20060104 Ver 1_Complete File_20060217

Pf O?O? SAT ?gQG
' 7
o ?
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
February 17, 2006
Wayne County
DWQ No. 060104
TIP No. B-4319
APPROVAL of NEUSE RIVER BUFFER RULES AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe,
You have our approval, in accordance with the conditions listed below, for the following impacts for the purpose of
replacement of Bridge No. 21 over Great Swamp on NC 222 in Wayne County:
Wetland Impact Table
Site Wetland Impacts - Fill
(ac) Wetland Impacts - Excavation
(ac)
Site 1 0.034 0.025
Total 0.034 0.025
Total Wetlands Impacted 0.0 59
Neuse River Buffer Impact Table
Site Allowable
Zone 1 (s q. ft.) Zone 2 (s q. ft.)
Site 1 3,954 2,219
Totals 6,173
The project shall be constructed in accordance with your application dated received on January 20, 2006. After
reviewing your application, we have decided that the stream impacts and riparian buffer impacts described are
covered by General Water Quality Certification Numbers 3403. This certification corresponds to the Nationwide
Permit 23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Neuse Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B
.0233). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you proceed with your project
including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed
regulations. This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 permit.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the
new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying
with all the conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre,: or of total
impacts to streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as
described in 15A NCAC 21-1.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to remain valid, you must adhere to the
conditions listed in the attached certification.
Noe Carolina
QtllCll!!J?
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] /FAX [phone] / Internet: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/nmetlands
An Eoual 0wortuniN/Affirmative Action Emplover-50% Recvded/10% Post Consumer Paper
A
1.) Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the enclosed "Certification of
Completion Form" to notify DWQ when all work included in the 401 Certification has been completed. The
responsible party shall complete the attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the Division of
Water Quality upon completion of the project.
2.) No in-water work is permitted between February 15 and June 15 of any year, without prior approval from the
NC Division of Water Quality and the NC Wildlife Resources Commission. In addition, NCDOT shall conform
with the most recent version of the officially adopted document entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passage at all times.
3.) All stormwater runoff shall be directed to sheetflow through stream buffers at nonerosive velocities, unless
approved otherwise by this certification.
4.) During the construction of the project, no staging of equipment of any kind is permitted in waters of the U.S., or
riparian buffers.
5.) Riparian vegetation must be reestablished within the construction limits of the project by the end of the growing
season following completion of construction.
6.) Compensatory mitigation for impacts to 0.059 acres of jurisdictional riverine wetlands shall be done. Total mitigation shall
be provided as described below:
Offsite Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation for the unavoidable impacts to 0.059 acres of riverine wetlands in the
Neuse River Basin in the Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03020203, associated with the proposed
project shall be provided by the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP), as outlined in the letter
dated December 13, 2005, and in accordance with the Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the State of North Carolina and the US Army Corps of Engineers signed on July 22, 2003 and with
Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
7.) The dimension, pattern and profile of the stream above and below the crossing should not be modified by
widening the stream channel or reducing the depth of the stream. Disturbed floodplains and streams should be
restored to natural geomorphic conditions.
8.) Any riprap used must not interfere with thalweg performance and aquatic life passage during low flow
conditions.
9.) All mechanized equipment operated near surface waters must be regularly inspected and maintained to prevent
contamination of stream waters from fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or, other toxic materials.
10.) Discharging hydroseed mixtures and washing out hydroseeders and other equipment in or adjacent to surface
waters is prohibited.
11.) The outside buffer, wetland or water boundary located within the construction corridor approved by this
authorization shall be clearly marked by highly visible fencing prior to any land disturbing activities. Impacts
to areas within the fencing are prohibited unless otherwise authorized by this certification.
12.) There shall be no excavation from or waste disposal into jurisdictional wetlands or waters associated with this
permit without appropriate modification of this permit. Should waste or borrow sites be located in wetlands or
stream, compensatory mitigation will be required since it is a direct impact from road construction activities.
13.) Heavy equipment must be operated from the banks rather than in the stream channel in order to minimize
sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into the stream.

14.) No live or fresh concrete shall come into contact with waters of the state until the concrete has hardened
x;y
15.) The presence of equipment in the channels must be minimized. Under no circumstances must rock, sand or
other materials be dredged from the wetted stream channel under authorization of this permit, except in the
immediate vicinity of the culverts.
16.) All work shall be performed during low or normal flow conditions.
17.) A copy of this Water Quality Certification shall be posted on the construction site at all times. In addition, the
Water Quality Certification and all subsequent modifications, if any, shall be maintained with the Division
Engineer and the on-site project manager.
18.) All riparian buffers impacted by the placement of temporary fill or clearing activities shall be restored to the
preconstruction contours and revegetated with native woody species upon completion of the project
construction. A post-construction as-built with the restoration activities included shall be submitted to the
DWQ no later than 60 days after the project is closed out by the Department of Transportation.
19.) Pursuant to NCACI5A 2B.0233(6) sediment and erosion control devices shall not be placed in Zone 1 of any
Neuse Buffer without prior approval by the NCDWQ. At this time, the NCDWQ has approved no sediment and
erosion control devices in Zone 1, outside of the approved project impacts, anywhere on this project. Moreover,
sediment and erosion control devices shall be allowed in Zone 2 of the buffers provided that Zone 1 is not
compromised and that discharge is released as diffuse flow.
20.) Erosion and sediment control practices must be in full compliance with all specifications governing the proper
design, installation and operation and maintenance of such Best Management Practices in order to protect
surface waters standards:
a. The erosion and sediment control measures for the project must be designed, installed, operated, and
maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual.
b. The design, installation, operation, and maintenance of the sediment and erosion control measures
must be such that they equal, or exceed, the requirements specified in the most recent version of the
North Carolina Sediment and Erosion Control Manual. The devices shall be maintained on all
construction sites, borrow sites, and waste pile (spoil) projects, including contractor-owned or leased
borrow pits associated with the project.
C. For borrow pit sites, the erosion and sediment control measures must be designed, installed, operated,
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of the North Carolina Surface Mining
Manual.
d. The reclamation measures and implementation must comply with the reclamation in accordance with
the requirements of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act.
21.) The post-construction removal of any temporary bridge structures will need to return the project site to its
preconstruction contours and elevations. The revegetation of the impacted areas with appropriate native species
is required.
22.) If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict adherence
the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality
Certification.
23.) This approval will expire with the accompanying 404 federal permit. This condition supercedes condition No.
10 in the General Certification 3403.
I
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition that conforms
to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a
hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please contact Nicole Thomson at [phone].
mce ly,
Alan W. Klimek, P.E.
JH/njt
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District US Army Corps of Engineers
Mr. William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Mr. Tyler Stanton, PDEA-NEU
Mr. Richard E. Greene, Jr., Division 4 Engineer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
Division 4 Environmental Officer, PO Box 3165, Wilson, NC 27895
Mr. Garcy Ward, NC DWQ Washington Regional Office
File Copy
c:\Correspondence\2006BridgeProjects\DWQ060104\021606wgc.doc
Y
O$ stem
PROGRAM
December 13, 2005
Mr. William Wescott
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Q 0 4
Washington Regulatory Field Office Q Q 6
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Dear Mr. Wescott:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
WEkA/Y9,6' bSTpRMt
BRANCy
B-4319, Bridge Number 21 over Great Swamp on NC 222, Wayne
County; Neuse River Basin (Cataloging Unit 03020203); Northern Inner
Coastal Plain (NICP) Eco-Region
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program
(EEP) will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the unavoidable impact
associated with the above referenced project. As indicated in the NCDOT's mitigation request
letter dated December 8, 2005, the project will impact 0.059 acre of riverine wetlands.
EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation up
to a 2:1 ratio to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in
which the permit for this project is issued, in accordance with Section X of the Memorandum of
Agreement between the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, N. C. Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, and N. C. Department of Transportation (Tri-Party MOA), signed on July 22,
2003. Compensatory riverine wetland mitigation assets available include, but are not
limited to, the Neu-Con Mitigation Bank, Moccasin Creek, and Wiggins Mill mitigation
sites.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth
Harmon at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
it iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
Director
cc: Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT-PDEA
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4319
•?' 4 T" rf'd f -T / ? ? ? } ? 1 3 ._?. p Y .-7 ? n .a 1 v
?Y? NCDENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0416 / www.nceep.net
'%1--
-I T O stern 91
.- v
PROGRAM
December 13, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4319, Bridge 21 over the Great Swamp on NC 222, Wayne County
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated December 8, 2005, the impacts are located in CU
03020203 of the Neuse River Basin in the Northern Inner Coastal Plain (NICP) Eco-Region, and
are as follows:
Riverine Wetlands: 0.059 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22,
2003. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation
to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE-Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4319
Rp's ` ., v : ? ,r y: l ' 7x f a 3 r• L"'a?V -v O u s`' Rate,
NC ENR
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
dpt SfATFy
V
Mux
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
File
October 3, 2003
Karen B. Capps, PE
Project Development Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 21 on NC 222 over Great
Swamp, Wayne County, State Project No. 8.1332001, F. A.
Project No. BRSTP-222(2), TIP No. B-4319
A scoping meeting was held for the subject bridge replacement on August 14,
2003 in the Roadway Design Conference room. The following people were in
attendance.
Bill Goodwin PDEA Tina Snell Roadway Design
Richard Shillinglaw Roadway Design Matt Harvey Roadway Design
Sue Flowers Roadway Design John Pilipchuk Geotechnical
Nasir Siddiqui Congestion Mgt. Tinnette Hales Right of Way
Steve Gurganus PDEA/PICS Denese Lavendar PDEA/PICS
Derek Bradner Location & Surveys Karen Capps PDEA
Peggy Seymore Traffic Control Wayne Jacas Traffic Control
Wendi Johnson Division 4 - Const. David Webb Hydraulics
Michael Ellington Program Development Omar Azizi Structure Design
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule Document:
Right of Way:
Construction:
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
April 2004
April 2005
June 2006
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
Bridge No. 21 was originally built in 1962. It is 53 feet long and 29.3 feet wide. The
bridge is posted at 29 tons for single vehicle and legal gross weight for TTST's. The
sufficiency rating for the bridge is 63.1 out of a possible 100. The sufficiency rating of
the bridge was 49.8 out of a possible 100 when it was placed in the TIP. Bridge
Maintenance replaced the cap on Bent # 2, resealed the expansion joint, repaired the
wingwall at Abutment #2, and replaced fill material at the wingwall on Abutment #2.
The approach roadway width is approximately 24 feet with 9-foot grass shoulders.
Traffic Information NC 222 is a Rural Major Collector with no posted speed limit. The
current ADT is 1,100 vpd and the projected 2025 ADT is 2,400 vpd. There are currently
2% Duals and 3% TTST's. There are eight school bus crossings per day. The Wayne Co.
School Transportation Director stated that the buses could be rerouted.
Accidents
There was one accident reported in a three-year study period. The accident occurred at
the bridge abutment where heavy rains undermined the fill behind the bridge abutment,
opening up a hole in the pavement.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to March 2000 Bridge Policy
Based on the NCDOT Bridge Policy, the minimum typical section for the proposed
bridge should be able to carry two 12-foot lanes with 8.0-foot offsets.
Possible Offsite Detour
There is one possible route to use for an offsite detour. It utilizes SR 1341, SR 1342, and
SR 1343 and is approximately 2.5 miles in length.
SCOPING COMMENTS
Division 4 recommends using an offsite detour for replacing Bridge No 21. There are
two possible detour routes recommended. One is the same as described above. The
Division indicated that the bridge on SR 1343 is rated at 20/29 and would need to be
upgraded to match the rating on Bridge No. 21. Additionally, SR 1341 and SR 1343 are
BST roads that would have to be resurfaced before being used as a detour route. The
second route utilizes NC581, SR 1342 and SR 1341. This detour is 5 miles in length.
SR 1341, as stated above, would have to be resurfaced. There are overhead utilities on
the north side of the existing structure and state that they recommend maintaining the
existing alignment.
Wayne County Emergency Services indicated that a road closure on this project would
not create emergency response concerns for the county as long as the construction of the
Memorial Church Road Bridge is complete.
The Geotechnical Unit stated that there are no geoenvironmental or geotechnical
concerns on this project.
The Division of Coastal Management offered comments. However, Wayne County
does not fall within CAMA jursidiction.
The Wildlife Resources Commission stated that anadromous fish are located within the
project vicinity and recommends an in-stream moratorium from February 15 to June 15.
Standard comments apply.
The US Army Corps of Engineers recommend replacing the existing bridge with a
bridge. Based on preliminary observations, they strongly recommend a geotechnical
evaluation be conducted for this project if an onsite detour is used to evaluate the
potential for sediment consolidation.
The Division of Water Quality has not commented to date.
The Division of Marine Fisheries stated that it concurs with the findings in the NRTR
and concurs with the in-stream moratorium for this project. It requests that all wetlands
be bridged and all appropriate BMP's are used during construction.
The U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service gave standard comments.
The North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources has requested additional historic
architural surveys. The existence of a Coastal Cottage in the vicinity of the bridge has been
documented.
The Natural Resources Technical Report stated that Great Swamp is located in the
Neuse River Basin and must adhere to the appropriate buffer rules. The Great Swamp is
classified as C Sw. There are no outstanding resources waters, high quality waters or
water supplies within the project vicinity. The biotic resources include Cypress Gum
Swamp (high quality resource), Mesic Mixed hardwood Forest, Cutover and Successional
Lands, Agricultural Lands, and Rural Residential Lands. There are four classes of
wetlands in the project area described in the NRTR. The project area supports
anadromous fish and appropriate moratoriums apply. The biological conclusion for the
Red-cockaded woodpecker is "no effect."
The Location and Surveys Unit stated that there are overhead utility lines located along
the north side of NC 222. Underground telephone is apparent west of the site but there is
no evidence that it crosses the waterway. No other utilities were observed at the site.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends replacing the existing bridge with a 95-foot bridge in
the existing location and approximately the same low steel elevation as the existing
bridge. No deck drains will be allowed to discharge directly into Great Swamp. If a
temporary onsite detour is used, the detour structure would need to be 75-feet in length
located to the north of the existing bridge.
The Community Impact Assessment Report stated that an offsite detour for the
construction of this bridge would not severely impact the community. However, local
officials have requested that this bridge closing be coordinated with other closings and
detours in the area. The timing of construction should be such that other bridge projects
in the area are completed. Public involvement is recommended to coordinate potential
farming operations and to notify the public of the preferred offsite detour.
f
ALTERNATES FOR EVALUATION
The following alternates will be carried forward for further study. All alternates involve
replacing Bridge No. 21 with a new bridge in the existing location while detouring traffic
offsite. The two offsite detours will be further evaluated based on the cost of upgrading
the current facilities to handle the detour traffic.
1. Replace the existing bridge with a three-span cored slab bridge.
Ia. Replace the existing bridge with a single-span bridge (steel or prestressed
concrete).
lb. Replace the existing bridge with a two-span cored slab.
Roadway Design will not complete final plans and construction cost estimates until the
structure type and length are finalized.
ALTERNATES ELIMINATED FROM FURTHER STUDY
The use of an onsite detour for maintaining traffic was eliminated because there are high
quality resources located at the project site that would be impacted by temporary fill.
NEXT STEPS
1. Send out a request for additional geology information at the site to determine the
type of substructure that might be required in this location.
2. Set up a meeting with PDEA, Structure Design, Hydraulics, and Division 4 to
further discuss structure options for the proposed structure.
3. Upon finalization of the structure type, coordinate with Roadway Design on
completion date for the preliminary plans and cost estimates.
4. SHPO will write a new comment letter stating that there are no further need for
historical surveys based on a meeting held September 4, 2003.
a..
00?-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 17, 2006
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTN: Mr. Willam Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
O V
FT??Or." : X20
?tias?????L?/ 06 0
>? D
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
060104
SUBJECT: Nationwide 23 Permit Application and Neuse Riparian Buffer
Authorization Request for the replacement of Bridge No. 21 over Great
Swamp on NC 222 in Wayne County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
222 (2), State Project No. 8.1332001, TIP No. B-4319.
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the Bridge No. 21 over
Great Swamp on NC 222, with anew bridge at the existing location and approximate elevation. -
The new bridge will be a two-lane structure approximately 90 feet in length. The cross section of
the new bridge will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot minimum offsets. The approach work
will consist of earthwork, paving, some resurfacing, and tying back into the existing roadway for
approximately 320 feet to the east. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction. Impacts
to 0.059 ac. of wetlands and 6,173 ft2 of riparian buffer are proposed.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description:
Great Swamp [DWQ Index No. 27-86-9-3] is located in the Neuse River Basin, in the 03020203
Permanent Impacts:
The replacement of Bridge No. 21 will result in 0.059 acre of permanent impacts to jurisdictional
wetland (0.034 ac. fill, 0.025 ac. excavation).
u
IMPACTS TO NEUSE RIVER BASIN BUFFERS
HUC and has a classification of C; Sw; NSW. ll
This project is located within the Neuse River Basin, with the Great Swamp being ablue-line
stream. Therefore, this project is subject to the regulations pertaining to the riparian buffer rules.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBS/TE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

The construction of the new bridge will impact 3,954 ft2 in zone 1 and 2,219 ft2 in zone 2 (6,173
ft2 total). These impacts are considered allowable, therefore no compensatory mitigation is
proposed.
BRIDGE DEMOLITION
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be implemented. This
bridge is classified as "Case 2" which states that no in water work will be performed during
required moratoriums. Bridge No. 21 has a two-lane, three span superstructure composed of a
concrete deck on timber joists. The substructure is composed of timber caps, piles and
bulkheads. The anticipated temporary fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 21 is
approximately two cubic yards, as discussed in the Categorical Exclusion.
UTILITIES
There will be no jurisdictional impacts from utility relocations. Directional boring and
other avoidance measures will be used to avoid impacts.
AVOIDANCE & MINIMIZATION
The NCDOT proposes to replace the Bridge No. 21 with a new bridge at the existing location
and approximate low chord elevation using topdown construction. Traffic will be detoured
offsite during construction. These factors will reduce the impacts to Waters of the United States.
Best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized to minimize water quality impacts. In
compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0I04(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the design
of the project. Additionally, an instream moratorium of February 15 through June 15 and Stream
Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passing will be adhered to throughout project
construction
MITIGATION
The Department has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest
extent possible. The necessary compensatory mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts to waters
that are jurisdictional under the federal Clean Water Act will be provided by the EEP. The
offsetting mitigation will derive from an inventory of assets already in existence within the same
8-digit cataloging unit. A copy of the EEP acceptance letter is included with this permit
application.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
As of January 29, 2003, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists one federally protected
species for Wayne County. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached for the Red-
cockaded woodpecker at this site in 2002 due to no suitable nesting or foraging habitat. This
biological conclusion remains valid.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 as authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 23 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
2

Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3403 will apply to this
project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) we are providing five copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Neuse Buffer Rules: This project lies within the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations
pertaining to the Neuse Buffer Rules will apply. These uses require written authorization from
the Division or the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests written authorization
for a Buffer Certification from the Division of Water Quality.
We anticipate that the Corps of Engineers will request comments from the North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) prior to authorization. By copy of this letter and
attachment, NCDOT hereby requests NCWRC review. NCDOT requests that NGWRC forward -
their comments to the Corps of Engineers.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
htlp://www.ncdot.org/planning[pe/naturalunit/Pemiit.htn-fl.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Manley at
[phone] or cdmanIpyAdot.state.nc.us.
Sincerely,
Gr g otDveop! o Management Director,
Projecent and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc list
W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Mr. Michael Street, NCDMF
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene, PE, Division 4 Engineer
Mr. Jamie Shern, Division 4 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Todd Jones, NCDOT External Audit Branch
Mr. William T. Goodwin, P.E., Project Development

o Vem
E'n ancement
PROGRAM
December 13, 2005
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
Subject: EEP Mitigation Acceptance Letter:
B-4319, Bridge 21 over the Great Swamp on NC 222, Wayne County -
The purpose of this letter is to notify you that the Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP)
will provide the compensatory riverine wetland mitigation for the subject project. Based on the
information supplied by you in a letter dated December 8, 2005, the impacts are located in CU
03020203 of the Neuse River Basin in the Northern Inner Coastal Plain (NICP) Eco-Region, and
are as follows:
Riverine Wetlands: 0.059 acre
The subject project is not listed in Exhibit 2 of the Memorandum of Agreement among the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department
of Transportation, and the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District dated July 22,
2003. Mitigation for this project will be provided in accordance with the above referenced
agreement. EEP will commit to implementing sufficient compensatory riverine wetland mitigation
to offset the impacts associated with this project by the end of the MOA year in which this project
is permitted, in accordance with Section X of the Tri-Party MOA.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Beth Harmon
at 919-715-1929.
Sincerely,
iam D. Gilmore, P.E.
EEP Director
cc: Mr. William Wescott, USACE-Washington
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, Wetlands/401 Unit
File: B-4319
'Pro Our j,-tate,
North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program, 1652 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1652 / 919-715-0476 / www.nceep.net
EL
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
20 0 60 1 0 4
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a urtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here:
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3147 Fax Number: 919-766-9794
E-mail Address: tg horpe(a,dot.state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, D ,W,Q may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size. construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 21 on NC 22 over Great Swamp
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4319
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Wayne Nearest Town: Fremont
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): On NC 222 heading
Northwest out of Fremont
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects; such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): 35.5611 ON 78.0221 °W
6. Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Great Swamp
8. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at hiip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maos/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Two lane paved roadway leading into a two lane bridge _ over
Great Swamp. Adjacent land use is wetlands with agriculture and a couple of houses.
Page 2 of 8

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The NC Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the Bridge No. 21 over
Great Swamp on NC 222, with a new bridge at the existing location and approximate
elevation. The new bridge will be a two-lane structure approximately 90 feet in length. The
cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot minimum offsets.
The approach work will consist of earthwork, paving, some resurfacing, and tying back into
the existing roadway for approximately 320 feet to the east. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction. Impacts to 0.059 ac. of wetlands and 6,173 ft2 of riparian buffer are
proposed. Equipment will consist of typical grading machinery such as track hoes, dozers,
dump trucks, and a crane for the bridge construction and new roadway approaches.
.11.. Explain the purpose of the .proposed work: To replace. a deteriorating bridge. with a new
bridge provide safer travel.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules. N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application. N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Proposed impacts include
0.059 acres of permanent fill and excavation in wetlands.
Page 3 of 8

2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of
Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year
Floodplain Nearest
Stream Impact
(acres)
(indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) es/no) linear feet
1 Fill Cypress-Gum Swamp Yes Adjacent 0.034
1 Excavation Cypress-Gum Swamp Yes Adjacent 0.025
Total Wetland Impact (acres)
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.059
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact
Number
(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial Intermittent? t? Average
Stream Width
Before Impact Impact
Length
(linear feet) Area of
Impact
(acres)
N/A

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage)
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma Name of Waterbody

(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc. Area of
Impact
acre
N/A

Total Open Water Impact (acres)
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): N/A
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.059
Open Water Impact (ft?): N/A
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.059
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): N/A
Page 4 of 8

7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
_._._ _...,.. _ _ __ ........_. _._. be described here and illustrated on any maps included with .this. application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to
provide information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances,
accessibility, and financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of
alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and explain why these design options were not
feasible. Also discuss how impacts were minimized once---the desired- site plan was
developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during construction
to reduce impacts. The NCDOT proposes to replace the Bridge No. 21 with a new bridge at
the existing location and approximate low chord elevation using tovdown construction.
Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction. These factors will reduce the impacts to
Waters of the United States. Best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized to
minimize water quality impacts. In compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have
incorporated the use of BMP's in the design of the project. Additionally, an instream
moratorium of February 15 through June 15 and Stream Crossing Guidelines for
Anadromous Fish Passing will be adhered to throughout project construction
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
Page 5 of 8
ql?
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required -mitigation plan.or.NCEEP. concurrence shall be.placed .on hold .as_incomplete._
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
The North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program will provide compensatory miti ag tion
for proposed impacts resulting from project construction.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.059
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Page 6 of 8
3
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within. 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify. )? Yes ® No ?
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* I Impact I Multiplier I Required
1 _ 3954 ) 3 (2 for Catawba) I N/A
2 2219 1.5 N/A
Total I 6173 I I 1
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0244, or.0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Page 7 of 8

Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%0, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level. The proposed impervious surface area will
remain approximately the same as the existing site conditions. NCDOT will use Best
Management Practices for erosion control during construction.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No Z
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ? No
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development,. which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes El No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's
control).N/A

a?.
Applikant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
. Ow
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B4319
State Project No. 8.1332001
WBS No. 33656.1.1
Federal Project No. BRSTP-222(2)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 21 on NC 222 over Great Swamp in
Wayne County (See Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced with a 95-foot long
bridge at the existing location and approximate low chord elevation. The cross
section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot minimum
offsets. The approach work will consist of earthwork, paving, some resurfacing
and tying back into the existing roadway for approximately 320 feet to the west
and 385 feet to the east. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will
be detoured offsite during construction (See Figure 1 and Section D, Studied
Detour Route).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge Maintenance Records indicate that Bridge No. 21 has a sufficiency rating
of 63.1 out of a possible 100. The sufficiency rating of the bridge was 49.8 out of
a possible 100 when it became eligible for placed in the Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program. Bridge Maintenance completely replaced the cap and
crown steps on Bent # 2 to improve the rating. The bridge's three-span
superstructure is composed of a concrete deck on timber joists. The substructure
is composed of timber caps, piles and bulkheads. The substructure appraisal is 4
out of a possible 9, which means the bridge is structurally deficient and needs to
be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
M On /lot/
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
1
•
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation. of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
w?-
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
2
40?
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes; advance land acquisition
loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project development
on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil or
groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 709,750
Repaving SR 1341 $ 40,250
Right of Way $ 39,800
Total $ 789,800
Note: 'SR 1341 will be resurfaced from NC 222 to SR 1342 as requested by the Division
Construction Engineer for use on the offsite detour.
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1,100 vpd
Year 2025 - 2,400 vpd
TTST -3%
Dual -2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The proposed approach typical section will consist of two 12-foot lanes with eight-foot grass
shoulders that extend to eleven "feet where guardrail is required.
Design Speed:
60 mph
Functional Classification:
Rural Major Collector
Studied Detour Route:
The studied detour route utilizes SR 1367, SR 1342, and SR 1341. SR 1341 will be resurfaced
as a part of the project. The total length of the detour is approximately four miles long with an
estimated time of delay of approximately five minutes, which is acceptable based on the Draft
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of-Offsite Detours. - .
3

estimated time of delay of approximately five minutes, which is acceptable based on the Draft
NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation. of Offsite Detours.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Four Construction Offices concurs with replacing Bridge No. 21 at the existing
location and elevation while detouring traffic offsite during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 21 has a superstructure composed of reinforced concrete deck on timber joists with
reinforced concrete rails. The substructure is composed of timber caps on timber piles and
timber bulkheads. Some of the piles have been encased in concrete. These concrete
encasements will be removed with the piles. The bridge demolition falls under Case 2, which
states that no in water work will be performed during required moratoriums. The anticipated
temporary fill associated with the removal of Bridge No. 21 is approximately two cubic yards.
Alternates Eliminated from Further Study
The no-build alternate for this project is not prudent or feasible. The existing bridge will
continue to deteriorate necessitating eventual closure of the bridge. This is unacceptable due to
the traffic that NC 222 serves.
Rehabilitation of the existing structure was eliminated from further study due to the
substructure's timber composition. The timber substructure is showing signs of deterioration as
evidenced by the concrete encasement around one of the timber piles.
Replacing the structure on new location was eliminated from further study due to the existing
tangent alignment and the wetlands in the project vicinity.
Maintaining traffic onsite with a temporary detour is not prudent due to the wetlands in the
project vicinity., The expected delay on the studied detour route is approximately five minutes,
which is acceptable. Please reference the detour discussion under Section D, Studied Detour
Route.

4

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? a X
(12) Will a .U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
5
4 40
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) 'Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? X
6
ri
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project?

(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
ITEM NO.
3. North Carolina Division of Marine Fisheries stated that anadromous fish are
found in this section of Great Swamp. Therefore, an in stream work
moratorium from February 15 to June 15 will be in effect. NCDOT will adhere
to the "Stream Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Crossings."
4. The proposed project has avoided and minimized impacts to the wetlands to the
extent possible. The project is replacing the existing bridge with a proposed
bridge in the same location and approximate roadway elevation. The typical
section is the minimal section that can safely be used for the functional
classification of the roadway.
7
44
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B4319
State Project No. 8.1332001
WBS No. 33656.1.1
Federal Project No. BRSTP-222(2)
Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 21 on NC 222 over Great Swamp in
Wayne County (See Figure 1). The bridge will be replaced with a 95-foot long
bridge at the existing location and approximate low chord elevation. The cross
section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot lanes with 8-foot minimum
offsets. The approach work will consist of earthwork, paving, some resurfacing
and tying back into the existing roadway for approximately 320 feet to the west
and 385 feet to the east. Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Traffic will
be detoured offsite during construction (See Figure 1 and Section D, Studied
Detour Route).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
".s ,off jt?? 4J
Date Assistant Branch Manager
3';L5-'d
. Date
3/25/04
Date
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
r n
Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:
s/ 2NO q
Date
Jot'?'??Jfi'van, III, PE, Divisioi
Federal Highway Administration
8
Analysis Branch
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Project Planning nit Head

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Wayne County
Bridge No. 21 on NC 222 Over Great Swamp
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-222(2)
State Project No. 8.1332001
WBS No. 3.3656.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4319
Division I Construction Engineer, Structure Design Unit, Project Development and
Environmental Anaylsis Branch
The proposed structure should be designed to facilitate top-down construction. If it is
determined that top-down construction cannot be used, then additional coordination with
the United States Army Corps of Engineers will be required.
No deck drains will be allowed to discharge directly into the Great Swamp.
Division I Construction Engineer, Structure Design Unit, Roadway Design Unit
This reach of the Great Swamp has potential as a travel corridor for anadromous fish.
Therefore, an in-stream moratorium will be in effect from February 15 to June 15. The
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as
applicable.
Greensheet :..: .... Sheet 1/1 .
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion,
PDEA
March 2004

S O N
W! L
1357 f
1349 : t3eo
?

P222
Vfdo
UIA7 .

me v Iwo

)
•-
di
Z 'N L7
N , f •'^. _ r-,
t62T
=
.
p
"
»?'.
.y
? ? 1943 45
.
/ v ?
t?r?a

. tees
''•
1 ?f: - 1ot t
1.0
.
21Y tam
? , i .3

'
t3 56 13
}
:
:
.s .
53

---
'• a07
.
T ? I
•
I • ,. i
t .
/• 1001
l • ? ? ? l?l !'0' Ly17 I ,` _ ...
''?'• f 1341 1•? ~?? I .2
1330 a .9
1
300
,
t
• ,
1394 t t
'.k! • :dp
? 4
?'` ?
?•jC1Q X97 ? '-? ?
" '
'
° '

;ti.
? «? i
3 El
t??
?
1320
--- J
-
? 1336 ?, 1336 ?'

• 3
' ...
1334 1lvlwnls t363
_7 101!

M30
3or
r
f 12
, 1
1002 ;

' 132;
G
1
?•
• ! tales i321 1 \
54ud:tA DeJ-ouf
A?oFTN?

•' NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
: <, - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
T"R
WAYNE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE N0.21 ON NC 222
OVER GREAT SWAMP .
B-4319 ,
Figure 1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, :administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
October 28, 2003
MEMORANDUM
R?cc
?a Ir
3G?
r? AFL ? SC?S
-q 0PJVEN
Division of Historical Resources
TO: Greg Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook Qauj,?-
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 21 on NC 222 over Great Swamp, B-4319,
Wayne County`ER03-0912
On September 4, 2003, Sarah McBride, our preservation specialist for transportation projects,
met with the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of
the minds. concerning the above project. We reported on our available information on historic
architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. DOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based on our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we
offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located
within the areas of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be
conducted for this project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project
construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
www.hoo.dcr:state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Teiephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] •733-8653
RESTOILCTION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 7 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY d& PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 !Mail Service Center. Raleigh. NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 715-1801
* October 28, 2003
Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant'to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's. Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above
referenced tracking number.
1•
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT

FINAL
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 21
on NC 222 over Great Swamp
Wayne County, North Carolina
(B-4319)
(State Project No. 8.1332001)
(Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-222(2))
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 02-LO-01
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
February 2003
It
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1
1.2 Definitions .......................................................................................................1
1.3 Purpose ................................................... ....................................................1
1.4 Methodology ....................................................................................................5
1.5 Qualifications ................................................................................................... 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................... 6
2.1 Soil .................................................................................................................6
2.2 Water Resources ..............................................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................10
3.1 Terrestrial Community .....................................................................................10
3.2 Aquatic Community ........................................................................................ 14
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ...................................................................... 15
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...........................................................................16
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................. 16
4.2 Permits and Consultations ................................................................................ 19
4.3 Mitigation ...................................................................................................... 21
4.4 Protected Species .......................................................................................... 23
4.5 State Protected Species ................................................................................... 25
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................26
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses occurring within the Project Study Area for
Bridge No. 21 (TIP B-4319) .........................................................................10
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Wayne County, NC ..............................23
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Wayne County, NC ......................25
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. General Location Map of B-4319 in Wayne County, NC .................................. 2
Figure 2. U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) Topographic Map .......................................... 3
Figure 3. Plant Community/Land Use/Wetland Type Map .............................................. 4
APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
GPS Located Wetland Points
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List
t a
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
This project includes the replacement of Bridge No. 21 on North Carolina Route (NC) 222
over Great Swamp in Wayne County, North Carolina (Figure 1). Bridge No. 21 is located
approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) west of the Town of Fremont, NC and
approximately 1,450 feet (440 meters) east of the intersection of NC 222 and Aycock
Dairy Farm Road (SR 1343).
The existing bridge was built in 1962 and has a concrete deck on timber joists with timber
caps and piles. The proposed project will replace the existing bridge with an undetermined
structure. A temporary detour using Memorial Church Road (SR 1342) from Fremont, NC,
and Aycock Dairy Farm Road (SR 1343) would eliminate the need for a temporary crossing
during construction (Figure 2).
1.2 Definitions
A "bubble study" to obtain early environmental information for the project was undertaken
since no alternatives for the replacement of the bridge have been developed at this time.
The "bubble study" identifies a project study area around the existing structure to assist
with the development of the project alternatives. The project study area is approximately
2,100 feet (640 meters) in length and approximately 500 feet (152 meters) in width. The
project vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) on all sides of the
project study area.
1.3 Purpose
The purpose of this Natural Resource Technical Report is to document this evaluation of
existing natural resources in the project study area to assist with the development of
project alternatives and the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE). Specifically, the
tasks performed for this report include: 1) an assessment of natural resource features
within the project study area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected
species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of potential environmental
impacts; 3) a preliminary assessment of on-site or adjacent mitigation potential; and 4) a
preliminary determination of permit needs. The environmental impact analysis is based on
potential impacts within the mapped project study area and does not take into account any
specific limits for design, demolition, or construction.
1

?. WIL?S0N
4k 1319 + Mo
f
V
A.

01

1347 Wo?On ? "`

13151.
--?.?.?.. i
.....

IM
J
2 L7
?+: ?•?I leas 45 •
? .1
13? . m
0 1301 „
1355
?
? ? 1345
? ,

• A
1 56 13 4
53

130
07
• T I
:?: ' 1 t t
W ,?
1:REM60A1T 1 /
/
•^^• J 1'34 %.% ??? ` t •2
34t .
`/ ?
. 1334 - -

,; • w
1 1Jahuds
!P313%• '?
? 12
t

13K3 131 i.j.1A f
•'ti-- ?
1

1336
-
1324 13CA
e
13Sf$ 9p9. 549
• e
Oil

? 1 1002 ? W
?dG7?
w.'°L l'
?
?AIL
,
1414 •
• 121 J `
,?ofe>7, S+q NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4
a
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
WAYNE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE No. 21 oN NC 222
OVER GREAT SWAiIMP
B-4319
Figure 1
nau+on - ' WA N` L
Crossroads E > 1 _ _.?? ?' O
- t !<e •' Nhhe Oak = wCem? • - ?' ` L b 1351 . .
cems
.:: ?= Ss? •. _.r"? ?_ --?- ?sPer v? 1312
_ A
140
I
7\ 7.
N \ :. } I ?? ?• 1 ?? -fie- ? . ? ? ?? ??, ? 0 i
a ?? ? l ._ tee'. ?Y
N \? ?.? ?. / '- ?•_._ /' 1. _
` ? 4' u 5tj JJJI A
I*j
-77
1
.r ,.(km
N ( ' -
y f ? 'ip a ?,i f
134 1,
cem
146
O i i
353
531 t r tai} N ?-Cem i.n •" !k ! ??
Ir . N e Cem:: e
.
\ Ctor!`C6 J' Y`? A w ! 1313
M + s? c s
i .? " °• N Cem. Memorial t ? ?l
jCh 1360 } iao-?`i p
144
t
,y 1 ? t 1'/ ? 1311
r •,
Name: KENLY EAST Location: 035° 33'37.1" N 078° 01' 37.2" W
Date: 10/5/2001 Caption: B-4319
Scale: 1 inch equals 2000 feet
Figure 2
N \
1.4 Methodology
Data used in this investigation were obtained from a number of sources. The Kenly East,
NC (1978), U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic map was reviewed to
determine physiographic relief and to assess landscape characteristics. U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping was also reviewed
to determine what wetland types may be encountered in the field. Recent aerial
photography (1:2400 scale) taken in 2001 was also used in the evaluation of the study
area.
An aerial photograph of the project area serves as the base for mapping plant communities
and land uses. Plant community patterns were identified from available mapping sources
and then field verified. Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system
utilized by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley
1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et a/.
(1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic
vegetation, hydric soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized
according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979).
Water resource information for Great Swamp was derived from the Neuse River Basinwide
Water Quality Management Plan (DWQ 2002) and the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) internet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing
data in the Management Plan.
The most current USFWS list (updated January 2003) of federally protected species with
ranges extending into Wayne County was reviewed prior to initiation of the field
investigation. In addition, NHP records (including those on the internet) documenting
reported occurrences of federal and state listed species were consulted before commencing
the field investigation (Amoroso 2001). Expected population distributions were determined
through observations of available habitat and review of natural history and other
documentation found in Martof et al. 0 980), Webster et al. 0 985), and Menhinick (1991).
1.5 Qualifications
Field investigations associated with this bridge replacement project (B-4319) were
conducted on November 21, 2002. The H.W. Lochner Inc. environmental scientist team
5

for this project consisted of Ken Roeder Ph.D., Susan Smith, and Emily Fentress. Dr.
Roeder is the lead Environmental Scientist and has a B.S degree in Forestry, a M.S. degree
in Forest Genetics, and a Ph.D. in Forestry and Soils. He is a N.C. Licensed Soil Scientist
and Registered Forester, a Certified Senior Ecologist, and has more than twenty years
professional experience. Susan Smith is a Project Biologist with a B.S. degree in Forestry,
a M.S. degree in Wildlife Management, and more than ten years of professional experience.
Emily Fentress is a Staff Biologist with a B.S. degree in Biology and one year of
professional experience.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project study area is located in the Middle and Upper Coastal Plain Physiographic
Province of the Atlantic Coastal Plain of North Carolina. The topography in the project
study area is generally characterized as gently sloping to nearly level. Elevations in the
project study area range from less than 120 to greater than 140 feet (36 to 43 meters)
above mean sea level (USGS 1978). The project study area consists of existing
maintained rights-of-way, mixed swamp forest, upland forest, rural residential, and
agricultural areas. The project vicinity is rural residential/agricultural. Surrounding land
uses include agricultural, rural residential, and forest/swamp lands.
There are old ponds, located in uplands, within the study area. One pond is located in a
rural residential area on the north side of NC 222 near the intersection of NC 222 and
Miller Road N.W. (SR 1378). The second pond is located on the south side of NC 222,
surrounded by pine in an upland approximately 300 feet (90 meters) west of the existing
bridge.
2.1 Soil
The project study area is located within the Johnston-Chewacla-Kinston and Norfolk-
Goldsboro-Aycock soil associations (SCS 1974). Soil associations contain one or more
mapping units occupying a unique natural landscape. The Johnston-Chewacla-Kinston
association is found in the Great Swamp drainageway. The Norfolk-Goldsboro-Aycock
association is in the surrounding uplands. Soil mapping units are named for the major soil
series within the unit, but may contain minor inclusions of other soils. There are five soil
mapping units mapped as present within the project study area. Two of these soil
mapping units are listed as hydric soils (SCS 1991). These hydric soil units include
Johnston loam (Cumuiic Humaquepts) and Bibb sandy loam (Typic Fiuvaquents). The
remaining three non-hydric soil mapping units include: Wagram loamy sand (Aernic
Paieuduits) 0 to 6 percent slopes; Norfolk loamy sand (Typic Paieuduits) 6 to 10 percent
slopes; and Ruston sandy loam (Typic Paieudu/ts) 2 to 6 percent slopes, eroded.
6
v ?
t ?
2.2 Water Resources
Stream Characteristics
Great Swamp is a blue-line perennial blackwater creek approximately 33 feet (10 meters)
wide at the bridge and about 2 to 4 feet (0.6 to 1.2 meters) deep. Great Swamp flows to
the northeast (Figure 2). The channel bottom appears to be typical of coastal plain
blackwater creeks consisting of fine to sandy sediments and colored by organics. An
unnamed tributary enters the study area from the southeast and flows into Great Swamp
from the east (Figure 2). This tributary flows west parallel to NC 222 before joining Great
Swamp and before flowing north under Bridge No. 21 (USGS 1978). Older Soil
Conservation Service mapping shows this unnamed tributary flowing north under NC 222
before joining the Great Swamp north of the study area (SCS 1974). No abandoned
stream channel is obvious.
The unnamed tributary is providing much of the flood waters in the area southeast of the
bridge. North and south of the bridge the creeks were flooded over their banks, with
surface waters flowing into mature swamp forest. Delineated wetlands directly abut
NC 222, both east and west of the existing bridge site, and along the east side of Miller
Road N.W. (SR 1378) (Figure 3).
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-04-07 of the Neuse River Basin
(DWQ 2002) and is part of the USGS hydrologic unit for the Contentnea (HUC No.
03020203) (USGS 1974). Great Swamp is a tributary of Black Creek, which is a tributary
of Contentnea Creek, which flows into the Neuse River. Great Swamp is identified by
Stream Index Number (SIN) 27-86-9-3 by the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (DENR) (DENR 2002a) and is a blue-line stream recognized by USGS
(1978). The Neuse River Basin is currently subject to vegetated riparian buffer
requirements by the state.
A Best Usage Classification is assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the
basin. Great Swamp has been assigned a Best Usage Classification of "C; Sw; NSW"
(DENR 2002a). The C designation indicates freshwaters designated for secondary
recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, wildlife, and agriculture
(15A NCAC 02B .0101(c)(1)). Secondary recreation is any activity involving human body
contact with water on an infrequent or incidental basis. Sw (Swamp waters) and NSW
(Nutrient Sensitive Waters) are supplemental classifications. Sw designates waters which
have low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from adjacent
streams (15A NCAC 02B .0101(e)(2)). NSW are waters subject to growths of microscopic
or macroscopic vegetation requiring limitations on nutrient inputs (15A NCAC 02B
.0101(e)(3)).
7
l
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply
Waters (WS-1, or WS-II) occur within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) upstream or downstream
of the project study area. Great Swamp is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and
Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River.
Water Quality Information
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of
macroinvertebrates (DEM 1989). There is a long-term macroinvertebrate monitoring
station located on Great Swamp to the northeast of the project study area. However, this
monitoring station is beyond 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) from the project study area
(DENR 2002). Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the
structure and health of the fish communities. There are no NCIBI monitoring stations
located on Great Swamp or within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers) upstream or downstream of
the project study area (DENR 2002).
Section 303(d) Waters
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water. Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters
not meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 303(d)
list for North Carolina indicates that Great Swamp in the Neuse River Basin is not listed as
an impaired waterway (DWQ 2002).
Permitted Dischargers
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch, or other well-defined point of
discharge are broadly referred to as "point sources." Wastewater "point source"
discharges include municipal (city and county) and industrial wastewater treatment plants,
and small domestic wastewater treatment systems serving schools, commercial offices,
residential subdivisions and individual homes (DWQ 2002). Storm water "point source"
discharges include storm water collection systems for municipalities and storm water
discharges associated with certain industrial activities. "Point source dischargers in North
Carolina must apply for and obtain a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit. Discharge permits are issued under the NPDES program, delegated to
DWQ by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The only permitted "point source"
discharger located on Great Swamp is Memorial Church Road Water Treatment Plant
(DENR 2002b), which is located approximately 2.1 miles upstream of the project study
area.
Sources of "non-point source" pollution within the project study area include storm water
runoff from existing roads and other impervious surfaces.
8

f 9
Essential Fish Habitat
In 1996 the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act mandated the
identification of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) for managed species as well as measures to
conserve and enhance the habitat necessary for fish to carry out their life cycles. Under
this Act EFH is defined as:
"those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, or
growth to maturity" 06 USC 180200)).
In North Carolina, EFH includes off shore areas as well as inland water habitats used by
anadromous fish species, including Wayne County.
Impacts to Water Resources
Section 402-2 of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures is labeled
Removal of Existing Structure. This section outlines restrictions and Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and Removal, as well as guidelines for calculating
maximum potential fill in the stream resulting from demolition. Bridge No. 21 is composed
of timber and steel. The bridge is 51 feet 0 6 meters) long with a clear deck width of
25 feet (7 meters). The superstructure will be removed without dropping it into "Waters of
the United States." Since the substructure consists of timber, this will also be removed
without dropping any portion into "Waters of the United States." The replacement of
Bridge No. 21 can be classified as a Case 2 by the BMPs for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (NCDOT 1999). Case 2 bridge replacements allow no work at all in the water
during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment
into nursery areas. All work potentially affecting the resource will be carefully coordinated
with the agency having jurisdiction.
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from
construction related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and
sedimentation will be minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control
schedule and the use of BMPs. The contractor will follow contract specifications
pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article
107-13 entitled Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution pursuant to NCDOT's Standard
Specifications for Roads and Structures. These measures include the use of dikes, berms,
silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff, and elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be
revegetated with herbaceous cover after any temporary construction impacts.
It is recommended that there be no temporary fill associated with demolition and removal
of the superstructure and substructure. In-stream demolition and construction activities
should be scheduled to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources and organisms.
9
a s.
? t
Other impacts to water quality could include changes in water temperature and storm
water flow. Changes in water temperature result from increased exposure to sunlight due
to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridge. Changes in storm water flows could occur due to changes in the amount of
impervious surface adjacent to the stream channels if roadway or bridge surface area
increases.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Community
Existing Vegetation Patterns
Distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use
practices. Agriculture, logging, selective cutting, reforestation, and other forestry practices
have resulted in the present vegetative patterns. Two natural plant communities occur
within the project study area and three additional communities resulting from human
activities have been identified. These communities total approximately 22.0 acres
(8.9 hectares) and do not include any open water attributed to Great Swamp [0.4 acre
(0.2 hectare)] or impervious road surface [1.4 acres (0.6 hectare)].
The plant communities and land uses within the project study area were mapped on an
aerial photograph base and field verified (Figure 3). A summary of the coverage of each
plant community and land use within the project study area is presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Plant Communities and Land Uses occurring within the Project Study Area for
Bridge No. 21 (TIP B-4319).
Plant Community/Land Use Study Area Percent of Project Study
(acres)/(hectares) Area
Cypress-Gum Swamp
9.9/4.0 45%
(Blackwater Subtype)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
1.4/0.6 6%
(Coastal Plain Subtype)
Agricultural Lands 3.8/1.5 17%
Cutover and Successional Lands 3.6/1.5 17%
Rural Residential/
3.3/1.3 15%
Maintained/Disturbed Land
Totals: 22.0/8.9 100%
10
s R
Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype)
The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) forest (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
occupies approximately 9.9 acres (4.0 hectares) [45 percent] of the project study area.
This plant community type typically occurs in backswamps, sloughs, swales, and
featureless floodplains of blackwater rivers. Hydrologically this type is palustrine,
seasonally to semipermanently flooded. They have highly variable flow regimes with
floods of short duration and periods of very low flow. Waters tend to be very acidic, low
in mineral sediment and nutrients, and colored by tannins but relatively clear. This
community is located both north and south of NC 222.
The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) is typically dominated by tupelo (Nyssa
biflora) and baldcypress (Taxodium distichum). The understory and shrub layer is usually
poorly developed. Carolina ash, (Fraxinus caroliniana), tupelo (Nyssa biflora), and red
maple (Aces rubrum) are the most typical species present in the shrub layer. Shrub species
may also include swamp cyrilla (Cyrilla racemiflora), summersweet clethra (Clethra
alnifolia), and fetterbush (Lyonia lucida). The herbaceous layer ranges from nearly absent to
moderate cover. Species may include lizard's-tail (Saururus cernuus), giant sedge (Carex
gigantea), water smartweed (Polygonum amphibium), and netted chain-fern (Woodwardia
areolata). Spanish moss (Tillandsia usneoides) and resurrection fern (Polypodium
polypodioides) are often common.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype)
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) (Schafale and Weakley 1990)
occupies approximately 1.4 acres (0.6 hectare) [6 percent] of the project study area. This
plant community type is typically found on areas protected from fire, primarily on north
facing river bluffs and ravine slopes, less commonly on upland flats or islands surrounded
by peatland or swamp communities. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forests generally occur on
sites that are sheltered by topography and moisture from fires. Under natural conditions
these forests are uneven-aged, with old trees present. Reproduction occurs primarily in
canopy gaps. Rare severe natural disturbances such as wind storms or severe fires may
allow pulses of increased regeneration and allow the less shade-tolerant species to remain
in the community. Disturbed areas have increased amounts of pine and weedy hardwoods
such as yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua).
Like floodplain forests, some of these communities are susceptible to invasion by exotic
species such as Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forests usually border Coastal Plain Bottomland Forests, Cypress-Gum Swamp, or Small
Stream Swamp on the lower elevation side.
In the study area for Bridge No. 21 over Great Swamp (B-4319), this community type is
located upslope on the rolling terrace above the creek bottom where Cypress-Gum Swamp
dominates. These areas are highly disturbed and have historically been cut-over several
11

times as seen in their current state. In some cases, pine plantations have replaced natural
hardwoods.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Coastal Plain Subtype) is naturally dominated by
various mixtures of mesophytic species of trees such as beech (Fagus grandifolia), yellow
poplar (L/r/odendron tulipifera), southern sugar maple (Acer floridianum), white oak
(Quercus alba), red oak (Q. rubra), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Species such
as swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii?, cherrybark oak (Q. pogoda (falcada var.
pagodaefo/ia), and shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), more typical of bottomland hardwood
communities or non-riverine wet hardwood forests, are sometimes abundant. Dry
community species such as white oak (Q. alba), Spanish oak (Q. falcata), and several
hickory (Carya spp.) species can also be abundant at times. Understory species commonly
include flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), American holly (//ex opaca), hop-hornbeam
(Ostrya virginiana), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboretum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana),
red maple (Acer rubrum), and swamp red bay (Persea palustris).
Agricultural Lands
Agricultural Lands occupy approximately 3.8 acres (1.5 hectares) [17 percent] of the
project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not identified as a
natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Identified agricultural lands in
the project study area consist of fields which were used to produce tobacco and soybeans
during the 2002 growing season. There are also pasture lands included with this type.
Cutover and Successional Lands
Cutover and Successional Lands occupy approximately 3.6 acres (1.5 hectares)
[17 percent] of the project study area. This plant community type is man-created and not
identified as a natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). In the project
study area these cutover lands were previously vegetated by Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Coastal-Plain Subtype). The cutover is very recent. The area will be colonized by
early successional herbaceous species during the spring of 2003 growing season.
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands
Rural Residential/Maintained/Disturbed Lands cover approximately 3.3 acres (1.3 hectares)
[15 percent] of the study area. This plant community type (land use type) is man-created
and not identified as a natural community type by Schafale and Weakley (1990). Rural
Residential/Maintained/Disturbed areas include roadways, roadsides, maintained residential
yards, sewerline corridors, and areas where other human related activities dominate the
landscape. Roadsides and sewerlines are typically maintained by mowing and/or
herbicides. Vegetation within this type is diverse and has not been specifically identified.
Species observed within the road rights-of-way include blackberry (Rubus spp.), trumpet
creeper (Campsis radicans), lespedeza (Lespedeza cuneata), white clover (Trifolium
12
4 ?
L t
repens), and other various roadside grasses. Residential areas are dominated by loblolly
pine (Pinus taeda), numerous ornamental plants, and various grasses.
Terrestrial Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial wildlife. The only
evidence of mammals in the area was the presence of deer stands, used for hunting white-
tail deer (Odocoileus virginianus). Other mammals expected to occur in and around the
project study area include Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), raccoon (Procyon lotor),
and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), as well as rodents such as beaver (Castor
canadensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus
leucopus), and golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli). Insectivores such as eastern mole
(Sca/opus aquaticus), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), and northern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina brevicauda) may also be present in the project study area. No terrestrial
reptiles were seen, but the following species are expected to occur in the project area:
five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus); broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps); fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus); eastern box turtle (Terrapene carofina); copperhead (Agkistrodon
contortrix); black racer (Coluber constrictor); and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). No terrestrial
or arboreal amphibians were observed within the project area, but species expected to
occur in the area include pickerel frog (Rana palustris), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhouseii),
and spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer).
No birds were observed during the field assessment. Avian species expected to inhabit the
study area include American Crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Turkey Vulture (Cathartes
aura), Eastern Bluebird (Sialia sialis), American Robin (Turdus migratorius), and Northern
Cardinal (Cardinlis cardinafis). Other common species likely to occur in the project area
include Mourning Dove (Zenaida macroura), Blue Jay (Cyanocitta cristata), Northern
Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), Carolina Wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), Carolina
Chickadee (Poecile carolinensis), Pileated Woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), Hairy
Woodpecker (Picoides villosus), Downy Woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), and Red-
shouldered Hawk (Buteo lineatus).
Most of the terrestrial wildlife species occurring in the project study area are typically
adapted to life in fragmented landscapes. Vegetated water courses (or drainageways)
provide important wildlife corridors by connecting and allowing travel between habitat
fragments. Keeping the bridge replacement within the existing road corridor of the stream
crossing would minimize potential impacts to wildlife. A wider and higher opening under
the new bridge structure would also enhance wildlife movement at this stream crossing.
13

3.2 Aquatic Community
Great Swamp and the unnamed tributary flowing from the southeast provide the only
aquatic habitat located within the immediate project study area. No distinct areas
containing significant amounts of aquatic vegetation were observed in the channel during
the field assessment.
A visual survey of the stream banks and channel associated with Great Swamp within the
project study area was conducted to document the aquatic community. Seasonably high
water, however, restricted access and limited visibility for assessments.
Aquatic Wildlife
Fish sampling was not conducted in any of the surface waters within the project study
area. Species expected to occur in Great Swamp include American eel (Anguilla rostrata),
redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), satinfin shiner
(Notropis analostanus), creek chubsucker (Erimyzon oblongus), margined madtom (Noturus
insignis), and tadpole madtom (Noturus gyrinus).
Although Menhinick (1991) does not document anadromous fish species as occurring in
the project study area, past sampling of other area creeks indicate that anadromous fish.
species use this part of the Neuse River Basin for spawning and as nursery areas (Personal
Communication, Shawn McKenna, NC Division of Marine Resources). Anadromous species
expected to occur here include herring and shad (Alosa spp.).
Great Swamp most likely provides riparian and benthic habitat for a variety of amphibians
and aquatic reptiles. High water following precipitation events dominated the study site
during field assessments in November 2002. No sampling for amphibians was undertaken.
No amphibians or aquatic reptiles were found in the course of the survey for other biotic
factors. Aquatic herpetofauna expected to occur in the project study area include northern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), and common snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
Although none were observed, aquatic avian species expected to utilize this portion of
Great Swamp and its unnamed tributary include Wood Duck (Aix sponsa), Mallard (Anas
platyrhynchos), Canada Goose (Branta canadensis), and Great Blue Heron (Ardea herodias).
No in-stream benthic macroinvertebrate surveys were conducted. All streambanks in the
study area were visually surveyed to locate freshwater mussel middens or other indicators
of benthic macroinvertebrates. Visual observation of Great Swamp and its streambanks
revealed no evidence of benthic macroinvertebrates. This may be due to the time of year
that the work was completed.
14
? r
't J
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Terrestrial Communities
An in-place replacement of the existing structure will reduce permanent impacts to plant
communities and limit further community fragmentation. Impacts resulting from in-place
bridge replacements are generally limited to narrow strips at or adjacent to the existing
bridge structure and roadway segments. Potential impacts to plant communities within the
project study area would therefore be limited to areas at the bridge and immediately
adjacent to the road.
The least amount of impacts to terrestrial communities will occur if the bridge is replaced
along the center line of the existing bridge. The Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype) forest community will potentially receive the largest area of impacts if the
alignment is shifted. If the alignment is shifted north, approximately 450 linear feet
(140 meters) of Cypress-Gum Swamp (PFO and PSS wetlands) may be exposed to
impacts. There is also a power line right-of-way running along the north side of the road
here. If the alignment is shifted south, approximately 1,100 linear feet (325 meters) of
Cypress-Gum Swamp may be exposed to impacts. There is an excavated farm pond on
each side of NC 222, west of the bridge site. These ponds are in areas classified as Rural
Residential/Maintained/Disturbed. Both of these ponds are equally vulnerable if the road is
shifted off the centerline.
Wildlife expected to utilize the project study area are generally acclimated to fragmented
landscapes. Designing the new bridge on the existing alignment would limit impacts to
near current levels. Shifting the bridge location slightly north or south would not
extensively further fragment the habitat. If the current size opening under the bridge is
maintained, access for wildlife movement will be maintained at current levels. Any design
options which increase the under-bridge opening over the current size should be considered
to enhance wildlife movement. Reduction of opening size will reduce access for movement
by some species. Animals are also crossing the road in this area.
Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to downstream aquatic habitat would be avoided by bridging Great
Swamp to maintain normal flow and stream integrity. Support structures should be
designed to avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. In addition,
temporary impacts to downstream habitat from increased sedimentation during demolition
and construction are expected to be reduced by limiting in-stream work to an absolute
minimum. Removal of the portion of the substructure in the creek bottom should be
avoided if possible. If a small cofferdam is used to redirect stream flow away from where
demolition and construction of the bridge abutments and piers is occurring, the stream
bottom should be restored immediately following completion of construction activities.
15
•f .

Waterborne sediment flowing downstream can be minimized by use of a floating silt
curtain. Stockpiled material should be kept a minimum of 50 feet (15 meters) from this
stream channel. Silt fences should also be erected around any stockpiled material in order
to minimize the chance of erosion or run-off from affecting the stream channel. Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BDR) will follow current NCDOT Guidelines. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the protection of surface waters should be strictly enforced to reduce
impacts during all construction phases.
Aquatic wildlife including transient and resident species may be temporarily displaced
during bridge demolition and construction. Anadromous fish species have been
documented to use this part of the river basin for spawning and as a nursery area (Personal
Communication, Shawn McKenna, NC Division of Marine Resources). A moratorium on in-
water work extends from February 15 to September 30.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands
Water bodies such as rivers, lakes, and streams are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under the Section 404 program of the Clean Water Act (CWA). Additionally, wetlands are
also classified as "Waters of the United States" and are subject to jurisdictional
consideration. Wetlands have been defined by EPA and USACE as:
"Those areas that are inundated or saturated by groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. _ Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar
areas" [33 CFR 328.3 (b) (11986)].
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined
by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence
of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season
(DOA 1987).
Salt and brackish water wetlands are defined under The Coastal Area Management Act
(CAMA) 05A NCAC 07A). Under these regulations, Wayne County is not identified as a
coastal county where coastal wetlands occur and the CAMA regulations are not applicable
to this project site.
16

% 0
The NWI mapping (USFWS 1978) for this segment of Great Swamp identifies wetlands
adjacent to the creek throughout the study area. These wetlands are identified as
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PFO 1 C)
(Cowardin et at 1979). Additionally, the two "farm" ponds in the uplands are not
identified or classified. The field assessment identified additional NWI wetlands in the
project study area as palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded
(PSS1 C), palustrine, emergent, persistent, semipermanently flooded (PEM 1 F), and
palustrine, open water (POW) (Cowardin et at 1979). Two excavated "farm" ponds in
uplands were also identified in the project study area. One pond is in a wooded residential
area adjacent to PF01 C wetlands and a residence south of NC 222. The other excavated
"farm" pond, north of NC 222 and west of SR 1378, was not delineated and is located on
a residential property.
Some of the POW wetlands may be a function of the high waters present during the time
(November 2002) of assessment. The PF01 C wetlands (Cowardin et a/. 1979) are
comprised of the Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater Subtype) forest community type
(Schafale and Weakley 1990) discussed previously.
The H.W. Lochner team delineated the extent of the jurisdictional wetland boundaries
based on current COE methodology (DOA 1987), and the wetland/non-wetland boundaries
were subsequently located with TrimbleTM' Global Positioning System (GPS) units
(Exhibit A). A map of delineated wetland areas, a list of GPS point coordinates, and the
Wetland Field Data Forms are provided in the Appendix. The wetland areas comprise
approximately 9.4 acres (3.8 hectares) of the project study area. The PF01 C wetlands
(DWQ Wetland Rating Score 79) total approximately 3.8 acres (1.5 hectares), the PSS1 C
wetlands (DWQ Wetland Score 50) total 2.8 acres 0.1 hectares), the PEM 1 F wetlands
(DWQ Wetland Score 57) total 1.0 acre (0.4 hectare) and the POW wetlands total
1.8 acres (0.7 hectare).
Jurisdictional Streams
Great Swamp is classified as a palustrine system (Cowardin et at 1979). Palustrine
systems are identified as those non-tidal wetlands that are dominated by trees, shrubs,
persistent emergents, emergent mosses, or lichens, and all such tidal wetlands where the
ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt). This category of non-tidal
wetlands also includes wetlands that: a) lack such vegetation; b) occupy less than
20 acres (8 hectares) in area; and c) lack a wave formed or bedrock boundary. These
wetlands can also occupy a basin where the deepest part is less than 6 feet (2 meters) at
low water and where the ocean-derived salinities are below 0.5 parts per thousand (ppt).
Slow moving creeks originating in the Coastal Plain are also referred to as blackwater
creeks due to the amounts of tannins and other organics that make their waters tea
colored.
17

Cowardin Classification
U.S. Geological Survey classifies Great Swamp as a blue-line perennial stream
(USGS 1978) with slow flow over substrate consisting of fine sediments, sand, and gravel.
The channel ranges from approximately 20 to 30 feet (6 to 10 meters) in width within the
project study area. Perennial systems in the Coastal Plain generally have slow flowing
water and are generally associated with well-developed swamps and floodplains which
may flood temporarily, intermittently, seasonally, semipermanently, or permanently The
waters of Great Swamp are classified as palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous,
seasonally flooded (PF01 C) (Cowardin et a/. 1979). The field assessment identified
additional areas of adjacent wetlands of Great Swamp as palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-
leaved deciduous, seasonally flooded (PSS1 C), palustrine, emergent, persistent,
semipermanently flooded (PEM 1 F), and palustrine, open water (POW)
(Cowardin et aL 1979).
No channelization of this creek was obvious at the time of assessment in November 2002
other than the areas immediately adjacent to the bridge. However, it appears that the
unnamed tributary may have been relocated and may be channelized south and parallel to
NC 222. Great Swamp has a well developed floodplain on both the north and south sides
of the roadway. At this time of high seasonal precipitation and water flow, the creek was
flooding the swamp forest community both upstream and downstream of the bridge.
Natural Stream Channel Classification
The Natural Stream Channel Classification System uses several definitive criteria for
classification: 1) number of channels associated with a stream; 2) slope; 3) width-to-depth
ratio; 4) entrenchment ratio; 5) sinuosity; and 6) bed material (Rosgen 1996). This
classification system uses the first five criteria to assign one of eight channel types to a
reach of a stream. The eight types are designated A, B, C, D, DA, E, F, and G. Use of the
Natural Stream Channel Classification System for a Level 1 classification requires the
identification of several features in the field including bankfull width and depth (the stage
at which the controlling channel forming flow occurs), slope, sinuosity, and valley
morphology.
At the time of assessment in November 2002 the water in the creek was seasonally high.
As a result, some of the classification criteria were estimated in order to determine the
Level 1 Rosgen Stream Type. Rosgen methodology allows estimates of stream type to be
made from calculations from USGS mapping and field observations and measurements
when they are possible to obtain. Estimates of stream type were therefore made from
measurements taken on USGS mapping of the bridge crossing site. Where possible, the
stream channel was traversed to identify any significant changes in channel type both
upstream and downstream of the bridge. Estimates of bankfull channel width and depth
were made at selected locations to verify channel type.
18

Preliminary observations within the project study area indicate that at the Great Swamp
bridge crossing site, a "C" type stream segment is found in the project study area
(Rosgen 1996). "C" Stream Type segments have a gently sloped, relatively wide and
shallow, entrenched channel with moderate to high sinuosity, and are characterized by an
active, well developed floodplain and a meandering channel. This channel segment has a
well developed and active floodplain at the bridge location.
Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Estimated wetland area is based upon identification of the wetland/non-wetland boundaries
by field delineation described above and aerial photography interpretation; however, the
total wetland acreage is based upon the GPS mapping results and the approximately
defined project study limits shown in Figure 3. Wetlands extend along both sides of the
NC 222 right-of-way. Shifting the bridge alignment north or south could result in wetland
impacts from the road realignment. North of NC 222, wetlands extend approximately
500 linear feet (150 meters), while the wetlands south of the road extend approximately
1,100 linear feet (335 meters) (Figure 3).
Temporary impacts include those impacts that will result from temporary demolition and
construction activities associated with staging areas and/or temporary detours. These
temporary impact areas will be restored to their original condition after the project has
been completed. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the final construction
limits and/or the final right-of-way of the new structure and approaches.
No temporary crossing of Great Swamp during demolition and construction appears
necessary. During the construction period, a detour of traffic along Memorial Church Road
(SR 1342) from Fremont, NC, and Aycock Dairy Farm Road (SR 1343) may be feasible.
An assessment of these routes may be necessary, however, to ensure that they can handle
the additional traffic volumes.
4.2 Permits and Consultations
The design and construction of the proposed project will determine if any impacts to
surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands will occur. If impacts occur, permits and
certifications will be required from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the
water quality of public water resources. Surface water systems and wetlands receive
similar protection and consideration from the regulatory agencies. These permits are
authorized under the CWA and are under separate state laws regarding significant water
resources.
19
i
Section 404 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will
be required from the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of
the United States." Potential impacts to "Waters of the United States" may be avoided if
the wetlands are bridged, no disturbance to the wetlands occurs during construction
activities, and bridge demolition does not result in material falling into the wetlands.
It is anticipated that this proposed project will qualify as a CE under National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA) and Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. Categorical
Exclusions can be prepared for projects with no significant impact to the human and
natural environment. If permits are required under the CWA, it is expected that the project
will qualify for a Nationwide or General Permit.
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)) is issued by the USACE for
projects having minor impacts. In the event that NWP No. 23 will not suffice, minor
impacts attributed to bridging and associated approach improvements are expected to
qualify under a Regional General Bridge Permit designated for NCDOT bridges (Permit
No. 031) issued by the Wilmington USACE District (USACOE-WD 1998). Notification to
the Wilmington USACE office is required if this general permit is to be utilized. Nationwide
Permit No. 33 may be required if temporary construction including cofferdams, access, and
dewatering are required for this project. The USACE will determine final permit
requirements.
Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of a Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires
that the state issue or deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or
licensed activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States." Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401 Certification from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to the issuance of a Section 404 Permit.
Potential impacts to open water areas will be limited to the actual right-of-way width and
will be determined by NCDOT during the design phase of this project. Impacts to open
water areas of Great Swamp are not expected due to the use of channel-spanning
structures. During bridge removal procedures, NCDOT's BMPs will be utilized, including
erosion control measures. Floating turbidity curtains are also recommended to minimize
the amount of turbid water flowing off-site.
20

Riparian Buffers
North Carolina rules are in place for the protection and maintenance of riparian buffers in
the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0233). These rules require wooded buffers of
50 feet (15.3 meters) along all blue-line stream channels in this river basin. In order to
impact these buffers there must be a demonstrated "no practical alternative" and an
Authorization Certificate pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0259 must be obtained for a
proposed use that is designated as allowable with mitigation. It is also possible within the
rules to obtain a variance (15A NCAC 2B .0259) or to pay into a state Riparian Buffer
Restoration Fund. Great Swamp is a blue-line stream in the Neuse River Basin and is
subject to these rules (Figure 2).
Section 9
Bridge construction or replacement over navigable waters may require United States Coast
Guard Service (USCGS) authorization pursuant to 33 CFR 114-115. 33 CFR 115.70 gives
"advanced approval to the location and plans of bridges to be constructed
across reaches of waterways navigable in law, but not actually navigated
other than by logs, log rafts, rowboats, canoes and small motorboats. In
such cases the clearances provided for high water stages will be considered
adequate to meet reasonable needs of navigation".
The open water area of Bridge No. 21 over Great Swamp is small in size and would be
given advanced approval by the USCGS.
4.3 Mitigation
Mitigation has been defined in NEPA regulations to include efforts which: a) avoid;
b) minimize; c) rectify; d) reduce or eliminate; or e) compensate for adverse impacts to the
environment [40 CFR 1508.20 (a-e)]. Mitigation of wetland impacts is recommended in
accordance with Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines of the CWA (40 CFR 230), FHWA step-
down procedures (23 CFR 777.1 et seq.), mitigation policy mandates articulated in the
USACE/EPA Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), Executive Order 11990 (42 FR 26961)
(1977), and USFWS mitigation policy directives (46 FR 7644-7663) (1981).
Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines, the USACE/EPA MOA, and Executive Order 11990 stress
avoidance and minimization as primary considerations for protection of wetlands.
Practicable alternatives analysis must be fully evaluated before compensatory mitigation
can be discussed.
Federal Highway Administration policy stresses that all practicable measures should be
taken to avoid or minimize harm to wetlands which will be affected by federally funded
21

highway construction. A sequencing (step-down) procedure is recommended in the event
that avoidance is impossible. Mitigation employed outside of the highway right-of-way
must be reviewed and approved on a case-by-case basis.
Avoidance - Surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are present within the project
study area. Potential wetland and stream impacts are discussed in Section 4.1. Actual
impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas will be addressed when
alternatives are developed. It may not be possible to avoid all impacts to jurisdictional
areas. Impacts can be avoided to specific wetlands and streams with the use of,
environmentally sensitive design. Impacts to the jurisdictional surface waters can be
avoided by bridging the stream channel, avoiding construction activities in the stream
channels, and avoiding deposition into the stream channel during bridge demolition and
construction.
Minimization - Impacts to the stream can be minimized by designing support structures to
avoid wetland or open water habitats whenever possible. The jurisdictional delineation
within the project study area will be utilized to further minimize wetland and stream
impacts when designing the proposed alignment within the project study area.
Minimization of jurisdictional impacts can be achieved by the replacement of a bridge in-
place and utilizing as much of the existing bridge corridor as possible. This should result in
a minimal amount of new impact depending on the final design of the new bridge.
Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts, including avoiding
placing staging areas within wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation - Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetland areas are
not known at this time. Impacts associated with the project could be mitigated by
replanting disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material
within the floodplain upon project completion. If impacts are greater than 0.1 acre
(0.04 hectare) compensatory mitigation may be required, and if impacts are greater than
0.5 acre (0.2 hectare) compensatory mitigation is mandatory.
North Carolina Riparian Buffers - Unavoidable impacts to stream buffers require mitigation
on the basis of 3:1 or 1.5:1 depending on the zone in the buffer that the impact occurred.
Mitigation may consist of payment of a compensatory mitigation fee into the state Riparian
Buffer Restoration. Fund, donation of real property, or restoration or enhancement of a
non-forested riparian buffer.
Potential mitigation opportunities - An on-site stream restoration opportunity may also be
present northeast of Bridge No. 21. This area may be the historic site of a stream segment
of the unnamed tributary currently connecting with Great Swamp south of NC 222.
22
A wetland enhancement opportunity may exist south of NC 222. There are areas here
where baldcypress (Taxodium distichum) could be planted in the flooded palustrine scrub-
shrub and emergent communities to extend the Cypress-Gum Swamp (Blackwater
Subtype) community successionally.
In the project study area, Great Swamp has adequate wooded riparian buffers of the
required minimum size. It does not appear that on-site opportunities for riparian buffer
mitigation exist within the study area.
4.4 Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), or Officially
Proposed (P) for such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). Only one federally protected species is listed
for Wayne County (USFWS list dated January 2003) (Table 2). This species has not been
reported by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (Appendix) to occur or have
occurred in the area of the Kenly East, N.C. (1978), 7.5-minute USGS Quad Sheet. No
other protected species were identified which may occur in the project area.
Table 2. Federally Protected Species Listed for Wayne County, NC.
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological Conclusion
Red-cockaded Woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
E- Endangered
Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Red-cockaded Woodpecker is a small, non-migratory woodpecker, 7 to 8.5 inches (17.8 to
21.6 centimeters) long, has a black head, prominent white cheek patch, and black-and-
white barred back (USFWS 2001c). Males often have red markings (cockades) behind the
eye, but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see (Potter et ai. 1980). Primary nest
sites for Red-cockaded Woodpecker include open pine stands greater than 60 years of age
with little or no mid-story development. Foraging habitat is comprised of open pine or
pine/mixed hardwood stands 30 years of age or older (Henry 1989). Primary habitat
consists of mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly (Pines
taeda), long-leaf (P. paiustris), slash (P. e//iottii), pond (P. serotina), or other southern pine
species.
Nest cavities are constructed in the heartwood of living pine trees, generally older than
60 years, that have been infected with red-heart disease. Excavation of a cavity usually
initiates through an old dead branch opening in the bole of the tree. An aggregate of
23
cavity trees is called a cluster and may include 1 to 20 or more cavity trees on 3 to
60 acres (1.2 to 24 hectares). The average size of a cluster is about 10 acres
(4 hectares). The typical cluster is occupied by a related group of individuals called a clan.
The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the excavated cavity entrance, resulting
in a shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active
nest trees.
The typical territory for a clan will range from 60 to 600 acres (24 to 240 hectares) in size.
Red-cockaded Woodpecker prefers mature, open, pine forests and will not generally range.
greater than about 130 feet (40 meters) over cleared ground or hardwood stands. The
clan will only exploit those pine stands for food that are contiguous with their nesting
habitat. Pine flatwoods or pine-dominated savannas which have been maintained by
frequent natural fires serve as ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker.
Development of a thick understory may result in abandonment of cavity trees.
No large scale field surveys were conducted for Red-cockaded Woodpecker outside of the
designated project study area. A review of available aerial mapping indicates that
contiguous forest land may be present within 0.5 mile (0.8 kilometer) of the project site.
The suitability of this habitat is undetermined.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
The project study area and areas adjacent to it are dominated by dense hardwood
swamp lands. For the most part, the uplands have been cleared for agriculture to
the edges of the swamps or edges of the first terrace. No suitable nesting or
foraging habitat for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker exists within or contiguous to
the project study area. Natural Heritage Program records do not document any
known Red-cockaded Woodpecker populations within 3.0 miles (4.8 kilometers) of
the project study area (NHP records review November 2002). This project will have
No Effect on Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Analysis Details -
Methodology: identification of potential habitat for Red-cockaded Woodpecker was
conducted as an assessment of available information and preliminary site review by
the primary investigators of the habitat requirements of Red-cockaded Woodpecker.
Specifically, available records at the NHP were reviewed to assess the possible
presence of Red-cockaded Woodpecker in the project vicinity. Aerial photos were
also assessed for the identification of potential habitat.
Qualifications: this analysis was conducted by Dr. Ken Roeder and Susan Smith
whose credentials are listed in Section 1.5 of this report.
24
Federal Species of Concern
The January 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
Species of Concern" (FSC) (Appendix). The FSC designation provides no federal protection
under the ESA for the species listed. However, these are listed since they may attain
federally protected status in the future. Federal Species of Concern listed for Wayne
County include six species (Table 3). None of these species are reported to occur in the
area covered by the Kenly East, NC, 7.5-minute USGS Quad Sheet in which this bridge
replacement project is located.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) Listed for Wayne County, NC.
Common Name Scientific Name State .
Status Potential
Habitat
Rafinesque's Big-eared Bat Corynorhinus rafinesquii T Yes
Southern Hog-nosed Snake Heterodon simus Sc No
Pinewoods Shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR No
Yellow Lance Elliptio lanceolata E No
Atlantic Pigtoe Fusconaia masoni E No
Pondspice Litsea aestivalis SR _T No
E- Endangered, T- Threatened, SR- Significantly Rare, SC- Special Concern, T- Rare throughout its range.
4.5 State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants with the North Carolina status
of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), and Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection
under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North
Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.12 et seq.). A review of the NHP
records indicates that no state listed species have been documented within 3.0 miles
(4.8 kilometers) of the project study area. This project will not affect any known
occurrences of state listed species. .
25
r
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L., S. P. Hall, and J. T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife
Service, U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
MS. 100 pp.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR). 1989. Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1988.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. North Carolina
Waterbodies Listed by Subbasin. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/-basinsand
waterbodies/03-04-07.pdf on 20 November 2002.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002b. Active NPDES
Permits. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/NPDESweb.htmi on 2 December 2002.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Fish Community Database.
http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/NCIBI.htm
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 2002. Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
Raleigh, NC. July 2002.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/basinwide/Neuse/neuse w4 management plan.htm
Henry, G.V. 1989. Guidelines for the Preparation of Biological Assessments and
Evaluations for the Red-cockaded Woodpecker. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
Atlanta, GA.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). 2002. North Carolina Water Quality and Impaired Waters List
(2002 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/tmdI/PDFs/NCy2k2 integratedreport.pdf
26

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1999. Best Management
Practices For Bridge Demolition and Removal. NCDOT, Raleigh. 3 pp.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 408 pp.
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1 182 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs,
CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina: Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks
and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. 325 pp.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS). 1974. Soil Survey of Wayne County, North Carolina.
United States Department of Agriculture. 72 pp + maps.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services (SCS). 1991. Hydric Soils of
the United States. June 1991.
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2001. Red-cockaded Woodpecker (Picoides
borealis). http://rcwrecovery.fws.gov/rcw.htm
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1978. National Wetlands Inventory Map, Kenly
East, North Carolina, U.S. Geologic Survey 7.5-minute series topographic
quadrangle.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 2002a. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina: Wayne
County. January 2003. Asheville, NC.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1978. Kenly East, North Carolina 7.5-minute series
topographic quadrangle.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
255 pp.
27
ti
APPENDIX
Exhibit A. GPS Located "Waters of the United States" and Jurisdictional Wetlands
GPS Located Wetland Points
USACE and DWQ Wetland and Stream Data Forms
Natural Heritage Program Endangered Species List
28

r??lardau • ST4TF
Y T
w g
y 9
9 =
?Z
0 *T4T/ON .Val^O
ugg r
mT 0
No
?o
a w
= `/
nvm
On=
N m C1t
fN •
m m
m
pi
N
0
Ln
P
0
O
O
1 2"
A
G7
m
z
C
W
m
x
N
n O
\ r O
?
w
to
\
* *
w * is * r
? LL
W
:E4
w IN
O Q W
m a
W *O Q
W I
* A
:k (" *
. Lo
i
w
ZD-
* a ou
*
w
3D
U * Q
* Q W
d
W I
to
rn *
* m
1
* t ?` I
17
m
0 w
vI
Q A
I W
* W tD
a
* O
-?
7
a
CD
* * * -
0
*
* J C)
O
* *
Q
D
7
* * Q
Q 1 I
cD
N
*
*
*
* J
J .
*
* IT
1 ?
A * 1
w a
?
w
Q / iD
a
? w
* QI
* I
a
L4
Lo
o'
tn
is
*
I
/w
:k D
*
Q
m
1
Q
*
* * J
a
w
D
U
OD
a
w
a
* CO
* w
a * o.
cn
* * *
*
*
* *
? t
as m
L4
?0 a
a 7-
*
*$
W
*
l0 0
/ N
7
CD
/
Q
O
7
*
* *
*
*
*
* *
or
ie W
* 1
A
? a 1O
LA 0
Q W .1
? O
w m
(D
Q
1
A
W
to
O
* °D
Q
1
A
W
t0

B-4319 GPS Located Wetland Points
POINT NAME LONGITUDE LATITUDE

b-4319 a1 78°01'18.22" 35°33'40.27"
b-4319 a2 78°01'17.60" 35°33'39.97"
b-4319 a3 78°01'15.09" 35°33'39.41"
b-4319 a4 78°01'14.82" 35°3339.72"
b-4319 a5 78°01'14.23" 35°33'39.76"
b-4319 a6 78°01'14.57" 35°33'40.56"
b-4319 a7 78°01'14.82" 35°33'40.96"
b-4319 b1 78°01'18.46" 35°33'39.49"
b-4319 b2 78°01'14.72" 35°33'38.72"
b-4319 b3 78°01'12.55" 35°33'38.23"
b-4319 b4 78°01'11.99" 35°3337.85"
b-4319 b5 78°01'11.10" 35°33'37.86"
b-4319 b6 78°01'10.30" 35°33'37.84"
b-4319 b7 78°01'09.59" 35°33'37.66"
b-4319 b8 78°01'08.14" . 35°3337.37"
b-4319 b9 78°01'08.04" 35°33'35.98"
b-4319 c1 78°01'19.22" 35°33'39.58"
b-4319 c2 78°01'25.06" 35°33'34.45"
b-4319 c3 78°01'22.22" 35°33'40.17"
b-4319 c4 78°01'22.71" 35°33'40.12"
b-4319 c5 78°01'23.22" 35°33'39.83"
b-4319 c6 78°01'23.74" 35°33'39.63"
b-4319 c7 78°01'24.05" 35°33'39.28"
b-4319 c8 78°01'24.32" 35°33'39.00"
b-4319 c9 78°01'24.35" 35°33'39.56"
b-4319 cc2 78°01'23.78" 35°33'39.78"
b-4319 cc3 78°01'23.53" 35°33'40.00"
b-4319 cc4 78°01'22.91" 35°33'40.91"
b-4319 cc5 78°01'23.81" 35°33'40.30"
b-4319 cc6 78°01'24.09" 35°33'40.30"
b-4319 =7 78°01'24.34" 35°33'40.05"
b74319. d1 78°01'20.61" 35°33'43.01"
b-4319 d2 78°01'20.86" 35°33'42.05"
b-4319 d3 78°01'21.20" 35°33'40.91"
b-4319 d4 78°01'20.97" 35°33'40.66"
b-4319 d5 78°01'19.98" 35°33'40.41"
b-4319 d6 78°01'19.35" 35°33'40.30"
b-4319 d7 78°01'19.10" 35°33'40.46"
b-4319 d8 78°01'18.89" 35°33'40.24"
b-4319 se bank 60ft to sw bank 78°01'19.13" 35°33'39.71"
b-4319 se bank 60ft to sw bank 78°01'18.52" 35°33'39.58"
b-4319 nw bank 50ft to ne bank 78°01'18.92" 35°33'40.26"

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 GOE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL
PROJECT: 8-4319 DATE: 21 November 2002'
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Wayne
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: 8-4319 D UPL
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Various grasses
2.
3.
4.
5.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 0 %
Remarks: Maintained roadside; slope; power line right of way
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks:
SOILS
Map Unit Name: Johnston loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy Typic Fluvaquents
(Subgroup): Field Observations No
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
0-6. A . 10YR 3/3 None None Sandy loam
6+ B 10YR 5/6 None None Sandy loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Hislic Epipedo.n High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil.
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric-Soils -List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
8-43nn trPL
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
No Is this Sampling Point within a
Wetland?
No
No
Hydric Soils Present?
No
Remarks:

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
PROJECT: 8-4319 DATE: 21 November 2002
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Wayne
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: B-4319 UPL
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
Species
Stratum
Indicator Dominant Plant
Species
Stratum
Indicator
1, Platanus occidentalis C, S FAC+
2. Pinus taeda C FAC
3. Acer rubrum S FACW-
4. Lonicera japonica V FAC-
5.- Smilax rotundifolia V FAC
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 80 %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:.
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks:

SOILS 4319 LPL (for PSS)
Map Unit Name: Johnston loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy Cumulic Humaquepts
(Subgroup): Field Observations No
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
0-8+ A 10YR 414 None None Sandy clay w/small
ravel

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic. Streaking in Sandy. Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a No
Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? No
Hydric Soils Present? No
Remarks:
k ?
t ,
B-4319
PROJECT:
APPLICANT:
INVESTIGATOR:
NCDOT
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
DATE: 21 November 2002
.COUNTY: Wayne
E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: UPL
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? , No Plot ID: B-4319 UPL
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua C FAC+
2. Liriodendron tuhpifera C FAC
3. Acer rubrum C, U FACW-
4. Lonicera japonica. V FAC-
5. Ligustrum sinense S FAC
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 80 %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 0 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >24 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: >24 Inches.
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized, Root Channels in Upper 12.in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks:
SOILS R- A;bq ! to) M,. PFiul
Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy Typic Fluvaquents
(Subgroup): Field Observations No
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
2 A 10YR 4/2 None None Sandy loam
2+ B 10YR 4/2 None None Sandy loam

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy,
Soil .
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil .
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present?
Wetland Hydrology Present?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarks:
Yes Is this Sampling Point within a
Wetland?
No
No
No

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL
PROJECT: 8-4319 DATE: 21 November 2002
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Wayne
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC

Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community. ID: PFO
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No . Plot ID: 8-4319 D
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION.
Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator
1 Acer rubrum C, U FACW- 8.
2, Liquidambar styraciflua C FAC+ 9.
3. Nyssa sylvatica C FAC 10.
4, Smilax rotundifolia V PAC 11.
5. 12.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 100 %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. 4-6+ Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test ,
X Other (Explain) Buttressing
Remarks:
SOILS
B - 4319D
Map Unit Name: Johnston loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy Cumulic Humaquepts
(Subgroup): Field Observations Yes
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle . Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
10 A 10YR 2/1 None None Sandy-loam

Hydric Soil indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a Yes
Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
a
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
PROJECT:
.APPLICANT:
INVESTIGATOR:
(1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
8-4319 DATE: 21 November 2002
NCDOT COUNTY: Wayne
E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC
Do normal circumstances exist on this site? Yes Community ID: •PSS
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: B-4319 B
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Liquidambar styraciflua S FAC+ 8.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera S FAC 9.
3. Carpinus caroliniana. S FAC 10.
4. Quercus nigra $ FAC 11.
5. Smilax rotundifolia V FAC 12.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 100 %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water. 4-6 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 2 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 2 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test
Other (Explain)
Remarks:
s t
SOILS 0-4319B
Map Unit Name: Johnston loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Very poorly drained
Taxonomy Cumulic Humaquepts
(Subgroup): Field Observations Yes
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Matrix Color
Depth (Inches) Horizon Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Texture/Concretions
6 A 10YR 4/1 None None Loamy

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy '
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a Yes
Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE WETLAND DELINEATION MANUAL)
PROJECT: B-4319 DATE: 21 November 2002
APPLICANT: NCDOT COUNTY: Wayne
INVESTIGATOR: E. Fentress, K. Roeder QUAD MAP: Kenly East, NC
Do normal circumstances exist-on this site? Yes Community ID: PEM
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical No Transect ID:
Situation)?
Is this area a Potential Problem Area? No Plot ID: 8-4319 B
if needed, explain on reverse
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant
Species Stratum Indicator
1. Salix nigra S OBL 8.
2. Liriodendron tulipifera S FAC 9.
3. Acer rubrum S FACW- 10.
4_ Arundinaria gigantea H FACW 11.
5. TYPha latifolia H OBL 12.
6. 13.
7. 14.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (Excluding FAC-): 100 %
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available
Field Observations:
Depth of Surface Water: 6 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 Inches
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 Inches
Wetlands Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators
X Inundated
X Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Fac-Neutral Test .
Other (Explain)
Remarks:
R
SOILS 5-4314 R (PEW
Map Unit Name: Bibb sandy loam
(Series and Phase) Drainage Class: Poorly drained
Taxonomy Typic Fluvaquents
(Subgroup): Field Observations Yes
Confirmed Mapped Type?
Profile Description:
Depth (Inches) Horizon Matrix Color
Munsell Moist Mottle Colors Mottle Texture/Concretions
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast
10 A 10YR 3/1 None None Loamy

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy
Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil
Aquic Moisture Regime X Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions . X Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Expain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes Is this Sampling Point within a Yes
Wetland?
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes
Hydric Soils Present? Yes
Remarks:
. , , 4
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th Version)
Project Name: B-4319
County: Wayne
Nearest Road: NC 222
Evaluation Team: Efentress. K. Roeder
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Wetland Site Number: Wetland B-4319D
Wetland Area (acres): 1.1
Wetland Width (feet): 197'
Date: 21 November 02
Adiacent Land Use:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 80 %
agriculture, urban/suburban 15 %
impervious surface 5
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series: Johnston (1) Acer rubrum
predominantly organic (humus, muck, peat) (2) Liauidambar styraciflua
X predominantly mineral (non-sandy) (3) Nvssa sylvatica
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
197' total riparian wetland width
Flooding and Wetness
X semi to permanently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded/inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface
water
no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland Type (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
X Swamp Forest
Pocosin
Freshwater Marsh
Ephemeral Wetland
Bog forest
Seep
Headwater Forest
Wet Flat
Pine Savannah
Estuarine fringe forest
Carolina Bay
Bog/fen
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
Water Storage 3 X 4.00 = 12
Bank/Shoreline Stability 3 X 4.00 = 12
Pollution Removal 5 * X 5.00 = 25
Wildlife Habitat 4 X 2.00 = 8
Aquatic Life Value 5 X 4.00 = 20
Recreation/ Education 2 X 1.00 = 2
Wetland Score = 79
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within '/Z mile upstream, upslope, or
radius
}
WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th Version)
Project Name: B-4319 Wetland Site Number: Wetland B-43198 (PSS)
County: Wayne Wetland Area (acres): 2.8
Nearest Road: NC 222 Wetland Width (feet): 547'
Evaluation Team: E.Fentress. K. Roeder Date: 21 November 02
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Adiacent Land Use:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 80 %
agriculture, urban/suburban 15 %
impervious surface 5 %
Soil Series: Johnston
predominantly organic (humus, muck, peat)
X predominantly mineral (non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
547' total riparian wetland width
Wetland Type (select one)*
X Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Swamp Forest
Pocosin
Freshwater Marsh
Ephemeral Wetland
Bog forest
Seep
Dominant Vegetation
(1) Liguidambarstyraciflua
(2) Liriodendron tulipifera
(3) Quercus nigra
Flooding and Wetness
X semi to permanently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded/inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface
water
no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Headwater Forest
Wet Flat
Pine Savannah
Estuarine fringe forest
Carolina Bay
Bog/fen
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
Water Storage 2 X 4.00 = 8
Bank/Shoreline Stability 1 X 4.00 = 4
Pollution Removal 4 * X 5.00 = 20
Wildlife Habitat 4 X 2.00 = 8
Aquatic Life Value 2 X 4.00 = 8
Recreation/ Education 2 X 1.00 = 2
Wetland Score = 50
* Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within '/Z mile upstream, upslope, or
radius

WETLAND RATING WORKSHEET (4th Version)
Project Name: B-4319
County: Wayne
Nearest Road: NC 222
Evaluation Team: Efentress. K. Roeder
Wetland Location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other
Wetland Site Number. Wetland B4319B (PEM)
Wetland Area (acres): 0.7
Wetland Width (feet): 240'
Date: 21 November 02
Adjacent Land Use:
(within 1/2 mile upstream, upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 80. %
agriculture, urban/suburban 15 %
impervious surface 5 %
Dominant Vegetation
Soil Series: Bibb (1) Salix nigra
predominantly organic (humus, muck, peat) (2) Acer rubrum
X predominantly mineral (non-sandy) (3) Tvpha latifolia
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic Factors
steep topography
ditched or channelized
547' total riparian wetland width
Flooding and Wetness
X semi to permanently flooded or inundated
seasonally flooded/inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary surface
water
no evidence of flooding or surface
water
Wetland Type (select one)*
Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Swamp Forest
Pocosin
X freshwater Marsh
Ephemeral Wetland
Bog forest
Seep
Headwater Forest
Wet Flat
Pine Savannah
Estuarine fringe forest
Carolina Bay
Bog/fen
Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
DEM RATING
Water Storage 3 X 4.00 = 12
Bank/Shoreline Stability T X 4.00 = 4
Pollution Removal 5 * X 5.00 = 25
Wildlife Habitat 3 X 2.00 = 6
Aquatic Life Value 2 X 4.00 = 8
Recreation/ Education 2 X 1.00 = 2
Wetland Score = 57
*Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within % mile upstream, upslope, -or
radius
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
4 1 . 0
Project Name: $ridyc PkPtacemcrtl,
DWQ Project Number. B- 4319
River Basin: IJcuse County: Waytw Evaluator: E. Fcoiress, K. Roeder
Nearest Named Stream: Greta} &mwf Latitude: V 33'39" Signature:
Date: ZI Nov. 200t USGS QUAD: Kenty Easf Longitude: }8° 1' 19" Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: lfevaluaror 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 modifled natural stream-this rating
system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One NumberPerum)
I. Geornorpholozy Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed .,
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
H. Hvdroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 t 2
PRIMARY, HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_&_
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Wav? 0 .5 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICATOR POINTS: 1.5
H. Hydroloev Absent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 U
Last Known Rain? ONOTE., If n Indimed In t b Skit) Step And N B lair
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 .5
Conditions Or In Growin Season)?
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcut)? Y. .5 No=0
SECONDARYHYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS: 6
TOTAL POINTS (P?inrary + Secoridary)=23.5 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Interndltenr
On no MaRAnd/Or In Field) Present? Yes4 1V0=0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 9
PRIMARYBIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-3_
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of Ali Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present').
SECONDA R Y BIOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS:_

4_ ' rq3
INTERMITTENT CHANNEL
EVALUATION FORM
ACTION ID B- 4319 APPLICANT NAME N CD O1 DATE 2J Noy . 2no2-
PROPOSED CHANNEL WORK (i.e., culvert, relocation, etc.) Bridge Qtelacement
WATERBODY/RIVERBASIN j?rra4.QWnmp COUNTY/CITY WoaCN.4.,
RECENT WEATHER CONDITIONS _inv C no l
P SP NP Observation Comments or Description
Fish/Shellfish/Crustaceans Present
Benthic Macro Invertbrates
Amphibians Present/Breeding
Algae And/Or Fungus (water quality function)
Wildlife Channel Use (i.e. tracks, feces, shells, others)
Federally Protected Species Present (Discontinue)
? Riffle/Pool Structure
? Stable Streambanks

? Channel Substrate
(i.e. gravel, cobble, rock, coarse sand
? Riparian Canopy Present (SP =/> 50% closure) ..
Undercut BanksMstream Habitat Structure
Flow in Channel
? Wetlands Adjacent To/Contig. With Channel (Discontinue)
Persistent Pools/Saturated Bottom
(June thm Sept.)
Seeps/Groundwater Discharge (June thru Sept.)
Adjacent Floodplain Present
? Wrack Material or Drift Lines
? Hydrophytic Vegetation in/adjacent to channel
Important To Domestic Water Supply? Y A@
Does Channel Appear On A Quad Or Soils Map? N)/ N Approx. Drainage Area:
lllllllll/lllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll/l1/!/lllllllllll//lllll/lll//l/l/lll/lll/lllll/ll/ll/l!/llllll//lllll/ll/l/llll/llll/l/lllll//lllll/lll/llllllll/ll//llll/lllll//ll///ll/lll/l/lll/1//lll/lllll/ll/l/l/lllll/llll/ll/l/l//l//
Determination:
Perennial Channel (stop) FImportant Channel: LF PROJECT MGR Initials
Intermittent Channel (proceed) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Channel (no id) (attach map indicating location of important(unimportant channel)
Ditch Through Upland (no jd)
Evaluator's Signature:
(if other than C.O.E. project manager)
P--Present SP=Stongly Present NP=Not Present
Search Results Page 1 of 1
Search Criteria: Wayne, Listed
Search Results: 12 records found.
Major Group Scientific Name Common Name State Federal State Global County
Status Status Rank Rank Status
Corynorhinus Rafinesque's Big-eared T FSC S3 G3G4 Historic - Wayne - MAP -
Mammal rafinesquii Bat HABITAT

Bird Lanius ludovicianus Loggerhead Shrike SC
-
S3B,S3N
G4T4 Current - Wayne - MAP -
ludovicianus HABITAT
Bird Picoides borealis Red-cockaded. Woodpecker E E S2 G3 Current - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Reptile' Crotalus horridus Timber Rattlesnake Sc - S3 G4 Obscure - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Reptile Heterodon simus Southern Hognose Snake SC FSC S2 G2 Obscure - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Amphibian Necturus lewisi Neuse River Waterdog SC - S3 G3 Historic - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Fish Lythrurus matutinus Pinewoods Shiner SR FSC S3 G3 Obscure - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT

h Noturus furiosus pop Carolina Madtom - Neuse SC
- S2
G3T2Q Current - Wayne - MAP -
Fis I River Population HABITAT
Mollusk Elliptio lanceolata Yellow Lance E FSC S1 G2G3 Current - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Mollusk Elliptio roanokensis Roanoke Slabshell T - S1 G2G3 Current - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Mollusk Fusconais masoni Atlantic Pigtoe E FSC S1 G2 Current - Wayne - MAP -
HABITAT
Vascular
Litsea aestivalis
Pondspice
SR-T
FSC
S2
G3 Current - Wayne - MAP -
Plant HABITAT
NC NHP database updated: January, 2003. Search performed on Thursday, February 6, 2003 at 10:16:50
Eastern Standard Time.
Total number of searches since 01 /01 /03: 406
Explanation of Codes
Do NOT bookmark this search results page, instead bookmark: www.ncsparks.net/nhp/county.html
httn://www.ncst)arks.net/nhp/elements2.fin 2/6/2003
.j I
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 336561.1 (B-4319)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.21
OVER GREAT SWAMP
ALONG NC 222
/ ?a 0(/05/05
SHEET OF r REV.11 / 02 / 05
VICINITY
MAIDS
PROJECT
y ^,ss -'raw r ?y? ¢K ?_ Y f Fa?fre??f
,a S4 "sfalu? $ A
¢ er 97"1 [ ? 3gg ? 4 ? vl? a?i j ai { f ?' d + s. i ?Fvmv Ft5 C
i LorL?e
- 4" f?lns
i ?- +y ? € ?cuRtlt?e
Vrixrstsn! , ?f {{ b . .€ ai"" a Crrsofr i id l
?•?'?? ?,Rfiwi"i. iint `'?'?i`.J F1bKOr1???: "r?'
isT e t RSt?E: !k tt 1 ? r '
crkQfrft*?"?.: ar'_.: S'liFi"13Sc £?e9r4:: " k {{rltft;3r
?t
t ?, ?,P d n, ?, +a??R.f?'eee) ? s_'? ? ._ ?«.?t t??? ? tACral?a • ,... ,
17
F Fyrloi?"tSrkPtis rt?
-. i. r Y.i5t6esr5?;taFE F ?}p °€R6k4 [t!e'er .
mprl
E N,
W Pat
?? Arks ' , 6} ? .
k. 'Y" f e Y 4m 1'1 E tl!4' tl. t [ .4 IV.i •! 1
NORTH CAROLINA
A 1-b
TOPOGRAPHIC
MAPS
1V CD® JL
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33656.1.1 (B-4319)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO 21
OVER GREAT SWAMP
ALONG NC 222
04/ 05/ 05
1
SHEET OF /0 REV.11/02/05
J?tp d ,
' V
`E3, Q
W

uI
lzl?
=i
Mm
a
ti
M

d
U
0
U
11??r
m
v
? I
O
U
o?
?a
a
y
U
U
Q
N
U
y
3t
d R d d N
J J J J J
O O
O O
O
f7 M fh f7 ('7
?,R.. w w w •^w

c c c c c
aD d d d d
CL C a
M C i
a
U) cn V) C
w w w
D co z U) fn
v Y t! ?- O N= Y C R Y L C
;_ 3:o= 4 W° M Y?S U?
M O M O
N N V N 04
z z z z
c c c
R
u N N `1 N
L U- LL U-
O
a
r N N
y (? N xR
Z W co
V OD N O co
iy G d
L
U 3 N
L? N p L N
N O W a? ?+
E t!
w R s
? U
? Y Y C
?. ? 8 8 Y
ti
ti
CQ
I O
h
O
N
O
CV
V4, w
-f! E C.
h
= C
i m .i' O O O O O O O O O

0
Z Cl)
c c d
(n N. E N O O O O O O O O O
Q a
w U E

a

w
Q LL
daj
o
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
O

w
U
Q
?..

CO N
c p
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
v
LL
N
C
16 .? O O O O O O O O O
Z
LL

Q N C O
m t 0 0 O O O O O O O O

c w
-o
0
c

V > o $ $ o 0 0 0 0 0
;7- x? 0 0 0 0
w c

W
z
a
4 =r
LL
z g C.
Ed 0 O 0 0 O O O O O

W -

c C 0
O 0
O
O pMp d
O MM
O pO
O
O O O
LL? O O O O O O O

3 a. a. w
C9 w
0 CL
z U U 0 O U z
co co in to co co z
?n
w J J J J
?O 0 Q ix O Q' ? Q Q Q
co O
J H
J N
J F-
J H J 1-
J F-
J F
J
E co
+ n
} O
+ M
O
+
CD O
+
O O
N
M
CO LL N M v t j CD 1 co +
N
r r r V'
e- e' O
r r' O t co
r r O
r

O

Y O J
(5 z OO

tah.dgn
CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B-4319
0 0 0.
O
ra
n O 0 C." -lox
A
O A y
c
z as
n ?? b
g
n r n r a n n?
0 C), 0 42 .0111.
r ? fr ? ? ?L sR N N
?o
p m m
124 C-14
r = _
m
O
6 O -n -n
O
ocb
7
m
y
p O
??
r r r
p p p
N V t?71
r
ab-*4
a
Q
W
r y
3 . 0
ti
m
A
K ?
x
a ?
pO
? y
N
zO
m
Z?
H
0
O
`m(? _
Q Z
y
r
OD C
m Z
m A
.yo
O fr
vz
O
N
m
m
D
av
r
N
v
-mC
O
v
s
?r
xz
W
v
z
O
N
0
O
H
m
v n
ON
C
o?
4 O
O
t
0
O
?o 0
b
r?
O
?cll
A N
tAw 0%9 g5
a
z
n
0
x
mm
y
?n
? T
2
8~
O
mk
O
I?
0

q
iy
R
A
q
w
J
a
I L?-
18:17
;2•()B74A 19_rdy_typ.dgn
fa
M
w
c?F-
m N
$Z M
J
80
rlIm
I B-0
w
O?0
Wrr=
??S c^
<x ;z0
. s m
3A
M-4
pff
3<
c

4
N
4
O_
m
?

O

v

Z
L7

Z
G
?
q
1

N
M
z
z
O
C13
z
O
T
v
m
s
m
z
m
M
rA
r
0
rA mN
m
c
z
r
M
co
to
O
T
z
0
x
A
q
T
44
C -? N M ? N
< m m i°>v » m>7? rD9 ?a
D x y xmla -1a m-?a D-{7D o
w z z
° > v m
v

>>
w
x v>
v
z•
z- v>
rz• >
az- Z.
ar z ; a>
o>< D> oD< ?D> <>
m ° am my vms
-
= MID sa
D D• Do M . DO
M ?+11 1a > pk
=Zmm ZOO mx M.
M. mm
= ; my
-4 D
r
11 a ao1 a--4
> z
v<>x
>•
<>x E

M
iam

m?

m ON

m?
ma

?
x b
W O M
>
N 10 _
r
_ 0
'
=
0
nx
Z 71 Z
r1
i= r? m
a> V?
r w> Go=
M
> rA Vr 1
-
-10 Vr ~r

01-1 r Z
O
co O
= o ro
m oo
c Iwo DC
9
XO r 00 v
z
i -1- a
x
m z 0• a
m mz iaz 1
11 0)
> o-
i vs i
mb- . M a Cn 0
mm
Wa mm
a Ornm
a M
mm
m ° m ro
ap mm i
M m
CJ m
p OD a C Z
f m i
t+- j OD OC C
m z 0 z > na a
moo °m
m > n
m
. n • i
cc
o
zz o v a am m
xmm c
a -
xmc 0 0
m a` co am z °
o cc
a M M
mM O

m M
'
r
mm°m
°m
s
• mx
° xm o
°
1 m -
n
a• 10 • 0 m m
O
om al T
O?
0
dD
O 07
1 71
w D o m

D >
m ? m
z 8 ?- 0
c
m 4m Z M
O a

r?
I
a !v
N V
N
m < ? <
C \ }}• C
rn \ tt m o;R O'w
N
} WVN
1 ZZO oao 1-
gas MID
W z° ?? Z ttt °
}
?? Z++ Z
o o max O
w +? N
ral- &

1s
K
?w
N
?._.
f
PROJECT
r*yrx-
-{ "'P r @aa? 1 Y+' TkrttY t r4: 1 ,,. ? a y_ as e
ff??
:{.: €F ;T?:f'RTT ( T lH.. S ? .. ?tfi.k?'?` #`14'tl!F41 ?
4r'rsc t??©?t''-a; { ? - iacrR a? E :Yt ?„ ,c++- . "?`s1
-?e?btx?tsr `"'` Ed £ a44 IF All
GAii yr' G;BtiiI?C-8
-H tkbmite:: :l.C?rktgy?+ sc
tom' i
N 4.-
9 teaHCU tCs?vs ? ?i1.. t,?-
wir
?v i 5 c ct?:sFk?u i Fn .p.
5 i 5ui}.r
7r .yaM*#srni `Ip?S ., 6 ter` _ ' ..
IR-
:14 Ftwi
Ali
ki tt t p
'E' ? ..? i Y:b'? ? 4ai•? sa -1 .+r4 `xHIk.t :?• r 7 ? 4_ _i ?$':i ?'s. `7
VICINITY
MAPS
NEUSE RIVER
BUFFER ZONE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT: 33656.1.1 (B-4319)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.21
OVER GREAT SWAMP
ALONG NC 222
SHEET t OF g 04/06/05
I NORTH CAROLINA
? K .
l t
uo?

?
If
?v-

c=
is>
..

r-

` C5 222

?T E
r

E
p
P
I _ .
t

TOPOGRAPHIC
MAIP S
NEUSE RIVER
BUFFER ZONE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WAYNE COUNTY
PROJECT. 33656.11 (B-4319)
REPLACE BRIDGE NO.21
OVER GREAT SWAMP
ALONG NCp 222
SHEET ? OF O 04 / 06 / 05
}
:Fy
dal
1
f
i
i
7 ?
`1v
v
1 `1
F_ V
i
34
?w
I
y
d
v
V
v
V
ti
r?
V
V
V
Od ?
O i
4 I
O M
V d
N
•CL
ro I
R,
w
is
3
V I
I
II
I d Z I
I ? I
y ?
\ y
y d
v
ID
Q ?
J J J J
J

r t' r
C?7 M M Cl)
M
- - -
B 6 6 6 0
7 ?7 3: 3: 3:
Ed 0? 0?
C C C C c
N N N N N
C c m a
CL ,
2 w °? a: 2
U CO to N (1)
CO ? 0) co N
LL.
E0 ?_u)= E3o a 0 cY
m
-f6 i2 ?0= -MiW= Y;S UJ
co 0 C11 C) 0
co M co c
rr. r• n n
N N N N N
Z Z Z Z Z
CD
c
E E a E E
LL_ LL LL LL.
0 C14 r_ Lo 0
N O to
N ?
`m
d U E o
Z co
rn CO aNi p co
m c? a
c? c m
ur O LLl 0) LL
ar n c > co
> ..
y
3
U) co
Y Y
O y
m 0 Z 2 J
ran n n
ti
1 I
gal
4
do
LJ
M
O
O
N
0
C
h
d
d
F- N

W zz
W N
W
L
U
o
c
a LLI
.
W z
i N
0
J ?
N

O

W
J
O
Q N o
W
F- N

0
uJ o
z
N v

a J N
a)
N C11
r

a m N I

N
G
ZO -
O C
4
v/ O N
Q ?

Q
0 v o a
o
N
0 N
-
W
F
?V
Qa
w a?
V w
- a
u.
D c?

m o?
co
ao x x
?
of
U
zo
O o S O
co v ? v
y? " m
W
N
W
Wa m a
c v_
U co CO

H
N
O J
z a
w
o

.It
permit\b4319_buffer_pfl.dgn
r
O

N
W
A
r
w
O?
r
V
r
O
`O
N
O

N
N
9_L_XSL_XPL.DGN
0
?,
permit\b4319_
ay N
y P `? M q1,B 9?
o VtiiS £. 0Y
al •M ? R
ti ? ?9?DL ?
.600p5 .. I p" . .
?X?C. ffyvv
bo• b fA
*X s
ml ? ? I d
n I`
S O ??
ilo ??ND
a a
It
Y?006
++yy
T 00
W ?p ? V
Q
?u
? K
15
N
x
ER r

O y

O

?i O
O .Y
? lTj
, Vl
O ?
? g
o
a 4

I ,? ?L n a??oDv
? ?.. + >kQ u uul?u?_A
?O
.fit)+??? 'Y Wlrs N?txA? ???
DNS ). / ,y, yt?4•A ??`i???v r
w

• Z
s I. F°g C
4A
W
?'
?e
cc
a' 1
N
? ?7 :U
§

is
Q ? ' ? ?• '_ ? ? y D oCO r

o r r A + N?
t

O O 20
'A
g I ,
i
11 01 +
I '? S 5
r•
s
-I z .1. o
ImEll"
IT,
bd
o ? L 1 ?i
-I ' Oom °a?
r ms's ° ?? y?C i 8117
FT? Fin,,
POTS-ft PP+94-39
D N y ? \\
? ?y m2m ? ? ?
?7 - O v? o
c? z ? m ? z
O (}1 v c ? w
10
X E
CA.
.X
1 \
?? n A 73NN9d!
1
X-X??-X .. .. .. .. ..

04 0 1
-1 L

°+
r ? is C y \
\ \
PTSta 13+48J4
a

N I ?
+ T

- r
4
I 1

A ?O?)
?s^ r r
I
I
1
< r
*p I
I
I 9I
N
=9
1 I
X

m H
m g

d ?
Zf.65
0 m N 5 0.30•
ry.N•.

91 1°
oQ

Rpo8-DEC-2005 10.7
:\Hydroulics\? RMIT\buffer permit\b4319_buffer-prmit110205.dgn 7/2/"
she and AT HY212438
o&_o
Z
a
O
N
(7 N
D cn
r -
m
11 O
cn
0
0
N I { I
Ln I I O All O L
N
I1 m
O T c)
o I 00 V
N L,a I ? ? tJS ? Z
m 0?
O
/ts V
l o?
0
i J
n
aZ
D .
F71 FT-1 F
z z 4 1 I ?/ o
O O { '1 m
I I C'7
Fri rrl I Z D
C C
-T- D -r{ D
r1{- -r-1 F- '
m? rnr- ?cjz
?7? X70 ?Cr•,-?
N> ND D -IT1C
(/1
OC)i oci m
zr- zr- o?rTl
mm mm
m zm,-.u
D D G7
C) C7 V)
(/) (/) m
C O
0
O O
(-n LC
00
CSl -

permit\b4319_buffer_pfl.dgn
la

IN
Iw
IV.
IR
la
11
I-M
I:z
0
IN
IN
' N
N
18ATF Michael F. Easley, Governor
Q R
O? Q William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
`
C/) ? Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
j
; Division of Water Qualify
Ib?
DWQ Project No.: D?QOl?IOa-\OZ14,0& County: W A6
E
Applicant: G '?•
Project Name:16RkV6S yla Zl E a: AsE> e52- GP- S AMP ON 146-e
Date of Issuance of 401 Water Qualitv Certification or Buffer Authorization:
Certificate of Completion
Upon completion of all work approved within the 401 Water Quality Certification or applicable Buffer
Rules, and any subsequent modifications, the applicant is required to return this certificate to the
401/Wetlands Unit, North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC,
27699-1650. This form may be returned to DWQ by the applicant, the applicant's authorized agent, or
the project engineer. It is not necessary to send certificates from all of these.
Applicant's Certiffcation
1, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other supporting materials.
Signature: Date:
Agent's Certifica
I, , hereby state that, to the best of my abilities, due care
and diligence was used in the observation of the construction such that the construction was observed to
be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401 Water Quality Certification and Buffer
Rules, the ed Iann sp cations, and other supp rtinn?,gg materials.
Signature.prov - Date: 7
If this pro ec was?ie gn y a Certiffed Professional
as a duly registered Professionals . (i.e.,
Engineer Landscape Architect, Surveyor, etc.) in the State of North Carolina, having been authorized
to observe riodicall , weekly, full time) the construction of the project, for the Permitee hereby state
that, to the best of my abilities, due care and diligence was used in the observation of the construction
such that the construction was observed to be built within substantial compliance and intent of the 401
Water Quality Certification and Buffer Rules, the approved plans and specifications, and other
supporting m t 'als. G
Signature y Registration No. P f-: X301
Date _
L!5 L?
Ulu\ N1AR NON
1)@qR ^ 1.4'e9TER QUALITY
?Y TI D P .'Ii STr)RAIMTFR BRANCH
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/