Kinston Bypass (17)

\s
l/ da S��r
P V4�
SAMPLE NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
US 70 Kinston Bypass
Lenoir County, North Carolina
TIP R -2553
WBS Element No 34460
THE NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
Natural Environment Section
December 2012

Natural Resources Technical Report
Table of Contents
1 0 Introduction
20 Methodology and Qualifications
T/P R -2553 Lenoir County NC
30
Physical Resources
5
31
Sods
5
3 2
Water Resources
7
40
Biotic Resources
7
4 1
Terrestrial Communities
7
4 1
1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
7
4 1
2 Wetland impacts
8
42
Invasive Species
9
50
Jurisdictional issues
9
5 1
Clean Water Act Waters of the U S
9
52
Clean Water Act Permits
10
53
Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
10
54
Construction Moratoria
10
5 5
N C River Basin Buffer Rules
10
56
Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
10
60
Endangered Species Act Protected Species
11
6 1
Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
12
62
Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat Designations
13
63
Essential Fish Habitat
13
70
References
14
Last of Tables
Table 1
Soils in the sample study area
5
Table 2
Notable water resources in the sample study area
7
Table 3
Terrestrial communities and C -CAP types within the sample study area
8
Table 4
Wetlands in the sample study area
8
Table 5
Invasive exotic plant species known to occur in Lenoir County
9
Table 6
Jurisdictional stream impacts within the sample corridor
9
Table 7
Jurisdictional wetlands within each sample corridor
10
Table 8
Federally protected species listed for Lenoir County
1 1
Table 9
Coverage of terrestrial communities in the sample corridor
Appendix B
Table 10
Jurisdictional characteristics of water resources crossing the sample corridor
Appendix B
List of Figures
Figure I Vicinity Map
Figure 2 Sample Study Area Map
Figure 3 Water Resources Map
Figure 4 Terrestrial Communities
Figure 5 Predicted Streams and Wetlands within the Sample Corridor
Figure 6 Potential Red Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Area Using C -CAP Data
Figure 7 Potential Red Cockaded Woodpecker Habitat Area Using Aerial Imagery
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenou Counly NC
Lest of Appendices
Appendix A Figures
Appendix B Impacts Summary for the Sample Corridor
Appendix C Habitat Areas
Appendix D Metadata
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
10 INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation ( NCDOT) is proposing to construct a multi-
lane facility on new location in Lenoir County, North Carolina As it is currently defined, the
Kinston Bypass would consist of a four -lane, median divided freeway facility from US 70 near
LaGrange in Lenoir County to US 70 near Dover, on the Jones and Craven county line (Figure
1) The proposed project is designated in the 2012 -2020 NCDOT State Transportation
Improvement Program (STIP) as STIP Number R -2553 and described as "US 70 Kinston
Bypass, Four -Lane Divided Freeway on New Location " The following Natural Resources
Technical Report (NRTR) has been prepared to assist in the preparation of an Environmental
Impact Statement (EIS) under the North Carolina State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) for the
proposed project This project has been designated as a pilot project by the North Carolina
Interagency Leadership Team, which includes using Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data
as the basis for alternative development, alternative evaluation, and selection of the Least
Environmentally Damaging Practicable Alternative /Preferred Alternative ( LEDPA) The
intention of pilot projects is to reserve detailed field investigations for the LEDPA Therefore,
traditional methodologies were not always possible for portions of this document This
document follows NCDOT's most recent NRTR guidance where possible ( NCDOT 2011 &
NCDOT 2010), available at
http / /www ncdot gov/ doh/ preconstruct /pe /neu/NEUProcedures /default html In instances where
the pilot project is unable to follow the traditional guidance, a detailed explanation of the
methodologies used is included in Section 2 0
The sample study area assessed within this NRTR is intended to act as a preview for the larger
study area, including all of the project alternatives (Figure 1) For the purpose of this document,
the sample study area consists of a one -mile buffer extending outside of a 5 mile portion of a
500 -foot sample corridor The sample study area being used within this document is shown in
Figure 2
Field verification of the data used in the development of this document occurred between March
22, 2012 and November 29, 2012 and included NCDOT staff, URS staff, and agency personnel
Specific dates, attendees, and the purpose of each field verification are listed in each applicable
section
20 METHODOLOGY AND QUALIFICATIONS
As detailed above, this project is a North Carolina Interagency Team pilot project The intent of
these pilot projects is to use GIS data in lieu of detailed field studies during the preliminary
stages of project development Therefore, the methodologies followed in this NRTR rely heavily
on the use of GIS data, and do not include detailed field studies
Base mapping for the project was developed using ArcGIS, ArcMap Version 10 Detailed study
alternative corridors designed in MicroStation were overlain on 2010 ortho- imagery and United
States Geological Survey (USGS) topographic quadrangles to choose an appropriate sample
study area The sample study area chosen includes a portion of 500 -foot study corridors 51 and
52 and contains a crossing of the Neuse River and several smaller stream and wetland crossings
Base mapping also includes NCDOT road and railroad layers (2010), county and municipal
boundaries, and stream and waterbody layers from NC OneMap
December 2012

Sample Natural Resouices Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
Once the sample study area was determined, all analyses performed as part of this NRTR were
clipped to the sample study area boundary The sample study area is approximately 14 square
miles (Figure 2)
North Carolina's Coastal Change Analysis Program Regional Land Cover Data (C -CAP) were
used to identify terrestrial communities in the sample study area These types were verified with
aerial photography and USGS topographic mapping Typically, terrestrial communities
presented within an NRTR are classified according to Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley 1990) These classifications are
based largely on species composition whereas C -CAP data are based more on land cover type
(residential or forested), resulting in a much larger number of classes than typically identified in
an NRTR
In order to remain consistent with the number and types of terrestrial communities typically
presented, the C -CAP classes were grouped into terrestrial community types based on the C -CAP
class as well as aerial imagery Aerial imagery was used to verify the classifications shown by
the C -CAP data During verifications, it was discovered that some of the C -CAP classes were
actually better - suited to other land cover types These C -CAP classes were grouped into
terrestrial communities accordingly This was first discovered with the `developed open space'
class Upon inspection of aerial photography, it was determined that `developed open space' was
almost always being used in conjunction with residential areas and appeared to include
manicured lawns and parks Such lands are generally classified as `maintained /disturbed' in
traditional NRTR documents The other classes included in this terrestrial community are all
developed residential and /or commercial lands
A similar discrepancy was noted in the `bare land,' `grassland,' and `scrub /shrub' classes Both
`bare land' and `grassland' were often found along the edge of `cultivated' or `pasture/hay'
areas Through inspection of aerial imagery, it appeared that the majority of these areas were a
part of the connected agricultural activity While some areas shown as `bare land' fell in
residential areas, over yards or open maintained fields, the majority appear to be in some sort of
agriculture so these classes were placed in the `agriculture' terrestrial community type The
placement of the `scrub /shrub' class was somewhat more problematic in that it appears to cover
both cutover areas (presumably cutover of pine plantation) as well as young pine plantations
The decision was made to place the `scrub /shrub' class along with `evergreen forest' in a `pine
plantation' terrestrial community Through aerial photography, it is evident that the largest and
most contiguous of the `scrub /shrub' classes and the majority of `evergreen forest' are in pine
plantation
The remaining groupings were straight forward and lumped all other forested non - wetland types
into `forested upland' and all wetland types into `palustrine wetland '
The terrestrial community and C -CAP types placed in each community are outlined below For
the purpose of this NRTR, the wetland community `Palustrine Wetland' is being grouped with
the terrestrial communities Metadata for the C -CAP dataset are located in Appendix D
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
• Maintained /Disturbed
• Developed open space
• High intensity developed
• Medium intensity developed
• Low intensity developed
• Agriculture
o Bare land
• Cultivated
• Grassland
• Pasture /hay
• Pine Plantation
• Evergreen forest
• Scrub /shrub
• Forested Upland
o Deciduous forest
o Mixed forest
• Palustrine Wetland
• Palustrine emergent wetland
• Palustrine forested wetland
o Palustrine scrub /shrub wetland
• Open Water
o Water
The C -CAP classes assigned to each terrestrial community were grouped in ArcGIS, then clipped
to the sample study area to determine the acreage of each community present within the sample
study area, and clipped again to the 500 -foot sample corridor to determine the acreage of each
community within the sample corridor (Figure 4)
Two ArcGIS models were used in order to assess potential stream and wetland impacts for the
project A jurisdictional stream model was created by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) and ajurisdictional wetland model was created by NCDOT
The jurisdictional stream model was completed by Ms Periann Russell ofNCDWQ for this pilot
project It is referred to as the `DWQ Lenoir Model' The model data consisted of streamlines
for the three US Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) Level IV ecoregions that were
present in the larger project study area for the entire project They were Rolling Coastal Plain
(RCP), Carolina Flatwoods (CF) and Southeastern Floodplains and Terraces (SEFT) The
models for the RCP and CF were created by utilizing 20 -foot grid cell digital elevation models
generated from bare -earth Light Detection and Ranging (LIDAR) data and subsequent terrain
derivatives and other ancillary data as variables The model was developed in SAS 9 2 as a
binary logistic regression model The National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowlines were used
for the SEFT in lieu of a model due to this ecoregion being heavily manipulated and impractical
to model accurately NHD is similar to USGS 24k hydrolmes, but does not include `double line'
streams and polygons that appear in USGS 24k lines Metadata for the model are located in
Appendix D
December 2012

Sample Natural Resout ces Technical Repot t TIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
The DWQ Lenoir Model was clipped to the sample study area to determine which streams are
located within the sample study area, and clipped again to the 500 -foot sample corridor to
determine which streams will cross the sample corridor Streams were named in chronological
order according to watershed (or receiving named stream within the project) This is shown in
Figure 3
Streams subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules were determined based solely on their presence
or absence on 24k USGS topographic mapping NRCS soils mapping was not consulted for
these determinations
Wetland data were derived from a wetland prediction model completed by NCDOT Natural
Environment Section (NES) for this pilot project The layer depicts wetlands of Lenoir County
and portions of Jones and Craven Counties Similar to the DWQ Lenoir Model, the model
utilizes 20 -foot grid cell digital elevation models generated from bare -earth LIDAR data and
subsequent terrain derivatives and other ancillary data as variables The model was developed in
SAS 9 2 as a binary logistic regression model
The wetland model used for this project is an aggregate of five different models (based on
ecoregion), each applied to one of the discrete areas for which it was developed The ecoregion
boundaries were edited based on terrain data to improve the accuracy, which in turn, improved
the model accuracy for each respective region The resulting models included Non - Riparian
Rolling Coastal Plain Wetland, Riparian Rolling Coastal Plain Wetland, Non - Riparian Flatwood
Wetland, Riparian Flatwood Wetland, and Floodplain Wetland The applications of riparian and
non - riparian within the ecoregions were based on a riparian shapefile that NCDOT digitized
based on terrain data and aerial photography These data were also verified through multiple
field surveys with the resource agencies Field verifications of the wetland model took place on
March 22, April 11, April 19, and June 7, 2012 Tom Steffens of USACE and David
Wainwright of NCDWQ were in attendance, along with Ledani Paugh and Morgan Weatherford
of NCDOT, Sandy Smith of Axiom, and Susan Westberry of URS Complete wetland model
metadata are located in Appendix D
The original raster file was converted to a polygon layer in order to assess potential wetland
impacts of the project First, the raster file was converted to an integer file such that
geoprocessing could occur Next, the Raster to Polygon tool was used to convert the integer
raster to a single polygon layer (that included the five different wetland types listed above) The
resulting polygon layer was then clipped to the sample study area to determine the acreage of
each wetland type located within the sample study area, and clipped again to the 500 -foot sample
corridor to determine the acreage of each wetland type located within the sample corridor
(Figure 5)
The identification of potential habitat areas for federally threatened and endangered species was
also determined through the use of ArcGIS Potential habitat areas were determined using the
following sequence identification of suitable C -CAP land class types, verification of C -CAP
areas through aerial photography, and presence /absence of North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program (NCNHP) element occurrence points Once the exercise was complete, areas that may
contain suitable habitat and may require field verification were digitized in ArcGIS
December 2012

Sample Nalutal Resources Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
The principal personnel contributing to this document were
Principal
Investigator Susan Westberry, PWS, CPESC, LSSIT
Education M S Botany, 2003, B S Wildlife Ecology, 1999
Experience Environmental Scientist, URS — North Carolina, 2005- Present
Environmental Scientist, Stantec, 2003 -2005
Biologist, US Forest Service, 1999 -2001
Responsibilities Wetland and stream field spot checks, natural communities assessment, T &E
assessment, and document preparation
Investigator Laura Anderson
Education B S Geographic Information Science, 2008
Experience GIS Analyst /Planner, URS — North Carolina, 2008 - Present
GIS Analyst, Amalgam LLC, Mount Pleasant, Michigan, 2007 -2008
Responsibilities GIS Mapping and Analysis, and T &E assessment
30 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The sample study area lies in the southeastern plains physiographic region of North Carolina,
and straddles North Carolina Level IV ecoregions Southeastern Floodplains and Low Terraces
and Rolling Coastal Plain The sample study area consists of an area extending one mile from
the proposed 500 -foot sample corridor (Figure 2) Topography in the project vicinity is
comprised of broad interstream divides with gentle to steep side slopes dissected by numerous
small stream channels and major river floodplams and associated terraces The Neuse River
flows through the sample study area Elevations in the sample study area range from 10 to 26
feet above sea level Land use in the project vicinity consists primarily of agricultural fields and
pine plantations Rural residential areas, small commercial businesses, and a large swath of river
floodplam along the Neuse River are also present within the sample study area
31 Soils
The Lenoir County Soil Survey identifies 31 soil types within the sample study area (Table 1)
Table I Soils in the sample study area
Soil Series
Mapping
Drainage Class
Hydrie Status
Unit
Bibb soils, frequently
BB
Poorly drained
Hydric
flooded
Blanton sand, 0 -6%
Bn
Moderately well drained
Hydric*
slopes
Chewacla loam,
Ch
Somewhat poorly drained
Hydric*
frequently flooded
Coxville loam
Co
I Poorly drained
Hydric
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources 7echnrcal Report
TIP R- 2553, Lenou County NC
Soil Series
Mapping
Drainage Class
Hydrtc Status
Unit
Craven fine sandy loam,
Cr
Moderately well drained
Hydrtc*
1-4 /o slopes
Goldsboro loamy sand,
Go
Moderately well drained
Hydrtc*
0-2% slopes
Johns sandy loam
Jo
Moderately well drained
H dric*
Kalmta loamy sand, 0-
Ka
Well drained
Nonh dric
y
2% slopes
Kalmta loamy sand, 2-
Kb
Well drained
H dric*
y
6% slopes
Kenansville loamy sand,
Ke
Well drained
Nonh dric
y
0 -6% slopes
Kinston loam, frequently
Kn
Poorly drained
Hydrtc
flooded
Lakeland sand, 0 -6%
La
Excessively drained
Hydrtc*
slopes
Leaf loam
Le
Poorly drained
H dric
Lumbee sandy loam
Lu
Poorly drained
Hydrtc
Lynchburg sandy loam
Ly
Somewhat poorly drained
H dric*
Norfolk loamy sand, 0-
Na
Well drained
Hydrtc*
2 /o slopes
Norfolk loamy sand, 2-
Nb
Well drained
Hydrtc*
6/o slopes
Norfolk loamy sand, 6-
Nc
Well drained
Nonhydrtc
10% slopes
Pactolus loamy sand
Pa
Moderately well drained
H dric*
Pamlico muck
Pc
Very poorly drained
H drtc
Pante o loam
Pe
Very poorly drained
H dric
Po calla loamy sand, 0-
Po
Somewhat excessively
Nonhydrtc
6/o slopes
drained
Portsmouth loam
Pr
Very poorly drained
H dric
Rains sandy loam
Ra
Poorly drained
H dric
Stallings loamy sand
St
Somewhat poorly drained
H dric*
Torhunta loam
To
Very poorly drained
H drtc
Wagram loamy sand, 0-
Wb
Well drained
Hydrtc*
6% slopes
Wagram loamy sand, 6-
We
Well drained
Nonhydrtc
10% slopes
Wagram loamy sand,
Wd
Well drained
Nonh dric
y
10 -15% slopes
Wickham loamy sand,
Wk
Well drained
H dric*
y
1 -6% slopes
Woodtn ton loamy sand
Wn
Poorly drained
H dric
* - Soils which are primarily nonhydnc but which may contain hydnc inclusions
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Repojt TIP R -2553 Lenora County NC
32 Water Resources
Water resources in the sample study area are part of the Neuse River Basin (USGS Hydrologic
Unit 03020202) The sample study area includes the main stem and several unnamed tributaries
of three streams, the Neuse River, Whitleys Creek, and Peter Creek The sample study area also
includes several unnamed tributaries of Falling Creek and Southwest Creek, but not their main
stems These water resources are listed in Table 2 below Figure 3 shows the location of these
water resources
Table 2 contains the named water resources within the sample study area, and the named water
resources outside of the sample study area but with tributaries within the sample study area The
Best Usage Classification and Designation column contains the assigned NCDWQ Best Usage
Classification as well as any other notable water designation These include Anadromous Fish
Spawning Areas (AFSA), Primary Nursery Areas (PNA), Primary Inland Nursery Areas (PINA),
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HWQ), and /or waters within a
water supply watershed
Table 2 Notable water resources in the sample study area
* The main stem of Falling Creek and Southwest Creek is not within the sample study area Tributaries to this water resources
are contained within the sample study area
40 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4 1 Terrestrial Communities
Sixteen C -CAP types were identified within the sample study area These types were grouped
into five terrestrial communities (which includes one wetland type) typical of those discussed in
traditional NRTR documents The C -CAP categories, their respective terrestrial community
designations, and total acreage within the sample study area are shown in Table 3 Terrestrial
communities are shown on Figure 4
4 1 1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the sample study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of clearing vegetation, grading, and paving of portions of the sample study area
December 2012
# of
Best Usage
Within
Unnamed
Map
NCDWQ
Classification
Designated
303(d)
Tributaries
Stream Name
ID
Index
and
FEMA
Listed
within
Number
Designation
Floodway
Sample
Study Area
Neuse River
S4
27 -(75 7)
C,NSW
Yes
No
16
AFSA, PINA
Whitle s Creek
S6
27 -76
C,Sw,NSW
No
No
12
Peter Creek
S9
27 -78
C,Sw,NSW
No
No
1
Failing Creek
N /A*
27 -77
C,Sw,NSW
No
No
19
Southwest
N /A*
27 -80
C,Sw,NSW
No
No
9
Creek
* The main stem of Falling Creek and Southwest Creek is not within the sample study area Tributaries to this water resources
are contained within the sample study area
40 BIOTIC RESOURCES
4 1 Terrestrial Communities
Sixteen C -CAP types were identified within the sample study area These types were grouped
into five terrestrial communities (which includes one wetland type) typical of those discussed in
traditional NRTR documents The C -CAP categories, their respective terrestrial community
designations, and total acreage within the sample study area are shown in Table 3 Terrestrial
communities are shown on Figure 4
4 1 1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Terrestrial communities in the sample study area may be impacted by project construction as a
result of clearing vegetation, grading, and paving of portions of the sample study area
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R-2553 Lenoir County, NC
Terrestrial community data are presented in the context of total coverage of each type within the
sample study area in Table 3
Potential terrestrial community impacts within the 500 -foot sample corridor are shown in Table 9
of Appendix B
Table 3 Terrestrial communities and C-
'AP types within the sample study area
Terrestrial Community
Coverage ac
C -CAP Type
Maintained /Disturbed
333
Developed open s ace
High intensity developed
Medium intensity developed
Low intensity developed
Agriculture
4,846
Bare land
Cultivated
Grassland
Pasture /ha
Pine Plantation
1,754
Evergreen forest
Scrub /shrub
Forested Upland
215
Deciduous forest
Mixed forest
Palustrine Wetland
1,655
Palustrine emergent wetland
Palustrine forested wetland
Palustrine scrub /shrub wetland
Open Water
121
Water
TOTAL
8,924
4 1 2 Wetland Impacts
The Palustrine Wetland terrestrial community types listed above includes the C -CAP wetland
types palustrine emergent wetland, palustrine forested wetland, and palustrine scrub /shrub
wetland, accounting for 1,655 acres of the sample study area The NCDOT wetland prediction
model estimates approximately 2,086 wetland acres within the sample study area Results of the
wetland prediction model are presented in Table 4 Field verification of wetland communities
within the sample study area were conducted on November 29, 2012 Tom Steffens of USACE,
Travis Wilson ofNCWRC, and David Wainwright ofNCDWQ were in attendance, along with
Ledani Paugh, Chris Manley, Jim Mason, and Morgan Weatherford ofNCDOT, and Susan
Westberry of URS
Wetland community types may be impacted, bridged, culverted, or re- routed as a result of the
proposed project
Table 4 Wetlands in the sample study area
Wetland H drolo is Classification
Area ac
Non-Riparian
803
Riparian
1,283
Total
2,086
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Reporl TIP R -1553 Lenoir County NC
42 Invasive Species
Surveys for species that appear on the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant List for North Carolina will
be completed once a LEDPA has been chosen
The University of Georgia Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health maintains a
database of exotic plants and their occurrence by county (EDDMaps 2012) Table 5 contains the
species known to occur within Lenoir County that appear on the NCDOT Invasive Exotic Plant
List for North Carolina and their status
NCDOT will manage invasive plant species as appropriate
Table 5 Invasive exotic Diant species known to occur in Lenoir County
Common Name
Scientific Name
Threat Level
Mimosa
Albizia ulibrissin
Moderate threat
Alli atorweed
Alternanthera philoxeroides
Threat
Asiatic dayflower
Commelina communis
Watch list
Brazilian waterweed
E eria densa
Moderate threat
Japanese knotweed
Fallo la laponica
Threat
English ivy
Hedera helix
Threat
Shrubby les edeza
Les edeza bicolor.
Moderate threat
Chinese privet
Li ustrum sinense
Threat
Japanese honeysuckle
Lonicera laponica
Moderate threat
Chinaberry
Melia azedarach
Watch list
Japanese stilt grass
Microste ium vimineum
Threat
Marsh dayflower
Murdannia keisak
Threat
Kudzu
Pueraria montana var lobata
Threat
Johnson grass
Sorghum hale erase
Moderate threat
50 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
5 1 Clean Water Act Waters of the U S
Predicted streams and wetlands within the 500 -foot sample corridor are shown on Figure 5 All
Jurisdictional streams in the sample study area will be designated as warm water streams for the
purposes of stream mitigation
The 500 -foot sample corridor contains the potential for eight stream crossings The proposed
alignment would cross two unnamed tributaries to Falling Creek, the Neuse River, two unnamed
tributaries to the Neuse River, Whitleys Creek and one unnamed tributary to Whitleys Creek, and
one unnamed tributary to Southwest Creek The total stream impacts for the sample corridor are
shown in Table 6 The detailed stream impacts are shown in Table 10 of Appendix B These
impacts are based on the 500 -foot sample corridor and the crossing geometry of the preliminary
crossing location
Table 6 Jurisdictional stream impacts within the sample corriuor
Sample corridor Total Stream Length ft
Sample corridor 5,190
December 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Report TIP R -2553 Lenoir County, NC
The total number of wetland acres within the 500 -foot sample corridor is shown below in Table
7
Table 7 Jurisdictional wetlands within each sample corridor
Sample corridor
Riparian Wetlands
Non - Riparian
Total Wetlands (ac.)
ac.
Wetlands ac
Sample corridor
46
43
89
52 Clean Water Act Permits
The proposed project has been designated as an EIS for the purposes of SEPA documentation
As a result, a Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
(WQC) will likely be applicable The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) holds the final
discretion as to what permit will be required to authorize project construction
5 3 Coastal Area Management Act Areas of Environmental Concern
There are no Coastal Area Management Act (CAMA) Areas of Environmental Concern (AEC)
within the sample study area Lenoir County is not one of the 20 designated coastal counties for
North Carolina
54 Construction Moratoria
Construction moratoria will likely be required for the proposed project The Neuse River is
designated as both an anadromous fish spawning area and a primary inland nursery area A
moratorium could be expected during spawning season
Final decisions regarding moratoria will be made during the project permitting process
5 5 N C River Basin Buffer Rules
Streamside riparian zones within the sample study area are protected under provisions of the
Neuse River Buffer Rules administered by NCDWQ (15A NCAC 02B 0233) The purpose of
the rule is to protect and preserve existing riparian buffers in the Neuse River Basin to maintain
their nutrient removal functions The rule applies to all perennial and intermittent streams, lakes,
ponds, and estuaries in the Neuse River Bann It does not apply to agricultural, forestry, or
stormwater drainage ditches
Streams subject to the Neuse River Buffer Rules that cross the 500 -foot sample corridor are
identified in Table 10 of Appendix B Potential impacts to protected stream buffers will be
determined once a LEDPA has been selected and formal stream delineations have been
performed
5 6 Rivers and Harbors Act Section 10 Navigable Waters
The Neuse River is considered a Navigable Water under Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors
Act
10 Decemhei 2012

Sample Natural Resources Technical Repot t TIP R- 2553 Lenoir County NC
60 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT PROTECTED SPECIES
As of September 22, 2010 the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two
federally protected species for Lenoir County (Table 8) A brief description of each species'
habitat requirements follows Habitat requirements for each species are based on the current best
available information from referenced literature and /or USFWS
Biological Conclusions will be rendered where appropriate based on GIS data review and
scheduled field reviews with resource agencies If detailed field surveys are required, then
Biological Conclusions will be prepared separately from this document
Table 8 Federally protected species listed for Lenoir County
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
Red - cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window year round, November -early March (optimal)
Habitat Description The red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature
stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting /roosting habitat The
RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older,
which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat The
foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than one half mile
Biological Conclusion Undetermined
Desktop habitat analysis resulted in the identification of several small, scattered areas containing
what appears to be middle -aged pine forest that could represent foraging habitat for RCW None
of the pine forests appear to support nesting habitat for RCW There are six small areas in the
northern portion of the sample study area These are all disconnected from one another, and
generally small in size (less than 20 acres) The southern portion of the sample study area
contains some larger forested areas (up to 75 acres in size), however, these areas are also disjunct
from one another and none are or are adjacent to anything appearing to represent nesting habitat
The desktop habitat analysis process is displayed in Appendix C
A review of NCNHP records, updated in May of 2012, indicates no known RCW occurrences
within one mile of the sample corridor Gary Jordan of USFWS was consulted on the project via
email on November 8, 2012 He noted that the only known occurrence of RCW for Lenoir
County is a historical record, and that there is probably only a minimal chance of the presence of
RCW, but it is prudent to consider since there is potential habitat for the species Field
investigations will be performed to evaluate the presence and quality of habitat identified during
the desktop habitat analysis
I l December 2012
Federal
Habitat
Biological
Scientific Name
Common Name
Status
Present
Conclusion
Picoides borealis
Red - cockaded
E
Yes
Undetermined
woodpecker
Aeschynomene virginiana
Sensitive Joint -vetch
T
Yes
No Effect
E - Endangered
T - Threatened
Red - cockaded woodpecker
USFWS optimal survey window year round, November -early March (optimal)
Habitat Description The red - cockaded woodpecker (RCW) typically occupies open, mature
stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine, for foraging and nesting /roosting habitat The
RCW excavates cavities for nesting and roosting in living pine trees, aged 60 years or older,
which are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age to provide foraging habitat The
foraging range of the RCW is normally no more than one half mile
Biological Conclusion Undetermined
Desktop habitat analysis resulted in the identification of several small, scattered areas containing
what appears to be middle -aged pine forest that could represent foraging habitat for RCW None
of the pine forests appear to support nesting habitat for RCW There are six small areas in the
northern portion of the sample study area These are all disconnected from one another, and
generally small in size (less than 20 acres) The southern portion of the sample study area
contains some larger forested areas (up to 75 acres in size), however, these areas are also disjunct
from one another and none are or are adjacent to anything appearing to represent nesting habitat
The desktop habitat analysis process is displayed in Appendix C
A review of NCNHP records, updated in May of 2012, indicates no known RCW occurrences
within one mile of the sample corridor Gary Jordan of USFWS was consulted on the project via
email on November 8, 2012 He noted that the only known occurrence of RCW for Lenoir
County is a historical record, and that there is probably only a minimal chance of the presence of
RCW, but it is prudent to consider since there is potential habitat for the species Field
investigations will be performed to evaluate the presence and quality of habitat identified during
the desktop habitat analysis
I l December 2012

Natural Resout ces Technical Repot t TIP R -2553, Lenoir County NC
Sensitive Joint -Vetch
USFWS optimal survey window mid -July — October
Habitat Description Sensitive Joint -vetch grows in the mildly brackish inter -tidal zone where
plants are flooded twice daily This annual legume prefers the marsh edge at an elevation near
the upper limit of tidal fluctuation, but can also be found in swamps and on river banks Sensitive
Joint -vetch normally occurs in areas with high plant diversity where annual species predominate,
and can grow in sand, mud, gravel, or peat substrates Bare to sparsely vegetated substrates
appear to be a microhabitat feature of critical importance to this plant Such microhabitats may
include accreting point bars that have not yet been colonized by perennial species, areas scoured
out by ice, low swales within marshes, muskrat "eat outs" where this rodent removes all of the
vegetation within a small portion of the marsh, storm damaged areas, and the saturated organic
sediments of some interior marshes that have local nutrient deficiencies In North Carolina,
stable occurrences have been found in the estuarine meander zone of tidal rivers where sediments
transported from up -river settle out and extensive marshes are formed Additional North
Carolina occurrences are also found in moist to wet roadside ditches and moist fields, but these
are not considered stable populations
Biological Conclusion No Effect
A review of NCNHP records, updated in May of 2012, indicates no known sensitive Joint -vetch
occurrences within one mile of the sample corridor In an email dated November 8, 2012, Gary
Jordan of USFWS states that the known historical occurrence of the species within Lenoir
County is highly questionable, as the only record predates 1900 He goes on to state that habitat
for the sensitive -joint vetch is the slightly brackish, intertidal zone of coastal marshes where
plants are flooded twice daily He does not view the Neuse River in Lenoir County as potential
habitat for sensitive Joint -vetch Sensitive joint-vetch is not a species that warrants significant
amounts of time or effort within Lenoir County Based on Mr Jordan's statements and the age
of the only other record of the species within Lenoir County, the Biological Conclusion for the
species is No Effect
6 1 Bald Eagle and Golden Eagle Protection Act
In the July 9, 2007 Federal Register (72 37346 - 37372), the bald eagle was declared recovered,
and removed (de- listed) from the Federal List of Threatened and Endangered wildlife This
delistmg took effect August 8, 2007 After delistmg, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act
(Eagle Act) (16 U S C 668 -668d) of 1940 became the primary law protecting bald eagles The
Eagle Act prohibits take of bald and golden eagles and provides a statutory definition of `take'
that includes `disturb ' The USFWS has developed National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
to provide guidance to land managers, landowners, and others as to how to avoid disturbing bald
eagles
Habitat for the bald eagle primarily consists of mature forests in proximity to large bodies of
open water for foraging Large, dominant trees are utilized for nesting sites, typically within one
mile of open water
Within the sample study area, the banks of the Neuse River present potential bald eagle nesting
habitat Adjacent agricultural fields and small forested areas could provide foraging habitat
12 December 2012

Sample Nalut al Resoui ces [ethnical Report FIP R -2553 Lenoir County NC
However, the sample study area is fragmented by sporadic development and swamplands that do
not represent ideal nesting or foraging areas
A review of NCNHP records, updated in May of 2012 indicates no known occurrences of bald
eagle within one mile of the sample corridor
62 Endangered Species Act Critical Habitat Designations
As of September 22, 2010 the USFWS has no listed Critical Habitat Designations within Lenoir
County
63 Essential Fish Habitat
Identification of Essential Fish Habitat will be coordinated with the National Oceanic and
Atmospheric Administration (NOAH), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and
NCDOT's Biosurvey Group
13 December 2012

Sample Natural Resources ! ethnical Repot 1 T1P R- 2553, Lenou County NC
70 REFERENCES
"Definitions of Waters of the United States " Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Pt 328 3,
Revised 2004
EDDMapS 2012 Early Detection & Distribution Mapping System The University of Georgia
— Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health http Hwww eddmaps org/ Last
updated May 8, 2012
"Endangered Species Act" Title 16 US Code, Pts 1531 et seq 1973
"General Regulatory Policies " Code of Federal Regulations Title 33, Pt 320 49, 1986
Griffith, G E, Omermk, J M, Comstock, J A, Schafale, M P, McNab, W H, Lenat, D R,
MacPherson, T F 2002 Ecoregions of North Carolina (map scale 1 1,500,000) U S
EPA Corvallis, OR
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Coastal Management
2001 CAMA Rules & Policies The Coastal Area Management Act
http Hwww nccoastalmanagement net /Rules /cama htm
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resource, Division of Water Quality 1999
Internal Guidance Manual - N C Division of Water Quality Stream Classification
Method
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resource, Division of Water Quality 2003
Redbook Surface Water and Wetlands Standards N C Administrative Code 15A
NCAC 02B 0100 & 0200 Amended Effective April 1, 2003
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality 2009
Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality 2012
Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2012 303(d) Draft Report)
February 10, 2012
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality 2012
Basinwide Information Management System Water Body Reports
http Hh2o enr state nc us /bims /Reports /reportsWB html
N C Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Natural Heritage Program 2012
Natural Heritage Element Occurence Nheo shp, updated May 2012
N C Department of Transportation 2010 NRTR Format Guidance Revised December 2010
14 December 2012

Sample Na[uiat Resources Technical Report 71P R -2553 Lenoir County, NC
N C Department of Transportation 2011 Preparing Natural Resources Technical Reports
Project Development and Analysis Branch Approved June 30, 2011 Version 1 0
N C Department of Transportation 2012 Invasive Exotic Plants of North Carolina Chem
Smith for the N C Department of Transportation
N C OneMap 2012 Geographic Data Serving a Statewide Community Geospatial Portal
http / /data nconemap com /geoportal /catalog /main /home page
Schafale, M P and A S Weakley 1990 Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR Raleigh, North Carolina 325 pp
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 1998
Hydrologic Units -North Carolina (metadata) Raleigh, North Carolina
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012 Soil
Survey of Lenoir County, North Carolina Available through Web Soil Survey (WSS),
http Hwebsoilsurvey nres usda,gov/app Unpublished
United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service 2012
Hydric Soils Lenoir County, North Carolina Tabular Data Version 10 Tabular Data
Version Date July 6, 2012
United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2007 National Bald Eagle Management Guidelines
United States Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service May 2007
United States Fish and Wildlife Service 2010 Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina Lenoir County Updated September 22, 2010 http Hwww fws og v /nc-
es/es/countvfr html
United States Geological Survey 1980 Deep Run, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle
(7 5- minute series)
United States Geological Survey 1983 Falling Creek, North Carolina, Topographic Quadrangle
(7 5- minute series)
15 December 2012

Appendices

Appendix A Figures

Mp'W-"'NkA
I 4jWAlFF,`
AL
J
o r
as
X, ,a
LtNX.-.-
1
1
OZ
=�
J
jots
�a
CCD
C
YJ
t
CD
CZVi 'o
10
00
cn
cn
>
I
y
y
ID
O C O u0i y
K
(!�
GI
C Z CQ
r
(n
Z
C 0
G)
X -D
'�
'
gy(pp
fD
C)
71'aa G
C)
_
N
�°
°—�
...
T
v
Z
C �,
G7
�Z3� D°
m
o 3
O
m 3
o
N
S
2 O
`
O
n°�
N
C7
0 0
c_
��
C)
� o z z�
n
_
CCD
N
w
n`
°
m
3
X �° �°
v
°
°
0
a
i
i
N
o
a
<
(7
1l
N
`. P.O.
n i
(J(7�n��
;, , ,�r
N
N 3
w
x
= m v
v
u
CO
D
r
m C
pci
n
01
Umi Z a)�� o
C7 3 Z o
�}" e
la ;
!
CD
N
Ln
W
m cD
O n n
m cn
'�
G7
n
D
w
j
`G
01
Z
M 0
co
Q0D m
n y
N
Cm rx
_D
m m
ai
V�
CD
DC0
�
z
n ° m
N
Ny
C�
D
CD
\
m O <
C
7
O
W
G7
G

M � �
0 LL
LO �)��
(� N c: E CL
CO a) i Q Z ty a ZO (D O0 m - ° m O NQ N °W M i
cc Z c (� Z
O`
1�
}' D m o Z M 3 `I ��� �Z� 5 V
C V J Q o II a �OUdUw L �c
O ai E o N • a' �p�
+-' ' 1 LL m U a`I U U o � o 'o
(n CO an Z Z ti U U O In ca
OQ cYlf Z U _
QL
O U>m
o 2�
n U c g Z
CID
E L) wU cQ `a3 rn
-
cnvaZD 9V'
1 + /t i � o ~ i•' e.. a ""°+ � , � O g Y ; . � ' "`•. � I i...1,_ is � ..
it
W t` m ` � � • � ' 14 . �\ . ;.'° � �, `\, /ii✓ - \ % 1 V Srb ' _ !' _� ,�� � ? i� .' • ,`r+ y I;r • �'' _.
1 I fllUitJJll 4 41 +1 r+ � i • • f 1`1(11 �, ~, 4�� . �" � 8 LO
+ f 1 1 [ �4 ► 1'4,1(11 rj�. -J, �J np, �(,� \ �14, 1 N
4 + ►
It
,4•l,'lIt , / ,1 .'•yQ .s �.^-) { �I ! }�1 4�+I +i 1, _
1' ► e1 I1, 1 .1 ► 11 t 1_ ��— 14 1 r t /mss 1 ,' 1
1,4 , 1, 14 1 l41y141 ►, r i1 41 It
Il' 1 141' ► �M 1 ,1 h , yl 1 , ° ',/ 1 ,� \,I ;�'•; .`_ ;'• 111 1
11�1i1�' 1 i► 1,4,1 1 1 f 1�� , 1 +1�,1 �4 4 +�1 I1y,111� •� � � � ; t,
+ li 11 I t 1 1 l y r t • ,y 1z
{ 1 .1, 4111111'1 1 , 1 r , � / 1 X11
C� 11 1 , H 1'411 1 11 , •1 1'411 •441, ?.�, t - \I 1 r' i �. r,..w,,11 14'l,�jly `
1 4111, (1,11 i, +11 `,,•4�4 1 1 4 1i111'41� - ; , s s tj` d ♦ x �I, 411111 1
�i:> 44 1 +11(4.1 +1.411+1 , 1 4+4 ,,111} 1 4ii l tt +:1�14� 111 4 �/ ., ` , t� ., � , 41..` � , °A,V1( 1 � +1 \� • �.I
'F�y 1 ,i , 1 1 1 1'1' / , '�. + 1 hl' 1 1, 1 + 1 �` b I � `* �-- • - - �`•'f.-'1-1t' I 4
`►., +1'41!1'114 1'11 +1'1`1 +4 11 «'It 41�141 +1 +�i�1�1 /14f. `� a� •��yl �� � •�• a '�11t111�11s�llo. r,�
R� 1 1111, ♦ 'Iji114 i11� t f`I 1411 t ., y \ �� . �.'"' �'` ('I lill'1 lto R
\r� d'. ±1 4j.111'41 11'1411 '1! 1'11 c 1/1111 ;E r. C A
1) ' 141 1''11141111 114 '44j4 441) ,� _ `� �11 •\ � _��' -ir• '� � � ,. �J- �1�11,'1, 1{ -
,4
,,111'I 1iuf41 � I M'i 1'' + +'+ � • •� ' .�.1� �i •. � f a � , ,'r
J'r_ • _o',` `pQ}1 +, +,j�rl, ,41{4 4 , 14. +'llh ` : ■ \\ 1. i - _ - �_a,�" +Il 1 -, -.,1
1 {• ',` 1' 111:• /4 ,I � 1 +'/� 41A,4144+' �,
,,,1',4 •", 11 1 14 \� f. • '! r �'� �� 1'/ t' 4'1 1'
►% f l 41,1�� ``+
• N�f� !i 1`1 41,1,1 1114,:`
1 c, '•.� t J 0' �' 1 '+� + -
111,1 4 1 4f '
-- t 1
�h� 1 11 f. Ilill/ j 111 +11+41; ► 111 111111 t �_ -1 ,' t 41 1 4 1 {1 \\
• � f - �' t '/ 11,11' i (11 +' _ + ±ltllr \ . ` r ' � I • ;i 1 ->� ��, � l /,• , ! 1 1„p +, ; --
``r 1
ry
ji
'� I � •- � /� - 1 44� \ / ` 1' 411 '` c ' 1 + „ 1 s r ; � i/ �. , ,
,�/ � f� ,111, � 14.1 � l° � 8" -I' .7� ii� ( •�
� - r '� •' \\ � l `` 1 111 `I' 1. �', / I �1k `% t.� � � • _�.,; �.: i_ � _ , ... � = -
1!
42
■ ,.�� - '4 1 ` �' � �i�+.� � > � e5�,a�� i, �� �� ;( , / "' 1�' � %nit'
1 L `i�• 1' 1 l ' 1 1 1!• r ` j�' 11 i. il, ' il'tp r
xAlc {
�, 1 � t � + :I ,1 IIMI 1 ;J ,1 � ! +,1 � J���'_'1 ��_1j � ..il .� � ;�� °' ^�•.,:.r-- Mi-..� •� ,--� � K
--- --�,� 4 1 � � ' t�, »•,>i J�--- ,J,s4444,�!14'1 � 1 � `\ i '� .�1� _ `�' I, � __
x .�l :� • °, i ' `1.1'''' 1,''14 i l � °' °- s � It � _��"'."a: � j - -c3 —= ' - c � —_\"
�r , � + ,4i• /' � ° i, p 114 � t 1 1 1) ► ��- - =-, _y �_ -1-;. � •z. f `.
--, �. � %` y � ��,/f``• �• � /� _ `_ -.
IU y411 { 11
�Pp►Y
• '',!°ar r •y` 1+1 1.11111� 1 c .x: �•
iv) _� E'1't 41 11, ''1,114 ',\ 1� ,•H ,� r' P8 Pue1B .\
I �t � it r i (1'\.. - � -�. / :T � � •�4rorJ- ' e i
•. �1 k� f �, � _ � � ,, ., ,� ,era.
- 1 L uie Polloc 'Rd. ', i .P 1
o
b L A
'Yo i - t, rrl' • R'�..� Yv._I_. l 1 -. .I _ � ~ ` 1 '� �% �1\ 7 y / 1 � :�
I • �' I / I '--� s,1 � , � E� �' � 11 I , � �, � l � `,b `'� ' In �
rJ.'1' f91r"'' - � '1/ ;..c� -- ��.�` - t.._,�n � .., t,4 t �y 'c _�.. � �'��j, � - i ✓/)� t'?:
.��s i e= �..+ _. ±- 1 !' � �- r 4 1./�1 +1'.14a ps>'4•� \� .�„ Y a i
,11 j •1 O - - -�- i• - -; Q %'' \ � C1./ 144 1 ,1 4 4 ��- i .",�. -.:. 't �'' a .. ►:� � Sl
1j►ili}4'1`I

Appendix B Impacts Summary for the Sample Corridor

Tahle 9 Coverage of terrestrial communities in the sample corridor
Community
Coverage ac
Maintained /Disturbed
8
Agriculture
130
Pine Plantation
79
Forested Upland
9
Palustrine Wetland
73
Open Water
7
Total
306
B -/

��yy
a% 4�
L
N
O w
b
~
J
O cz
L 7 N
c s
C C13
w3
CL N al n.
45
L
0
0 3
03
c on >
cd
o
b
N
M
v1
�
N Q�
~
cL
T ofJ
v_ ccz
Z
v�
bD
v1
u7
V')
N
to
[�
�
O
� �
�
U
y C
�
3 3
0 �`Q-
y
oz Iz
v
_
O
O
O
O
O
O O
O
a M�
7
t
to
L
TV
aE
A
E
7a
Vi
^C
tA
o
mz!�-52�
3
3
U y �
y
Cn
U
U
U
C/l Cn
Vi
b
Y 3
A
U U
O°
V
�.
O
C O "
E 7-,,
cC ? O
3
s
l�
E Y
_ o
�e
'd
l�
'O
[�
N N
N
Q
jD
►9
V
C
z
N
N
[�
N
N
[�
N
o�Cn
a z
a
m
Z
3 0
c3
0*
Vi
OO
F
U C i V
�
O y c0
L
Y
N 3 3
C N
c
Q Q C
bA
bA
N
L
N
>,
u
U va 3
i a
>
cn
s
DD
U-
z
cl)3
L
C)
11)
O
N L
O O O
Q O C
(L
ce
E
co

Appendix C Habitat Areas

Appendix D Metadata

Department of Commerce (DOC), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAH),
National Ocean Service (NOS), Coastal Services Center (CSC)
20090428
nlcd
raster digital data
Charleston, SC
NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center (CSC)
This classification is based on Landsat TM scenes p0 14r035 4/11/2006 p0 14r036 4/11/2006
p0I5r035 4/21/2007 p0 15r036 4/21/2007 p0I5r037 5/4/2006 p0 16r035 10/15/2005 p0I6r036
7/27/2005 p0I6r037 4/25/2006 p0 16r038 10/15/2005 p0I7r036 5/21/2007 p0I7r037 5/2/2006
\ \rd 17 ad urscorp com \rduproJects \Jobs3 \31826742— Kinston
Bypass \GIS \Shapef les \CGIA_ Data\ GIS _Data_CGIA_Onginal_20101020 \n Icd
nlcd
This is a final classification This data set is the 2006 -era classification of U S South East Region,
zone 58 This data set utilized I I full or partial Landsat scenes which were analyzed according to the
Coastal Change Analysis Program (C -CAP) protocol to determine land cover
To improve the understanding of coastal uplands and wetlands, and their linkages with the distribution,
abundance, and health of living marine resources
en
20050727
20070521
REQUIRED The year (and optionally month, or month and day) for which the data set
corresponds to the ground
Date of the Landsat scenes
Complete
5 years
-77940478
-77284790
35 502951
34 931581
1624531 712206
1673971 712206
PX

1483445 864330
1538916 520257
None
Land Cover Analysis
ISO 19115 Topic Category
ImageryBaseMapsEarthCover
None
Coastal Zone
U S South East
North Carolina
South Carolina
None, except for a possible fee
Data set is not for use in litigation While efforts have been made to ensure that these data are accurate and
reliable within the state of the art, NOAA, cannot assume liability for any damages, or misrepresentations,
caused by any inaccuracies in the data, or as a result of the data to be used on a particular system NOAA
makes no warranty, expressed or implied, nor does the fact of distribution constitute such a warranty
Microsoft Windows XP Version 5 1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3, ESRI ArcCatalog 9 3 1 3000
Raster Dataset
According to an accuracy assessment performed by Sanborn, for zones 55/58 2001 landcover, the
overall accuracy is 81 2% and 0 793 Kappa The 2006 update is based on updating the change areas
between 2001 and 2006 imagery, and overlaying the results over 2001 land cover Therefore the
accuracy of the 2001 product is a sufficient indication of 2006 update accuracy as well within +/-
4 05% (percent area change from 2001) The following methodology and results are from the accuracy
assessment of the 2001 zones 55/58 dataset conducted by Sanborn A total of 1508 points are located
in US Coastal zones 55/58 (Errors of Omission /Commission) 0 Background (N /A) 1 Unclassified
(Cloud, Shadow, etc)(N /A) 2 High Intensity Developed (79 2 %/79 2 %) 3 Medium Intensity Developed
(52 8 %/37 3 %) 4 Low Intensity Developed (45 8 1/o/57 9 %) 5 Open Spaces Developed (78 3 %/85 5 %)
6 Cultivated Land (86 4 %/93 7 %) 7 Pasture /Hay (80 6 %/74 6 %) 8 Grassland (71 1 %/60 4 %) 9
Deciduous Forest (48 8 %/63 6 %) 10 Evergreen Forest (92 7 %/96 6 %) 11 Mixed Forest (40 7 %/44 %)
12 Scrub /Shrub (60 3 %/67 7 %) 13 Palustnne Forested Wetland (88 3 0/o/82 5 %) 14 Palustrme
Scrub /Shrub Wetland (71%/72 1 %) 15 Palustrme Emergent Wetland (77 6%/75%) 16 Estuarine
Forested Wetland (N /A) 17 Estuarine Scrub /Shrub Wetland (100 % /100 %) 18 Estuarine Emergent
Wetland (100 % /95 3 %) 19 Unconsolidated Shore (100 % /84 8 %) 20 Bare Land (93 8 %/77 9 %) 21
Water (90 10/o/100 %) 22 Palustrme Aquatic Bed (100%/50%) 23 Estuarine Aquatic Bed (N /A) 24
Tundra (N /A) 25 Snow /Ice (N /A The validation points were both collected in the field and photo
interpreted The sites were selected to capture the physical and spectral diversity of the land cover
Because the starting point for this classification was the NLCD data produced by the Southeast GAP,
this data layer was utilized in identifying potential AA sites Segments created with Defimens
software were buffered in one pixel to eliminate edge effect Segments smaller than the assessment's
minimum mapping unit of 3x3 pixels were eliminated The remaining segments were summarized by
the NLCD data and segments with a majority class equaling less than 90% were removed The
remaining segments were entered into the pool of potential AA sites The field sampling then focused
on labeling these segments with the goal being to collect a minimum number of 50 samples per class
D -2

with samples stratified geographically to ensure that the diversity of the landscape and imagery was
captured Sites collected in the field were then verified in the office using the triple date imagery to
ensure consistency with all dates, and classes with less than 50 samples were supplemented with photo
interpreted sites For some classes, the minimum of 50 sites could not be achieved and as many sites
as possible were used These classes and their actual sample numbers are Deciduous Forest (33),
Mixed Forest (25), Estuarine Forested Wetland (0), Estuarine Scrub /Shrub Wetland (2), Palustnne
Aquatic Bed (6), Estuarine Aquatic Bed (0) These classes are either rare or scattered in the area
making it difficult to locate homogeneous sites for these classes Accuracy assessment sites were QC'd
to ensure that edge effects, heterogeneity, and sample size would not adversely affect the assessment
In addition as some of the class definitions were refined through the draft review processes, the AA
database was updated to reflect these changes A total of 1,292 accuracy assessment points were used
excluding urban classes Post - Processing Steps None Known Problems None Spatial Filters None
Tests for logical consistency indicate that all row and column positions in the selected latitude /longitude
window contain data Conversion and integration with vector files indicates that all positions are consistent
with earth coordinates covering the same area Attribute files are logically consistent
Data does not exist for all classes There are no pixels representing class 16 (Estuarine Forested Wetland),
class 23 (Estuarine Aquatic Bed) Class I (Unclassified) is intentionally left blank All pixels have been
classified The NOAA Coastal Change Analysis Program (C -CAP) Guidance for Regional
Implementation, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service Report 123, discusses the interagency effort to
develop the land cover classification scheme and defines all categories
Landsat scenes were geo- referenced by Eros Data Center Spatial accuracy assessed by MDA
Federal is found to be to within 2 pixels accuracy
There was no terrain correction in the geo - referencing procedure
MDA Federal
20090428
C -CAP zone 58 2006 -Era Land Cover Classification
remote - sensing image
Charleston SC
NOAA's Ocean Service, Coastal Services Center (CSC)
http / /www csc noaa gov /landcover
DVD /CD -ROM
20050729
20061020
Date of the Landsat scenes
NOAA CSC
D3

NOAA CSC
This dataset was created by MDA Federal This classification is based on Landsat TM imagery
from the MRLC 2006 database The study area is zone 58, U S South East Region Pre-
processing steps Each Landsat TM scene was geo- referenced by USGS (United States Geological
Survey) EROS Data Center Then MDA Federal staff verified the scenes for spatial accuracy to
within 2 pixels The data was geo- referenced to Albers Conical Equal Area, with a spheroid of
GRS 1980, and Datum of WGS84 The data units is in meters At- satellite reflectance was
performed on each scene and the tasseled cap transformation applied All of the image data used
was Landsat TM 5 or 7 The mosaicked dataset was used for classification Change Detection
The next step was to determine the areas of change between 2006 and 2001 The change detection
algorithm used is the Cross Correlation Analysis process (CCA) developed at MDA Federal This
copyrighted procedure produced 2 Z -score files per scene of likelihood of change These files
were thresholded and mosaicked to create a binary change layer for that scene All of the binary
files were mosaicked to create a change layer for the entire study area A focal majority was run
on the change layer to fill in some clumps to make sure all of the change was accounted for The
change layer is a slight over - estimation of change to make sure to include as much change as
detectable Classification The classification of the change areas was a mixture of automated and
manual approaches The change areas were removed from the 2001 classification The areas with
no change between 2006 and 2001 were used as training for a Classification and Regression tree
(CART) analysis of the changed areas Modelling and hand - editing were used to further refine the
CART output and create a final classification The classified change areas were overlaid on the
2001 C -CAP product to create a 2006 C -CAP classification Attributes for this product are as
follows 0 Background 1 Unclassified (Cloud, Shadow, etc) 2 High Intensity Developed 3
Medium Intensity Developed 4 Low Intensity Developed 5 Open Space Developed 6 Cultivated
Land 7 Pasture /Hay 8 Grassland 9 Deciduous Forest 10 Evergreen Forest I I Mixed Forest 12
Scrub /Shrub 13 Palustnne Forested Wetland 14 Palustrme Scrub /Shrub Wetland 15 Palustrne
Emergent Wetland 16 Estuarine Forested Wetland 17 Estuarine Scrub /Shrub Wetland 18 Estuarine
Emergent Wetland 19 Unconsolidated Shore 20 Bare Land 21 Water 22 Palustnne Aquatic Bed 23
Estuarine Aquatic Bed 24 Tundra 25 Snow /Ice
20090428
CRS (Coastal Remote Sensing) Program Manager
NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Change Analysis Program (C -CAP)
CRS Program Manager
mailing and physical address
2234 S Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405
USA
843 - 740 -1210
843 - 740 -1224
clearinghouse @csc noaa gov
800amto500pm EST M -F
Classification
D4

Unknown
NOAA Coastal Services Center Coastal Change Analysis Program (C -CAP)
CRS Program Manager
mailing and physical address
2234 S Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405
USA
843 - 740 -1210
843 - 740 -1224
csc @csc noaa gov
Monday to Friday, 8 a m to 5 p m , Eastern Standard Time
Metadata imported
C \DOCUME-- I \jwderry\Local Settings \Temp \xm1228 tmp
20100928
13165800
Raster
Grid Cell
1950
1738
28 446490
28 446490
8
1
Upper Left
TRUE
Default
1
matrix coded
TRUE
GRID
row and column
28 446490
D5

28 446490
meters
Albers Conical Equal Area
29 500000
45500000
-96000000
23 000000
0000000
0000000
North American Datum of 1983
Geodetic Reference System 80
6378137 000000
298 257222
GCS_ North_ American_ 1983
NAD 1983 Albers
nlcd vat
C -CAP zone 58 (U S South East Region) as delineated by NOAA using scene boundaries,
hydrological units, and county boundaries
unknown
Table
16
Rowed
Rowid
OID
4
0
0
Internal feature number
ESRI
Sequential unique whole numbers that are automatically generated
VALUE
VALUE
Integer
4
D6

COUNT
COUNT
Integer
4
0
0
RED
RED
Double
8
0
0
GREEN
GREEN
Double
8
0
0
BLUE
BLUE
Double
8
0
0
CLASS NAMES
CLASS NAMES
String
32
0
0
OPACITY
OPACITY
Double
8
0
0
D7

NOAA Coastal Services Center
Clearinghouse Manager
Clearinghouse Manager
mailing and physical address
2234 South Hobson Avenue
Charleston
SC
29405 -2413
USA
(843)740 -1210
(843)740 -1224
clearinghouse @csc noaa gov
Monday - Friday, 8 -5 EST
Downloadable Data
Users must assume responsibility to determine the usability of these data
none
20120601
20090706
ERDAS Imagine image file ( img)
1 658
1 658
CD -ROM
ISO 9660
ISO 9660 format allows the CD -ROM to be read by most computer operating systems
NOAA Coastal Services Center
Metadata Specialist
Metadata Specialist
mailing and physical address
2234 S Hobson Ave
Charleston
SC
29405
USA
D8

843 - 740 -1210
843 - 740 -1224
csc @csc noaa gov
800amto500pmEST
FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospatial Metadata
FGDC-STD-00 1- 1998
en
local time
http //www esn com /metadata/esriprof80 html
ESRI Metadata Profile
{9F775F09- 2616- 4A4F- B28D- F44F40FF97E7}
20100928
13165800
FALSE
20120601
11093900
20120601
11093900
Microsoft Windows XP Version 5 1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3, ESRI ArcCatalog 9 3 1 3000
riled
1624531 712206
1673971 712206
1538916 520257
1483445 86433
1
-77940478
-7728479
35 502951
34 931581
D9

ISO 19115 Geographic Information - Metadata
DIS_ESRI 1 0
dataset
file //\ \rd 17 ad urscorp com\ rduproJects \Jobs3 \31826742_Kinston
Bypass \G I S \Shapefi les \CG I A_ Data \G I S_Data_CG I A_Origmal_20101020 \n Icd
Local Area Network
002
1 658
Raster Dataset
NAD_1983_Albers
1738
2844649
Meter
D 10

I Meter= I Meter(s)
1950
2844649
Meter
I Meter= I Meter(s)
20120601
mm

Ar
NCDENR
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Beverly Eaves Perdue Coleen H Sullins
Governor Director
November 9, 2011
To Leilani Paugh, NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
From Periann Russell, NCDWQ Program Development Unit
RE Delivery of FINAL Stream Map for Kinston Bypass Study Area
The attached shape file includes the stream map created by DWQ for the Kinston bypass study
area The map consists of stream lines for four EPA Level IV ecoregions, they are Rolling
Coastal Plain (RCP), Carolina Flatwoods (CF), Southeastern Floodplams and Terraces (SEFT)
and Swamps and Peatlands (no streams in this ecoregion) As previously discussed, United
Dee Freeman
Secretary
States Geological Survey (USGS) stream lines were used for SEFT stream lines The National
Hydrography Dataset (NHD) flowlines were applied to this ecoregion and provide more flexible
and complete stream line data than USGS 24k hydrolines NHD is similar to USGS 24,000
hydrolmes, but does not include "double line' streams and polygons that appear in USGS 24k
lines NHD flowlines are also attributed with descriptive data that may be useful in calculating
stream impact lengths
Map Description
The study area stream map includes an attribute table with the fields listed in Table 1 The use of
NHD flowlines in SEFT resulted in some inconsistency of stream line continuation and
alignment across ecoregion boundaries, e g , a modeled stream may be present in the RCP but
not continue into the SEFT, or the stream may be present on both maps, not in alignment Since
DWQ has a higher confidence in the modeled streams and the LiDAR- derived topography than
in the NHD flowlines, these few inconsistencies were not edited across boundaries
Additionally, stream lines may stop or start at ecoregion boundaries due to DEM shifts in the
401 Oversight/Express Review Permitting Program Development Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd Suite 250 Raleigh North Carolina 27604
Phone [phone] FAX [phone]
Internet http / /portal ncdenr org /web /wq /ws
An Equal Opportunity 1 Affirmative Action Employer D -12
NorthCarolina
Naturally

Page 2 of 7
Date 11 /09/2011
original data layers delivered by Michael Baker Corp The DEM shift issue was discovered
during this project and has been resolved for future mapping projects
Table 1 Attribute Table Definitions
Field
Description
Values
Grid Code
stream
1 — is a stream
M- RCP /CF Model
F -Field Determined
NHDFType558- Artifical Path (center line of
Source
Source of stream line
stream)
N H DFType460- Stream /River
NHDFtyp e336 -Canal /Ditch
63h- Carolina Flatwoods
Ecoregion
EPA Level IV
65m- Rolling Coastal Plain
ecoregion
65 - Southeastern Flood plains and Terraces
Date Field data
Field date
collected
Length of stream
Length
segment in feet
Headwater Stream Model Accuracy
General observations and field verification of the modeled streams indicate that in most areas
overestimation of stream length occurs due to pronounced ditching in valleys and in wetlands
that occur in pronounced, narrow valleys Overestimation Is also associated with low elevation
roads that were misclassified as streams (Figures I, 2 and 3) and extension of streams into ponds
and lakes Errors associated with roads and ponds were removed using 2010 aerial photos, DOT
roads, and USGS 24K hydro polygons Many of the ponds shown on the 24k polygon file do not
exist on the ground, so all final decision to remove were made based on the 2010 aerial photos
Accuracies of the model vs field stream length are listed in Table 2
D 13

Page 3 of 7
Date 11 /09/2011
Table 2 Headwater Stream Model Accuracy
D 14
USGS
Field
Model
Model
USGS
Site
Stream
Stream
Length
Stream
Length
L ng)th
Length (ft)
Length (ft)
Accuracy
Accuracy
RCP
LCB
20770
24657
119%
30241
146%
LCC
23348
28320
121%
42423
182%
LCD
50850
59728
117%
47094
93%
Total
94968
112705
119%
119758
126%
RCP
CF
Fr
22696
33706
149%
27060
119%
Pe03
15829
15134
96%
11502
73%
Sb
31575
41696
132%
31390
99%
Total
70100
90536
129%
69952
100%
CF
Total Study Area
260036
315946
T 122%
309468
119%
D 14

Page 4 of 7
Date 11/09/2011
Carolina Flatwoods Headwater Stream Model
Figure 1
D 15

'
fidi

Page 6 of 7
Date 11 /09/2011
Carolina Flatwoods Headwater Stream Model
Figure 3
D 17

Page 7 of 7
Date 11/09/2011
Please call or email if you have any questions I can be reached by phone at 919 715 6835 or
email at perlann russellgncdenr gov
cc Susan Gale
Morgan Weatherford
D 18

RoIImgCP_Rtparlan
Shapefile
Spatial I Attributes
Keywords
Theme wetlands
Place Lenoir County
Description
Abstract
This layer depicts wetlands of Lenoir County and portions of lanes and Craven Counties These wetland locations
were generated by the North Carolina Dept of Transportation wetland prediction model The model utilizes 20
grid cell digital elevation models generated from bare earth UDAR data and subsequent terrain denvabves as
variables The model may also use Southeast GAP land cover data NOAH C CAP land covet data NC Division of
Coastal Managment NC CREWS data and NRCS SSURGO sods data as variables The model is developed in SAS 9 2
as a binary logishc regression model
Purpose
These wetland locations were created as part of the Lenoir County GIS pilot project imbated and funded by
NCDOT
Status of the data
Complete
Data update frequency As needed
Time period for which the data is relevant
Date and bme REQUIRED The y -ar (and optionally month or man h and day) for which the data set orr sponds to
the ground
Descnptron
publication date
Publication Information
Who created the data NCDOT Natural Environment Unit Indnect and Cumulative Impacts Group
Date and time 4/1512011
Data storage and access information
Fife name RollmgCP_ropanan
Type of data vector digital data
Data processing environment Microsoft Windows %P version 5 1 (Build 2600) Service Pack 3 ESRI ArcCatalog
9314000
Accessing the data
Su:e of the data 78 970 MB
Data transfer sae 78 970 MB
Constraints on accessing and using the data
Access constrants None
Use constrdmts
These wetland locations are for planning purposes only and do not consistently represent the delineated
boundanes as defined by the 1987 US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual of the wetlands
contained herein Specific locations should be venfied if any actions to be taken in prommity of these locations
The North Carolina Department of Transportation shall not be held liable for any errors in this data This includes
enors of omission commission errors concerning the content of the data and relative and positional accuracy of
the data This data cannot be construed to be a legal document Primary sources from which tlus data was
compiled must be consulted for verification of information contained in the data
Details about this document
Contents last updated 20110815 at time 15425400
Who completed this document
Morgan Weatherford
NCDOT Natural Environment Unit
madmg address
1598 MSC
Raleigh NC 27612
919 707 6159 (voice)
mdweatherfordoncdot gov
Standards used to create this document
Standard name FGDC Content Standards for Digital Geospabal Metadata
Standard version FGDC STD 001 1998
Time convention used in thus document local bme
Metadata profiles defining additonal information
ESRI Metadata Profile htta //www.csn.com/metadata/esriprofBO,htmI
D 19