primary Field Indicators' (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 c

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry p
SECONDARYIYYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:??
1.5
III. Biolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Are Fish Present? 0 5 1
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 5 1

3) Are AquaticTurtles Present? 1.5
0 5 1

4) Are Cravfish Precrnt9 1.5
I
1.J l
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Most OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(' NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .7$ 5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARYBIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (primary + Secondary1 i
At Least Intermittent)
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
Notes:
Y)o Q rh?C ?o a?y,n f a A C, 4xv-f " 6v? k . O b bivV_ej C-11-

1
1
2
j USACE AID#
DWQ#.
?po.2e, 4
Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
du
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: `TULI Gt 3So n1
1. Applicant's name: N c p0 T 2. Evaluator's name: C! ill D t/ Ci4 2/?{ ? AOLKC-Ll EN62S
3. Date of evaluation: 3 4. Time of evaluation: 3 pm
5. Name of stream: ?1,ctiWW?- / I 6. River basin: F? Q
7. Approximate drainage area: 0, b nu ?' 8. Stream order: s?
9. Length of reach evaluated: /00 10. County: I?Je4tJ Oven
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ? Or(v- S
Latitude (ex. 34.372312): z s Longitude (ex. -77.556611): _ 7 r7• e& ?O 3 Lf N
Method location determined (circle): 6 Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note ne rby roads and landmarks and atta h map identifying stream(s) location):
47
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: M I h 57ID°F 4e/ 2s, Mt W? Sz `(race o-F r-o t n-?a fl ? 3/z 1) D ?-
16. Site conditions at time of visit: MIN ?n : Cleo-VII ?5,u.n n!
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES 0 If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: D % Residential Z?% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Forested _% Cleared / Logged 10 % Other ( ?Gd S , (?? (.tP.?'l (}yS )
r-
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): 3 -fD `f -F+ ;
24. Channel slope down center of stream: /" Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: V Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. a
Total Score (from reverse): cJ Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date 3 3/ o
This channel evaluation form is int ded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
CHAR T?CTERISTICS EC GIO?i POIN T?Rt?iG
:. asraf
J ,
Piedmont
'` i ountain
I Presence' offlow /persistent pools m stream
(no Clow or saturation= 0, strop flow, -mar points) 0 = 5 ' 0-4

0 = 5
41.
Evidence of past human alteration

(extensive alteration = 0, no alteration = max points) 0 - 6 0 5, ` 0 S
3 parian?zone _
no buffer 0; conEiQuous, wide buffer = max oinrs) 0- (5 ' 0 4 0 .,
4 Kvidence;of nutrient or chemical discharges
extensive discharges ='0, no'discharges = max points) ' 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 4
Groundwater discharbe

„U

(no dischar e 0; s nnizs;`see s::.,wetlands etc
= max points) 0 - 3 - 0-4,
4 }
6 .
Presence of adjacent tloodplain
.? (no flood lain= 0; extensive.flood laic= max Voints)
Entrenchment l floodplain access,
(dee
ly ent
ch
d = 0
f
d p
ren
e
;
requent floo
in = max points)

g Presence of adjacent wetlands I
(no wetlands = 0: lar e:ad'acenf'wetlands = _max oints) 0-6 l 0 -4 0
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive?channelization= 0. -fiat meander= max points)
10 ? Sedimentinput -
extensive deposition O?:little Deno sediment - max points) 0 5 0 0-4
1 I Size Si diversity of channel bed substrate *
A 0 4 •, I c 1
fine,.homo enons - O
,,.lar?e, diverse. sizes = max Dints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening :

(deep( mused= 0, stable bed & banks= max points) 0 - 5 0 4 0 -
13 Presence ofmaior bank-failures .
(severe zrosion= 0n-
:`stable banks = max points)
0
0
14 : Root depth anddensity on banks
nowisible roots = 0; dense roots throughout -max points} 0 3 ?0 4 0
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock; or timber production,

(siibstantial_impact=0; no evidence='max omts}
0 4
_
16 Presence of riffle=pool/ripple-pool complexes.
E - no riffles/rip les or cols = 0• Well-developed = max points) 0
17 Habitat compiesity
little or no habitat = 0 ire cent, varied habitats= max points) 0 6 0 6 0
p -_ Canopy coverage over streambed
,- (no shading vegetation - 0; continuouscanopv= max points)
t9 'Substrate embeddedness.

(dee 1 embedded= 0, loose stricture =mai) NA* 0 4 q-

ZO Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
_' 0 " 0 0'
no evidence .0; common numerous types = -max points)
C7 21 Presence of amphibians.
`
O
(no evidence = 0:. coinnion, numerous types = max' points) 0 4 0 4 0
O. 22 ` Presence of tlsh
no•evidence = 0
com
n
num
e
o
"
i p } 0 4 0
;
mo
,
er
us t
nts}?
s max
D _
?3 Evidence Of wildlife use

`(no evidence = 0, abundant evidence ='Inax points)" 0 6 • 0 5 0=

Total Points Possible r
a00
?

100

l"C

?y
TOTAL SCORE (als&enter on first page) j .
'.?
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
J
a
S_

d

D.
0
D

2
4
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form

Project Name:
0 ??? River Basin: ? ?? County:
?cc. ?
J-?Yt' 14V_6U e_. Iv?ccl h ° ?Evaluator: dndll?
r?
DWQ.Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: t Aatitude:.3 ohs '10 1 q
Signature:
Date: 3,2 3 D `? USGS QUAD: /AJI?vK (n a?-? Longitude: L?ocation/Directions: C?
? evaluator ?l ?y ?
and landowner
f
*PLEASE N TE: I agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use o Also if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified fn thisfaturalorm is stream not of this necessary. ssrating ary. system 5
should not be used*
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 1 Z 3
l 2 3
'. ('NOTE: It Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchine And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score D*}
10) Is a 2n' Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR
II. HvdroloLrv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 3
PRIIVIARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.

Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Secondary Field Indicators' (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. Hydrolozy Absent Weak Moderate Strong F
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 ) I
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? ('NOTE- !(Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Skio This Step And #5 Below')
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry CO-) .5 1 1.5
.. _ _ .
SECONDAR Y BTDR OL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS:
- . • ?•• -•• . _ .....? .,, .,u cautucu t JAY Mostly UtiL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
('NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAY Present').
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: f ,
TOTAL POINTS o?rim,, + 11=7) (If Greater Than Or Equal Ti 19 Joints The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
b ?u lQ/y(. 5 ? l G ?-??? 5 or Cr- ?? 6 ?o? +'t!-e? 6Y-
2
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
C3
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ?u Lt E G1 g-,0
1. Applicant's name: 0 f 2. Evaluator's name: Lln?al•/ C?4?2, NLkLt<ct/ EA16R S'
3. Date of evaluation: _ 3 2 3 0q 4. Time of evaluation: 3 P w;
5. Name of stream: /?W Una V 1,D1? (J-T 6. River basin:e F
7. Approximate drainage area: "' Ml Z 8. Stream order: S 7
9. Length of reach evaluated: /OO LF 10. County: A,?? rt o Ye v
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.372312): 34,,-) 3 5 ?? (a Longitude (ex. -77.556611): - 7 88 7G g g
Method location determined (circle): Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/G1S Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (n to nearby roads and landm rks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
? :use r? t`°?' rF r r, ;t . -r Q t a? e o-, Fa e -t d1 UA c?&. f?"
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 11J QCe rQl n (l ?7 3/2 t ?p
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ??cl C?2a ,Yl,t_Ytny
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV).
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ® If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: o2 % Residential 90 % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
Sl
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged /0 % Other ( mods, fr,- - y/0V
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): - S G F2P?J
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: ? Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score from reverse): ( )• Comments:
Evaluator's Signature l ?iLLdG?/ Date J/°Z 3 JO
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
rr CHARACTERISTICS E G101 `, OV T RANGE ; f

'
_ SCOT
G
t 1 Piedmont Viountain,-
1 Presence of flow fpersistent pools in stream -

;'
- (no flow or saturation= 0; strong flow = max points) 0-5
. 0-4
?,
2 Evidence of past human alteration
=
P 0 - 6 0
(extensive alteration
-0; no=alteration = max
oints)
3'- Riparian zone

no buffer = O; contiguous, wide buffer= max 'points)
0-6
0-4 '?
0 0
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges ,

(extensive discharges =0-,,,no discharzes = max points) 0-5
0-4 ,
0 4

`
5 -Groundw iter discharge

U

(no discharge -0; s nnQS :see s wetfands
etc. = max poin ts) 0-3 , 0 4 0 4
; "-
6 Presence of ad,lacent floodplain

}
(no floodplain ='O; extensive#(oodplain.= max points) 0-4 0- 4 0 D
r" Entrenchtpent / floodplain-.access ' ?

(deeply entrenched = Q; frequent-llooding = max points) 0-5 0 4
; 0
Presence of adjacent wetlands
'
,
0 - 6
0
(no werlands = 0; laree_ad
acent wetlands = max' points)
` I
Channel sinuosity
0 - 5
0 - I
0
(extensive channelization = 0, natural meander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0 f - ,' 0 4
(extensive` deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)
iSize& diversity of channel bed"substrate

11 (fine, homogenous = 0; large; diverse sizes =max points) "NA *
1Z Evidence of channel incision or widening
v- - `(deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)
~ 13 ; ,Presence of major bank failures' -
e
= 0 - 5 0 0:
(severe
rosion
0; no erosion, stable banks = Max points)

14 Root depth and density on banks

0 3 :

t
U-
(no visible roots= 0; dense roots throughout = max porn j
15' Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber "production
?0=5
?
0 1
(substantial impact =0; no evidence =-max points) .
` 16>' Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool'complexes . ;?
_

no riffles/ri Ics or pools = 0-well-developed= max oints)
0
3 0 5.:-
0 6.
I
171
> Habitat complexity ?-
(little or no habitat= 0; frequent, varied habitats='
abitats = max oints 0l 6 a 6 6, -
Canopy coved age over strea'mbed
1g no shading vegetation = 0`continuous canopy= max points) 0 5' 0 = 5 0; I
19 ' Substrate embeddedness
dee 1 embedded -.0; loose struchire = max) 'N'0- 4
?..
0 "Presence ofstream invertebrates (see page 4)
no evidence= 0, common; numerous types - max; points) '
°0 4
0 5 0 -
C? 2l -; Presence of amphibians. ?

O.
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous topes ='coax` points) 0 =4 .0

CO
. 22' Presence of fish-,

no evidence = 0; common, numerous es max o n ;
0 4 :
0 4 0? t

23-' = Evidence ofivildlife use
0 - 6
- 0 5
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence - max point-,l
Total Points Possible" f00 too 100 -
2`OT IL. SCORE :(also enter ar ? First page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
n
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: U-3g? ? rya 4iver Basin:
?ZCounty: i4nO W/Evaluator: a.14
? ?.r?-
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: 3?. d 35,?1& Signature: Cam.
Date: 3J23 J ,--)4, USGS QUAD: g 6 ?S sly or
Longitude: - 77- 7 &,Location/Directions: /??-?t2ve? ? utl
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. Also, if
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system rn.11
should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
om

9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
1 2
('NOTE: I(Bed & Bank Caused By Ditchine Rnd WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score-0')
10) Is a 2"" Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Topo Map And/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 NoT"01
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: S
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Dischar a Present? 0 .1 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 3
W
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: b
a6'A&
1?
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
H. Hydroloey
Absent Weak Moderate Strove
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 15 5 0
X71 To Q-4.---f n nt /? - ,

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5
Last Known Rain? 'NOTE: I Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski This Ste And #5 Beli
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?
6) Are Hydric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Ye
SECONDARYIYYDR0L0GYINDICA TOR POINTS. 51 I
III. Bioloey Absent Weal
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5
1
1 1.5
I
7 Is Filamentous Algae Present? t 1'?
0 5 1 15
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? Ste( Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(' NOTE. If Total Absence OjAll Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 5 0 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAY present*).
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS.
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = Z? (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes: ? /'
1 GL l.L l G ??e S DY ar? -'l ?l?t ,D lU i've cf
Yea ?v c? ? ? ?'

2

USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
?.
E3
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: ?T?LI E G18?SU P'
1. Applicant's name: NCDOT 2. Evaluator's name: ClA1D 0421 aVLK EA[62 S
3. Date of evaluation: 3 z 3 4. Time of evaluation: 3U
5. Name of stream. (AML 6. River basin: Q /?? . r<2 A t?
7. Approximate drainage area: U ' ?O M-t Z 8. Stream order: S?Df Z
9. Length of reach evaluated: '75 LiC 10. County:'w
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): ?T as SO,?& Longitude (ex. -77.55661 l): -7 *-7• '70? 7
Method location determined (circle): ® Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other ?r
13. Location of reach under evaluation ( ote ne by roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location): Gy?
??-
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: M
SO° Temp (u (c( WInd S ,'- .Ce- (-aLr) ?t 1I om 312-?
16. Site conditions at time of visit: OA I L-- D C(P-ay- L
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _
18. Is there a pond or take located upstream of the evaluatior
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? (D NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: 70 % Residential
"_, % Forested
22. Bankfull width-"'
24. Channel slope down center of stream: ? Flat (0 to 2%)
-Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
point? YES & If yes, estimate the water surface area:
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? Z0NO
c?D % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural,
_% Cleared / Logged 10 % Other (? S , ?-?-ur S
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):^-
-Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight _Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to `each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality. t C / /
Total Sc re (from rever e): Comments: ?(iYl (LLli T?Ct Ulci
v >vl J
Evaluator's Signature LAIAII Date `3 a 3 b
This channel evaluation form is int ded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
4 • T. HARAACTERISTICS E d. ' GIONP:OTN T RANGE SCO1tF
C ast•1 .-Piedmont Mountain-
1 Presence of tlorr/ persistent pools in. stream

(no flow. orsaturation;.= 0;.stron flow = iiiaxx. points) 0 _ 0 - 4 '0 - L?
?
Evidence of past human alteration
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max `oints) 0 - 6 0 5 - 0 5
3 Riparian `zone
-
(no buffer = O; Conti uous, wide buffer= max.. points) 0 - 6 0 - 4 = :- 0
11 Z
I
4 Evidence of nutrient orchemical'discharges
(extensive discharges = 0, no dischar,es max 0oints)
0 -41
ra Groundwater discharge
no discharge = 0, s rin s,: ee s'
wetlands
et
= m
x
int
) 0 -' 0 -4 4 _- l
U .
:
a
po
c.
s

6 Presence of adlacen tloodplain
(no floodplain0; extensive floodplain;= Max points) Q - 4 0 - 4 - 0 2
'Entrenchment / tloodplain access
=
?
(d entrenched O;frequent.floodin = max points) 0 - 5 0 4 0 2 ;
s; Presence of ad' cent wetlands
0 - 6
0 - 4
0 2
(no wetlands =`0, large ad acent wetlands = max' points) `
Channel sm'uosity

(extensive. chanrielizahon,= 0; natural meander = max points)
0 -5

0 - 4. `.

0 3

L/
10 Sediment input
(cxtensivedeposition 0;{ittle or no sediment=.max points)
0 0
?0 4
1 1 Size & diversity of charm' el bed substrate 0
(fine, homo enous O,. large, diverse sizes - maX`pomts
12 Evidenc"oft hannef incision or widening _
?
?

(deg 1 incised = 0, statle.bed sec banks -max points) 0, = 5
? 0 4 0 .51
n
.
13 Presence of'major bank failures

(severe erosion== 0,.no.erosion, stable banks = mas points 0 0 U 3
Ca 14- ?;- Root-depth and dens,ity,on banks
=" no visible roots= 0' den
e
t
tti
ugho
'
o
?
.

max p
s
roo
s
ro
ut
.
ints}
. ,,.
,
15
_

Impact b}agriculture, livestock, or timber production

?0
(subst ial:impact=0; no evidence max oints) -

. ` 16 , Presence of.riffle=pool/apple pool 'complexes
•
g
r
,
' °'0 ?. - :0 1 ,6
no
riffles/
ip les or
opools -- 0.?uell-develo
ed = max- omts)

17, :Habitat conipfezity
little or no habitat = 0
fre`uent
:variedhabit
t
=
ax
i
t . 0 6 0 6 0 6

r ,
,
a
s
m
po
n
s)
-
18 = . Canopy coverage over streambed
Ve
(no shadin
etati
0
<
a
o
-
a
0
g
?
on
,
continuous- c
n
e
m
x points)
19 ' Sii.bstrate embeddedness
(deg 1 embedded =0;• loose stricture = max) NA* 0 4 0 4
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0

(no evidence - 0 common' numerous es = max points) 0 - 4 - 0 ` 5

O 21 Presence dfhmphibians
(no evidence 0, common; numerous types = max `points) ' 1,-.0 4 0 4 ? 0?-°4 -
O 2

2
Presence of f ish

(no evidence - 0; common; numerous tv es - max 0

4

? .',
-
23 -,: _
-. Evidence of wildlife use ?. .I -
(no evidence= 0; abundant evidence max points) ?0 _ 6 ; . - 0 5 0.- 5
•
Total Points.Possible'
_'IOQ
100
1U0
u TOTAL SC,O RI ;'(also Cron
urstpa e) art
?
33
.,
?
;
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams
2
Y LO
J ,
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: U -3882 ?V r River Basin: ape County: Iiw -ha no yew (? n ?.v,?
aVe. Y) Ue- Evaluator:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: 2'WM'J Latitude: ?7 a a 50 gG/
f,4? ?'f - Longitude: Signature:
Date: /23 b?f USGS QUAD: W?[mi?? }O n -77.88`701 ocat ?? /Lt4 "-) ,,,2cfu?
ion/Directions
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner, gree t t the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not nece? aryAlso if'th
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating stem r?l
should not be used* S1 s1 ??
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? p 1 ` 1 3
('NOTE: If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score-0•) 2
.10) Is a 2"° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS:
4 Are Bivalves Present? 0 1 2 3 kt"Zf C. PRIMARYBIOL0GYINDICATOR POINTS.
I-r
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
W
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOL0GYINDI?ATOR POINTS.
I?/
H. Hvdrolop_v Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
FIow/Dischar a Present? o l 2 3
PRIAIAR Y HYDR OL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS: 3
Primary Field Indicators' (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 5 0
1.5 (
T- I

4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
SECONDARYH'YDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 5.5'
1
JAY Most?ut3L Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 I 75 5
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present').
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: U
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is
At Least Intermittent)
Notes:
?z.. - lc7/
l

2
III. BioloW Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1\ A r t

I-6SACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET [
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: q G?A Sa N
1. Applicant's name: )W rDO-r
3. Date of evaluation:. 3 °? 3 0
5. Name of stream: &J- ? 2.
7. Approximate drainage area: O ' IYL! Z
9. Length of reach evaluated: t7
5
2. Evaluator's name: G, IL ND G9-R-0- ? !LC(JLK EN6:QS
4. Time of evaluation: '-
6. River basin: ` &Qe Fe Gig'
8. Stream order: 3
10. County: I\kw 7 t? l? Q Ve-i-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): n hbn E?
Latitude (ex. 34.372312): 2 /T , a a A 8 / 9 Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
/ ?• S / ?Ly
Method location determined (circle): V Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) ?location):
?11[Z-P ?Ir-2? (?>;r? r?;r3 :!? ?ILU.-_•?,2(,CJy1,.c,1,,?.?. ?>./,r_,I,??c.?? ;.r?.(.? ??%t?l???- /??1? ?? -r ! ?.?{';r`= .?
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: a I ? S0 uF Jerk S M, 1 A11 /) Q Ct" 1^CLt n 317- l /04
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ?Yl 1lJ, de-a.r ? Sunny'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
13. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES ZQ If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YESO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES .?
21. Estimated watershed land use: 20 % Residential 70 % Commercial _% Industrial j-% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged A'a % Other
22. Bankfull width: ry 4P 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): I '
24. Channel slope down center of stream: V Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight „Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse):
(?Y 1??1 rl.e ? / ? MQ.c n?GL! v?e? ?j?tJ?'I?')
Evaluator's Signature Date & al 3 0
51-
This channel evaluation form is in ded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners an -environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Cotnment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
1.
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
# CHARACTERISTICS ? WGION POLN T,RANGY.
..
Coastal
?:.Piedmont
IYlountaim- SCOR
.. ??.
1 Presence* of flow/ persistent pools in stream
(no flow orsaturation.= 0, stcong..,flow = max points) 0 - 0 = 4.

Evidence ofpast human Alteration
;-
0 ='6
0
0 511

Q
" (extensive alteration =0; no alteration= max Dints)
?- Riparian zone-

(no buffer =..0; contiguous, wide 6ucfer = max p
0-1-61
0-,,4

0
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges -

(extensive discharges = 0„ no discharges = max points) ' 0 0 4 - 0 4
5' Groundwater discharge .

u
(no discharge 0; springs', seeps'. wetlands,' etc. = max points) 0 , 0 -:4 0 4 /
d
6 Presence of adjacent floodplaib
(no floodplain= 0; extensive floodplain'= max points) 0 - 4 0 - 4 0
?. 71 Entrenchment / floodplain in,
- '
(de -1- entrenched O; frequent floodin = max points) ; 4
5 0 4 0 - Z 3
q' Presence of adjacent wetlands

(no wetlands = 0, jar e adjacent wetlands = max' Dints) ` 0=6 0 4 0 2
9 Channel sinuosity
(extensive ?channetization.:= 0,.natural meander = max points) 0 - 4 0 3 ,.
10 Sediinenttnput .
(extensive deposition= 0-, little-or no sediment= max points) 0 -5 -` ?0 4 4 I
I l? Size diversity,orchannel bedsubstrate.

(fine, homo enous = 0; large, diverse sizes =coax`points)
?0 a j -
Evidence of channel incision or widenin-

d
IV`i

`0 '.
_.?
=0 1 0
,.+ (
ee
ncised= 0;=stable bed & banks= maxpoints)
13 Presence of major bank failures
a (severe. erosion =' 0; no erosion, stable banks = maz points) 0 0 U l.?
p 14 =Root depth and density on banks' .- ? .
(no visible roots = 0;, dense roots throughout = max points)` 0
U 1? Impact by, agriculture, livestock, or timber production's
0 51•-1' .
. 0-4 j
(substantial impact =O; no evidence=max points)

16
,. Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-poolcomplexes
' _
(nodriffles/rip les or Dols =0; well'-develop ed = max oints) "?
17 Habitat complexity
(little or no habitat= _0; fre uent, varied habitats'= max Dints)
""0 - 6
0 - 6 ?0' 6;
18 :'Canopy coverage over,streambed .
no shadina?ve .taboo = 0 continuou's canopy = mar points)
19 ' Substrate embeddedness
(dee 1 embedded.=•:0; loose stnicture = max)

0 40-l
20 :;Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
Q 4
0 5 0
(no evidence 0, common; numerous types = max points). = -
1
P Presence of amphibians
(no evidence 0 ,common; numerous t pea Max points) } 0 - 4

C
?
- 22
2 Presence of fish =

(no evidence 0?common?Numerous es t"l t

'0 '4' - 0- l

23- - Evidence of wildlife use =
0- 5
(n6 evidence = 0; abundant evidence =`max points)-
Totul Points Possible'- 100 10
"
TOTf?L SCORE (also enter on'first page) L
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
2
wpb 17
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: U-3999 7 crr River Basin: C/o-, County: Ale-'o fiarlo LL "' Evaluator: &AMI C, rP_.
G?.It2.vl u e
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude:
-J ?• a as 81R Si ature: 6 a J
Date: ?2.3I0 f USGS QUAD: &);I I.I TDB Longitude: -'7'7. 28 S7Ib p7 l?r, -ec-h y
Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not necessary. ls ,Qi?' j
in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified natural stream-this rating system K of
should not be used* ',Ue
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
9) Is a Continuous Bed & Bank Present? V 1 ?3
C OTE: I(Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WTHOUT Slnuoosity Then Score=O") I 2 2
10) Is a 2°° Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On To o Ma And/Or In Field Present? Yes=3 No 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS:-_
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate
1) Is There A Groundwater Strong
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 l 2 3
PRIIVARYHYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 3
en
2
PRIMAR Y BIOL 0 GY INDICA TOR POINTS.
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYIND
TOR POINTS:
j?
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
II. Hydrolop_y Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last Year's) Leaflitter
Present In Strearnbed? 1.5 _ (1/ S
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since
5) Is There Water in Channel During Dry
0 .5
0 .5
SECONDARYIYYDROLOGYINDICATOR POINTS. (o
1
OU v11
1) Are Fish Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
2) Are Amphibians Present? 0 (`) 1 1.5
3) Are AguaticTurtles Present? 0 5 1 1.5
4) Are Crivfich PrPCPnt9
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(-NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Stz This Ste UNLESS SAY Present'
SECONDARYBIOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS ?ma + Secondary) At Least Intermittent)
(If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream is
l`
Notes:
b LF ??? c) -? 011 cr-, c
2
May 17, 2005
Memorandum to: Participants
From: Pamela R. Williams
MULKEY
ENGINEERS & CON5ULTANTS
Subject: SR 1175 (Kerr Avenue) Extension and Widening from US 76 (Oleander
Ave.) to SR 2649 (Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkway) and Interchange at
Martin Luther King, Jr. Parkw_a and Kerr Avenue.
State Project No. 34932.11 'New Hanover County
F. A. Project No. STP-1175( `
A meeting was held for the above subject project on April 20, 2005 at the NCDOT Location and
Survey's conference room at the Century Center. The purpose of the meeting was to review the
impacts to the jurisdictional streams and wetlands and request a determination if the project would
require going though the merger process. The USACE and the FHWA were invited to the meeting,
but were unable to attend. The meeting participates were:
Nikki Thomson DWQ
Christina Breen DWQ
Colista Freeman NCDOT-PDEA
Brian Yamamoto NCDOT-PDEA
Pam Williams Mulkey Engineers and Consultants
The impacts (0.98 acres of wetlands and over 500 feet of stream) mostly occur at the proposed
interchange site. The purposed preliminary designs for U-3338 have not begun, so the impacts are
considered worst case.
The DWQ questioned the terminus of the project and was advised that there are no projects planned
for widening Kerr Avenue to the north or extending Kerr Avenue to the south in the thoroughfare
plan, the MPO long range plan, or the NCDOT TIP.
After discussion of the jurisdictional stream and wetland impacts, the DWQ deferred the decision for
this project to go through the Merger 01 Process to the USACE.
These minutes are the writers' interpretations of the events and discussions, which took place during the meeting. If
there are any additions and/or corrections, please respond in writing within seven (7) days.
MULKEY INC. 6750 TRYON ROAD CARY, NC 2751 1 PO BOX 331 27 RALEIGH, NC 27636 PH: 91 9-851-191 2 FAX: [phone] WWW.MULKEYINC.COM
J0/-f,- mvi essy
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
July 16, 2003
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Environmental Management Director
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed widening and extension of SR
1175 (Kerr Avenue) to a multi-lane facility beginning at its intersection with US 76 and
terminating just north of SR 2649 in New Hanover County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3338).
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with.provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road improvement projects such as widening, realignment, bridge replacement and culvert
replacement, the Service recommends the following general conservation measures to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
practical. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological value important to the
watershed or region should be avoided. Proposed highway projects should be aligned
along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors or other previously disturbed
areas in order to minimize habitat loss and fragmentation. Highway shoulder and median
widths should be reduced through wetland areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
-for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
3. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
6. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by
other means should be explored at the outset;
7. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
9. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
The list of federally protected species included in your submitted information is an accurate list
of all the species currently listed as occurring in New Hanover County. Due to the urbanized
nature of the project area, it is unlikely that habitat for any of these species occurs within the
project corridor.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;

2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing roads and a "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Dave Timpy, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Dave Franklin, USACE, Wilmington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmore, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC