20071767 Ver 1_Application_20071019

`~'e „s srnrE o
y .~m~
,,.,
~~~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
October 17, 2007
LYNDO TiPPETT.
SECRETARY
NC Division of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
ATTN: Mr. John Hennessy
Dear Sir,
SUBJECT: Neuse Riparian Suffer Authorization Request for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run in Lenoir
County. Federal Project No. BRSTP-55(21), State Project No.
8.1151401, WBS Element 33519.1.1, T.LP. No. B-4172.
REFERENCE: Nationwide Permit No. 23 Action ID 200610545
Please find enclosed permit drawings and roadway plans for the above referenced project
proposed by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). A Categorical
Exclusion (CEj was completed for this project on January 4, 2006, and distributed shortly
thereafter. Additional copies are available upon request. The NCDOT plans to replace
Bridge No. 9 over Jericho Run on NC 55 in Lenoir County. The existing 22-foot long bridge
will be replaced with a 95-foot long structure using top-down construction in the existing
location. During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour. No proposed
permanent or temporary jurisdictional impacts to wetlands or surface waters are anticipated.
Impacts to riparian buffers total 5,730 square feet.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
General Description: The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-04-OS of the
Neuse River Basin. This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020202 of the South
Atlantic/Gulf Region. The portion of Jericho Run that lies within the project study area has
been assigned Stream Index Number 27-81-2 by the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality (NC DWQ}.
Jericho Run enters the project study area as awell-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over sand, silt, and gravel substrate. At bridge No. 9, Jericho Run is
approximately 18 feet wide, and water depths are 1 - 4 feet. An unnamed tributary (UT 1) to
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS WEgSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGI-k NC
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548

Jericho Run enters the project study area as a somewhat well-defined, first order, perennial
stream with low flow over sand and silt substrate, and drains the adjacent agricultural fields.
It flows to the toe of the maintained NC 55 right-of--way slope, and loses stream
characteristics. It then regains channelized flow and stream characteristics, as it drains
westward through several culverts finally to its confluence with Jericho Run.
A best usage classification of C SW NSW has been assigned to this section of Jericho Run
and its unnamed tributary. Jericho Run is not designated as a North Carolina Natural or
Scenic River, or as a National Wild and Scenic River. Jericho Run is not listed as a 303(d)
stream, impaired due to high sediment loads, nor are there 303(d) waters within 1 mile of the
study area. In addition, no designated Outstanding Resource Waters {ORW), High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1
mile of the project study area.
Jericho Run, UT 1, and their adjacent wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" {33 CFR section
328.3}. Wetlands within the study site exhibit characteristics of an alluvial forested system
with broad-leaved deciduous and needle-leaved evergreen vegetation.
Permanent Impacts: This project will result in no permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands
or surface waters.
Temporary Imt~acts: This project will result in no temporary impacts to jurisdictional
wetlands or surface waters.
Hand Clearing: Hand clearing (<0.01 acre) in wetlands will be necessary for project
construction.
Utilit~Impacts: No impacts to jurisdictional resources will occur due to relocation of utilities
in the project area. Existing utility lines are in conflict with the proposed project; however,
all utility work will be conducted outside of jurisdictional areas.
Bridge Demolition: The existing bridge is a single span, 22 feet in length. The
superstructure is comprised of a reinforced concrete floor on I-beams. The substructure
consists of reinforced concrete abutments. The bed to crown height is 9.9 feet and the
normal depth of flow is 2 feet_ Best Management Practices {BMP's) for Bridge Demolition
and removal will be followed to prevent any temporary fill from entering "Waters of the
United States".
Neuse Riparian Buffer Rules
This project is located in the Neuse River Basin; therefore, the regulations pertaining to
the buffer rules apply. Jericho Run is subject to buffer regulation. There will be a total of
3,923 ft2 of impacts to riparian buffers, 2,477 ft2 in Zone 1 and 1,446 ft2 in Zone 2, due to
the construction of the new bridge. Of these impacts, 2,653 ft2 are considered allowable
due to bridge construction, and 1,270 ft2 are considered allowable with mitigation due to
roadway construction other than crossings. This Road Crossing activity is allowable
because impacts are less than the 150-foot/0.3 acre threshold, for which mitigation is
required. Uses designated as allowable may proceed within the riparian buffer provided
Page 2

that there are no practical alternatives to the requested use pursuant to Item {8j of this
rule. Within the project study area, UTl and its buffers are contained within the existing
transportation facility, and are therefore not subject to buffer regulations. All practicable
measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones were followed.
Avoidance and Minimization
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to the fullest extent possible:
• Traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour during construction.
• The bridge will be built from the existing roadway, in-place.
• The bridge is being lengthened by 73 feet.
• There will be no deck drains over surface waters.
• Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented.
• The new structure will span the creek, therefore there will be no interior bents in the
water
• Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include using the existing
alignment.
• Fill slopes in wetlands will be at a 3:1 ratio
Mitigation
The proposed project will have no permanent impacts to wetlands. Hand clearing in the
vicinity of the north abutment (<0.01 ac) is not a jurisdictional impact and therefore does not
require mitigation. Because there are no permanent impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, and
impacts to riparian buffers have not exceeded the threshold requiring compensatory
mitigation, NCDOT is not proposing mitigation.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under Endangered Species Act §§7 and
9. As of May 10, 2007, the US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 3 federally protected
species for Lenoir County (Table 1).
Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were reached for red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis) and sensitive joint-vetch (Aeschynomene virginica) due to lack of suitable habitat
for either species.
Table 1. Federally protected species of Lenoir County.

Scientific Name
Common Name Federal

Status.
Habitat Biological'

Conclusion
Picoides borealis Red-cockaded wood ecker E No No Effect
Aeschynomene virginica Sensitive joint-vetch T No No Effect
Effective August 8, 2007, the bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus} was delisted from the
Endangered Species Act. A Biological Conclusion is no longer necessary for this species.
The bald eagle is protected under the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. Accordingly,
bald eagle occurrences and nesting habitat were surveyed. The most recent survey, on
Page 3

August 22, 2007, found no individuals or nesting sites within 660 feet of the project limits.
This project will therefore have no adverse effects on the bald eagle.
Anadromous Fish
Impacts to jurisdictional waters and wetlands are not expected. However, in the event that
impacts are necessary, NGDOT does not propose implementing the Stream Crossing
Guidelines for Anadrornous Fish Passage as stated in the CE, due to the lack of habitat
suitable for anadrornous fish passage or spawning.
Project Schedule
This project is scheduled to let May 20, 2008, with a review date of April 1, 2008.
Regulatory Approvals
Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization: This project requires written authorization from the
NCDWQ or the delegated local authority. Therefore, NCDOT requests that the NCDWQ
review this application and issue a written approval for a Neuse Riparian Buffer Authorization.
Section 404 / 401 Permit: A Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Action ID 200610545} was issued
on April 28, 2006 for this project based on the CE. However, this project will result in no
impacts to Waters of the US. Therefore, NCDOT is not requesting that this project be
authorized under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Worth Calfee at [e-mail]_us or (919} 715-7225.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot. org/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.htrnl.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director,
1(~ Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Page 4

W/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. David Wainwright
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. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. C. E. Lassiter, P.E., Div. 2 Engineer
Mr. Jay Johnson, Div. 2 Environmental Officer
W/o attachment
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Maj ed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Wade Kirby, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Page 5

_ - ~ r ~ ~.
. ~ r
_ 9D3 25e
~ ^
~1~
~ 7D
SEE i Wr,~ET ~
~~ 55
^
'~~ ~.
~ `' ~
~ s ~
~ ~ ~ _ ~
~ ~ . 258 ~
t _ L ~~ .
r
v _ + `
ti ` _ 1~.
LEND I R COI~VTY
,1~` t~'~ ~_ f ~-+i r _ - - y j~_ i .-~~ ~~ ~ ~ ~1~ . ~" O adj.' - J
.f _ ~-
~Y'` ' ~ '~ f'~ Y '1. 3 f r
_ r f 1 is t L\ //`
S ~ ~`.ys"''~s ~ `'._ ~ ~. ~~~ t ,~"~_ ,tit ~ ~, ~Jf
I - '- _ ~ - ~ f`r .f ~~/. 'tis
- -. _. ~. rt / ~ E r~~ -
f "-. r .
.1 i 1 j~+,of~~, .~~ ~.f ~, F.~i
~ICI11lITY MAP rr-rs
BUFFER
IMPACTS
1 +#~
'~ SITE
n
Y
55 ~
-~ ~s
r
58

a~~~~ ora~n~~ ~
Stet ~f.~ g i--~

Total Length of up and downstream buffer impact = 64'
O~y
~~ ~
~~ "~ N.C. DEPT, OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
LENOIR COUNTY
PROJECT; 33519.1.1 (B-4172)

91512007
SHEET OF
Rev. May
BUFFER IMPACTS SUMMARY
IMPACT BUFFER
TYPE ALLOWABLE MITIGABLE REPLACEMENT

SITE N0. STRUCTURE SIZE
1 TYPE STATION
(FROMITO) ROAD
CROSSING
BRIDGE PARALLEL
IMPACT ZONE 1
(ft~) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ft2) TOTAL
(ft2) ZONE 1
(ft2) ZONE 2
(ft2)

1 Sin le S an Brid e -L-15+82 -16+77 X 2330 323 2653

1

Roadwa Fill -L• 15+52 -Begin
Bridge & End Bridge
to 16+98

X

147

1123

1270

TOTAL 2477 1446 3923
2006

BUFFERIMPACTS SUMMARY
WETLANDS IN BUFFER
ZONE 1 ZONE 2
SItB Station (ft"2) (ff^2)
1 15+82116+17 -L- 108 0
TOTAL 108 0
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Butter pr~wwing
Sty ~ ~ ~ ~ LENOIR COUNTY
.".,.~,~
PROJECT;33519,1.1 (B-G172)
512312007

. +»
r r r
r r r r r 903 2
r r r
. 7D
SEE E NFaET
~~ 55
~ ~ ~ S ~
ti ~ .
~ ` ~ '
~ ~ .
~ ~ it
ti _
~ 1 ~
1 ` ~ `
'-ate
v y
y
j
SITE I
LEND 1 R COUNTY
'1" ~ --J.~ ~r', ±-~ Imo': ~~ f`~...~'• ,ti. ` ~~ ~ ~ ,~ ? ~' S ~~r `f ~~
k \, { ~ 4~~ ~ ~f ii ~ ' ~ ~ -.rte ti 1. ~ i . '~
ti -. ~ s'-~- -~ ~..
•~ ~ ~. ~• a t.o 'I r -~. _- ~
~l'~- y,aif/ ` .`,. ~j ~• may-' ~ ~ _~~~ ~ ~`7;3.":~i`
\~ .. _ f~ is ~ j/`
ti {{
f r : ~~~.,
~ '~ ~.f,
~{ ~ O
'~ - --- . _ ' - ~ ~~ .^r' to ~ -- - - - - - ...._ _ -- ~' •--
. ~~ ; ~.
~~ ~ ~:
r+ ~• ~.
VIGI~ITY 1W[AI' >wrs
WETI.A11tD/STREAM
IMPACTS

!'JrawWrtg
5hr.•~• t of
______

NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
~Q-~~an(~ ,..,.
~~w„ LENOIR COUNTY
~ 11p I PROJECT, 33519,1,1 (B-41721
-~
ATNRevised 3!31105 SHEET 5 23 207
WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No,

Station
(FromlTo)

Structure
Size 1 Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Temp,
Fillln
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp,
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp,
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 15+82116+77 •L- BRIDGE <,01

TOTALS: 0.01

v'

Lenoir County
Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 Over Jericho Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(21)
State Project No. 33519.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4172
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
n PR ~4 zoos
DtV~lON 4F H1GtiMfAYS
PDEl1-0FFI(;E OF I~~RAL EMnAON~IENT
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DATE regory J. T e, Ph. D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
~~~~~~
DATE
L~~-~-/
.John F. Sullivan, III, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Lenoir County
Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 Over Jericho Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(21)
State Project No. 33519.1.1
T.I.P_ Project No. B-4172
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2005
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
~ti>>~a~~u~~~o~~
1~~~ ~ ~~V l~~I
Greg S. urvis, P_E. _ ~'~ ~-
Project Manager _ •' ~ SEAL
22999 =
• s
"'. i • `
•
~ ~ ~ • 1
3a es Wang, Ph.D., P.E.
Pri cipal
,~
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
~fj~
,A~~:~
Wade Kirby, P_ E., P.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

4
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Lenoir County
Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 Over Jericho Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(21)
State Project No. 33519.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4172
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, NCDOT's
Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, NCDOT's Guidelines for
Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to by
NCDOT:
Division Two
The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented, as applicable.
Road closure will be coordinated with the Lenoir County Schools and Lenoir County Emergency
Management Services prior to construction.
Categorical Exclusion
December 2005
Page 1 of 1

Lenoir County
Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 Over Jericho Run
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-55(21)
State Project No. 33519.1.1
T.I.P. Project No. B-4172
INTRODUCTION: The replacement of Bridge No. 9 is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT} Transportation Improvement Program (TIPj and the Federal-Aid
Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts
are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
I. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 44.9 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete and structurally
deficient. The existing bridge does not meet NCDOT Bridge Policy standards for clear deck
width. The replacement of an inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NC 55 is classified as a rural major collector. Land use in the project area is predominantly
woodlands and light residential. Undeveloped woodlands are adjacent on the north and south
sides of the study area. There is light residential to the east of the existing bridge. There is an
existing Kinston County sanitary sewer lift station in the northwest quadrant of the study area.
Bridge No_ 9 was constructed in 1938. The existing structure is 22 feet in length, consisting of
one span at 22 feet. The clear roadway width is 30 feet, providing two 12-foot travel lanes with
three-foot gutters. The superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete floor on I-beams_ The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments. The bed to crown height is 9.9 feet and
the normal depth of flow is 2 feet. The posted weight limit is 32 tons for single vehicles {SV) and
38 tons for truck-tractors semi-trailers (TTST).
The existing bridge and approaches on NC 55 are on tangent. NC 55 consists of two twelve-foot
lanes with approximately ten-foot grass shoulders.
The estimated 2004 average daily traffic volume is 3,200 vehicles per day (vpd). The projected
traffic volume is expected to increase to 5,700 vpd by the design year 2030. The volumes include
eight percent TTST and five percent dual tired vehicles.
The speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is not posted and therefore a statutory 55 miles per
hour (mph} is assumed.
There are aerial power and telephone lines crossing on the north side of the existing bridge.
There is an existing Kinston County sanitary sewer lift station in the northwest quadrant of the
study area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There were six accidents reported for the three-year period of May 1, 2001 to April 30, 2004.
Five school buses cross this bridge twice daily.

z
1
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The proposed structure will provide a 35 foot 10 inch clear deck width to allow for two 12-foot
travel lanes with five feet 11 inches each side from edge of travel lane to face of bridge rail.
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travel way providing for two 12-foot
travel lanes with eight-foot shoulders including two foot paved shoulders. The proposed right-of-
way width is 100 feet. The design speed will be 60 mph.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, Bridge No. 9 will be replaced with an approximate
110-foot long bridge. The grade of the roadway will match the elevation of the existing roadway
since lowering the grade could cause the road to be flooded by Jericho Run. The minimum deck
grade will be 0.3%. The length of the proposed bridge and the recommended roadway elevation
may be adjusted {increased or decreased} to accommodate design floods as determined in the
final hydrologic study and hydraulic design.
B. Build Alternatives
Two {2} build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below.
Alternate A (Preferred) replaces the bridge at the existing location. During construction, traffic
will be maintained by an off-site detour route along SR 1810 (Tower Hill Road), SR 1811 (Dunn
Family Road), SR 1745 {Cunningham Road), and NC 11/55 approximately 3.3 miles in length.
The detour route would require improvements in order to handle the additional traffic and these
costs are shown in Table 1. The length of approach work will be approximately 363 feet on the
west side of the bridge and approximately 352 feet on the east side of the bridge.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing alignment. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site temporary detour structure located south of the existing bridge. The
length of approach work will be approximately 363 feet on the west side of the bridge and
approximately 352 feet on the east side of the bridge. The temporary detour bridge structure will
be 50 feet in length. Alternate B was not chosen because it has comparatively higher natural
environmental impacts and construction cost.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
The "Do-Northing" Alternative will eventually necessitate removal of the bridge and closing of
the road. This is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by NC 55.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternate A, replacing the existing bridge at the existing location, while maintaining traffic by an
off-site detour route is the preferred alternate. Alternate A was selected because of the
comparatively lower environmental impacts and lesser construction time associated with it.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternate A as the preferred alternative.

1 a
Alternate A is estimated to cost $1,461,000. A breakdown of the estimated cost is shown in Item
V (Table 1).
IV. DESIGN EXCEPTIONS ANTICIPATED
No design exceptions will be required.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current 2005 prices, are as follows:
TahlP 7 - Fctimatpri (-'nctc
Alternate A
(Preferred) Alternate B
Structure Removal (existing) $ 9,900 $ 9,900
Structure (proposed) 386,100 386,100
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 152,900
Roadway Approaches 149,000 149,000
Detour Improvements 391,600
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 3D2,400 179,100
Engineering and Contingencies 211,000 148,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities: 11,000 37,000

TOTAL $ 1,461,000 $ 1,062,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2006-2012 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $925,000 including $25,000 for right-of--way, $800,000 for construction, and
$100,000 for prior years cost.
VI. NATLTR.AI_. RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of sources
including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Kinston, NC [1983] 7.5-minute
quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping
(Kinston, NC [1983] 7.5-minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS;
formerly the Soil Conservation Service} soils mapping (SCS 1977}, WRC proposed Significant
Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats (WRC 1998), and 1993 aerial photography furnished by the
NCDOT.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community
classifications were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow
nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) with adjustments for updated nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USAGE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987}. Jurisdictional areas were
characterized according to a classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979) and/or the
3

N.C. Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Field Guide to North Carolina Wetlands
(1996). Aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat requirements and distributions were determined by
supportive literature {Martof et al. 1980, Potter et al. 1980, Webster et al. 1985, Menhinick 1991,
Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water quality information for area streams and
tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ 2001, DWQ 2004a-c). Quantitative sampling
was not undertaken to support existing data.
The most current USFWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Lenoir
County (February 24, 2003 USFWS list) is considered in this report. In addition, NHP records
documenting the presence of federally or state listed species were consulted on June 7, 2004 before
commencing field investigations. Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitats proposed by the
WRC (December 11, 1998 listing) were also consulted to determine the presence of Proposed Critical
Habitats for aquatic species.
The project study area was walked and visually surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this
evaluation, the project study area has been delineated by Wang Engineering (Figure 6). Potential
impacts of construction will be limited to cut-fill boundaries for each alternative. Special concerns
evaluated in the field include 1) potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water quality
protection of Jericho Run.
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located within the Rolling Coastal Plain ecoregion of the Southeastern Plains
physiographic province of North Carolina. This ecoregion is characterized by dissected irregular
plains and smooth plains; and broad interstream divides with gentle to steep side slopes dissected by
numerous small, low to moderate gradient sandy bottomed streams {Griffith et al. 2002). The project
study area is located within a lightly sloping floodplain valley. Elevations within the project study
area range from a high of approximately 39 feet National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD), at the
western end of the project study area, to a low of approximately 2b feet NGVD within the stream
channel (Kinston, NC [1983] 7.5-minute quadrangle). Land uses within and adjacent to the project
study area consist of woodlands, agricultural fields, residential lots, utility line corridors, a public
utilities lift station, and roadside shoulders.
Based on soil mapping for Lenoir County {SCS 1977), the project study area is underlain by four soil
series: Bibb soils {Typic Fluvaquents}, Johns sandy loam (Aquic Hapludults), Kalmia loamy sand
(Typic Hapludults), and Norfolk loamy sand (Typic Paleudults). Bibb soils occur adjacent to the
stream, while the Johns, Kalmia, and Norfolk soils are found on the slopes and uplands. Bibb soils
are considered hydric in Lenoir County (NRCS 1997), and underly approximately 1.8 acres, or 13
percent of the project study area. Johns and Kalmia soils are considered to have hydric inclusions in
Lenoir County and jointly underly approximately 6.3 acres, or 45 percent of the project study area.
The Bibb series (0 to 1 percent slopes) consists of frequently flooded, poorly-drained soils that
formed in alluvium. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is moderate. Runoff is
slow due to the low slope. Depth to bedrock occurs near 70 inches, and the seasonal high water table
occurs at or near the surface
The Johns series (0 to 2 percent slopes) consists of moderately well-drained to poorly-drained sandy
loam on low ridges. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is medium. Runoff is
slow due to gentle slopes. Depth to bedrock occurs near 65 inches, and the seasonal high water table
occurs at a depth of 1.5 feet.

The Kalmia series (2 to 6 percent slopes} consists of nearly level to gently sloping, well-drained
loamy sand on floodplain terraces. Permeability is moderate and runoff is medium. Depth to bedrock
occurs near 65 inches, and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of 5 feet.
The Norfolk series (6 to 10 percent slopes) consists of well-drained loamy sand on upland ridges and
slopes. Permeability is moderate, and available water capacity is medium. Runoff is rapid and
therefore erosion is a severe hazard when the soil surface is bare and unprotected. Depth to bedrock
occurs near 85 inches, and the seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of S feet.
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-04-OS of the Neuse River Basin (DWQ
2001). This area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020202 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region
(Seaber et al. 1987). The structure targeted for replacement spans Jericho Run. The portion of
Jericho Run that lies within the project study area has been assigned Stream Index Number 27-
81-2 by the North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ 2004a).
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The project study area contains two streams: Jericho Run and an unnamed tributary to Jericho
Run (UT). Jericho Run generally flows northward through the middle of the project study area.
The UT is located in the southeastern quadrant formed by the intersection of NC 55 and Jericho
Run. The UT flows southward into the project area until meeting the toe of the maintained NC
55 right-of--way slope. Here it spreads into a large vegetated wet area which then reforms as a
stream and drains westward within a roadside ditch to a confluence with Jericho Run.
Jericho Run enters the project study area as awell-defined, third-order, perennial stream with
moderate flow over a sand, silt, and gravel substrate. At Bridge No. 9, Jericho Run is
approximately 18 feet wide. The banks of Jericho Run are approximately 4 feet high and are
steeply sloping. During field investigations, the water level appeared low and ranged to
approximately 1 foot deep. Water clarity was good, with visibility to the substrate, and flow-
velocity was low. No persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within the stream.
Jericho Run may provide good aquatic habitat for mussels and benthic macroinvertebrates due to
the observation of little siltation within the stream and the channel substrate composition.
Opportunities for habitat within Jericho Run include overhanging trees, undercut banks, fallen
logs, and leaf packs.
The entire reach of the UT within the project study area is contained by a man-made channel.
The UT enters the project study area as a somewhat well-defined, first order, perennial stream
with low flow over a sand and silt substrate, and drains the adjacent agricultural fields. It flows
southward near the eastern edge of the project study area until meeting the toe of the maintained
NC 55 right-of--way slope. Here it loses stream characteristics as it flaws into a wide vegetated
wet area, then reforms as a stream which drains westward through several culverts to a
confluence with Jericho Run. The bed of the UT begins eroding downward after passing through
the culvert nearest Jericho Run, with banks ranging from 6 inches in height at the culvert to
approximately 2 feet at the Jericho Run confluence. The banks along the remainder of the UT
range from 2 to 8 inches. During field investigations, the water level appeared low and ranged to
approximately 6 inches in depth. Water clarity was good, with visibility to the substrate, and

flow-velocity was low. Persistent emergent aquatic vegetation and minnow-sized fish were
observed within the stream, whereas no benthic organisms were observed.
The DWQ has assembled a list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act Section
303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7, hereafter referred to as the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list. The list is a
comprehensive public accounting of all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that
does not meet water quality standards including designated uses, numeric and narrative criteria,
and anti-degradation requirements defined in 40 CFR 131. The standards violation may be due to
an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, pollution, or an unknown cause of impairment. The
impairment could be from point sources, nonpoint sources, and/or atmospheric deposition. Some
sources of impairment exist across state lines. North Carolina's methodology is strongly based
on the aquatic life use support guidelines available in the Section 305(b) guidelines (EPA-841-B-
97-002A and -002B). Those streams attaining only Partially Supporting (PS) or Not Supporting
(NS) status are listed on the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d) list. Streams are further categorized into
one of six parts within the N.C. 2004 Section 303{d) list, according to source of impairment and
degree of rehabilitation required for the stream to adequately support aquatic life. Within Parts 1,
4, 5, and 6 of the list, North Carolina has developed a priority ranking scheme {low, medium,
high) that reflects the relative value and benefits those waterbodies provide to the State. Jericho
Run is not listed on any section of the N.C. 2004 Section 303(d} list (DWQ 2004c).
Classifications are 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. A Best Usage
Classification of C SW NSW has been assigned to this reach of Jericho Run and its unnamed
tributary. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and
secondary recreation. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses not
involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis. Swamp Waters
(SW) are waters with low velocities and other natural characteristics which are different from
adjacent streams. Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW) are areas with water quality problems
associated with excessive plant growth resulting from nutrient enrichment. No designated High
Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I (WS-I), Water
Supply II (WS-II) waters, or watershed Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project
study area (DWQ 2001).
The DWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed project study area is summarized in the
Neuse River Basinwide Water Quality Plan {DWQ 2001 }. Jericho Run is currently listed by
DWQ as Supporting its designated uses. No benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring stations occur
within one mile of the project study area (DWQ 2001 }.
Sub-basin 03-04-OS of the Neuse River Basin supports nine permitted, point source discharges
with a total discharge of 40.5 million gallons per day. Three of the permitted dischargers are
classified as major, discharging 36.2 million gallons per day. The six remaining permitted
dischargers are minor {DWQ 2004b). None-of these dischargers are relevant to Jericho Run.
Major non-point sources of pollution within the Neuse River Basin include runoff from
construction activities, agriculture, forestry practices, mining, hydrologic modification, and
stormwater runoff from roads, parking lots, and roof tops. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are
major problems associated with non-point source discharges {DWQ 2001}.
The WRC has developed a Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat database to enhance
planning and impact analysis in areas proposed by the WRC as being critical due to the presence
of Endangered or Threatened aquatic species. No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species

Habitat occurs within the project study area. The nearest Significant Aquatic Endangered Species
Habitat within the Neuse River Basin occurs approximately 43 miles to the northwest in Little
River (WRC 1998}.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of a stringent erosion-control schedule and the use of Best Management Practices
(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 (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include the
use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals {herbicides, pesticides, de-icing compounds)
with potential negative impacts on water quality; and avoidance of direct discharges into streams
by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The bridge rails and abutments are to be removed without dropping components into Jericho Run.
However, there is potential for components of the deck to be dropped into waters of the United
States during construction. Resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is
approximately S cubic yards. No Outstanding Resource Waters {ORW); Threatened,
Endangered, or anadromous species are anticipated to be impacted by this project. Therefore, the
replacement of Bridge No. 9 can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and
Maintenance Activities.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
a) Impacts Related to Water Resources
Impacts to water resources in the project study area may result from activities associated with
project construction. Activities that would result in impacts are clearing and grubbing on
streambanks, riparian canopy removal, in-stream construction, fertilizers and pesticides used
in revegetation, and pavement/culvert installation. The following impacts to surface water
resources could result from the construction activities mentioned above.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased
erosion in the project study area.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds in roadway runoff.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in
Jericho Run, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-term impacts resulting

from construction are expected to be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water
resources, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance
Activities will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
b) Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition
and removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-
Construetion Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition
and Removal in Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal" (all documents dated 9/2D/99). Guidelines followed for bridge
demolition and removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices
for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure into waters of the United States will be avoided unless
there is na other practical method of removal. In the event that no other practical method is
feasible, aworst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering waters of the United
States. There is potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the
United States. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck is expected to
be approximately 5 cubic yards. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of this bridge.
Under the guidelines presented in the documents noted in the first paragraph of this section,
work done in the water for this project will fall under Case 3, where there are no special
restrictions beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the project study area:
disturbed/maintained land, disturbed pine hardwood forest, disturbed pine forest, and alluvial
forest. Plant communities were delineated to determine the approximate area and location of
each (Figure 6). These communities are described below in order of their dominance within the
project study area. Wildlife directly observed in a plant community or determined to be present
through evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc.} during field investigations are indicated with an
asterisk (*). In addition, approximately 1.0 acre (7 percent) of the project study area is covered
by the impermeable surfaces of NC 55 and Tower Hill Road.
a) Disturbed/Maintained Land
Approximately 6.4 acres (46 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by
disturbed/maintained land. This community includes roadside shoulders, agricultural fields,
woodland edges, utility line corridors, a public utilities lift station, and residential lots. Three
wetland areas were found within this community_
Along roadside shoulders, agricultural land margins, and on lift station grounds, grasses and
herbs dominate the vegetation. Representative species include Carolina cranesbill (Geranium
carolinianum}, clover (Trifolium sp.), wild onion (Allizcm canadense), dog fennel

(Eupatorium capillifolium), dandelion (Taraxaczcm officinale), aster (Aster sp.), and fescue
(Festuca sp.).
Cpen areas within the project study area provide a specialized habitat far herbivore, seed-
eater, and insectivore foraging, but little cover from predation. Wildlife which may occur
within the open portion of the project study area include vegetation and seed eaters such as
American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), woodland vole (Microtzcs pinetorum), hispid cotton
rat (Sigmodon hispidus}, and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus); insectivores such as
Carolina wren* (Thryothorzcs ludovicianus), song sparrow {Melospiza melodia), killdeer
{Charadrius vociferous), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus),
Carolina anole (Anolis carolinsis), six-lined racerunner (Cnemidomophorus sexlineatus),
southeastern five-lined skink {Eumeces inexpectatus}, and southern cricket frog (Acris
gryllus); omnivores including blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), bobwhite* (Colinus
virginianus), and eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina); predators such as red-tailed hawk
(Buteo jamaicensis) and black racer (Coluber constrictor); and scavengers including
American crow* {Corvus brachyrhynchos) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura).
Along woodland edges and utility line corridors, the sapling and shrub layers consist of
individuals of red maple (Ater rubrum), eastern red cedar {Jzcniperzcs virginiana), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), black willow (Salix nigra), tag alder (Alms serrulata), blackberry
(Rubus sp.), Chinese privet (ligustrum sinense), and multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora). Vines
are limited to Japanese honeysuckle {Lonicera japonica) and trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans). Representative herbs include Carolina cranesbill, Brazilian vervain (Verbena
brasiliensis), dog fennel, dandelion, pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and fescue.
These ecotones provide both food and cover for eastern cottontail and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Birds commonly found in shrubby areas and along forest/grassland
ecotones include the omnivorous northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos), brown
thrasher* (Toxostoma rufum), and brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and the seed-
eating indigo bunting (Passerina cyaneaj. Insectivorous species such as eastern fence lizard
{Sceloporus undulatus) and gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), and predators including black
racer utilize this habitat_
A wetland area associated with the UT is located just south of NC 55 approximately 700 feet
east of Jericho Run (Figure 6, Wetland 1). This low, moist area supports hydrophytic species
such as soft rush (Juncus effusus), lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus), jewelweed (Impatiens
capensis), and black willow_
A small, vegetated wetland occurs in the southwest quadrant of the project study area along
the toe of the NC 55 maintained right-of--way slope, and drains to Jericho Run (Figure 6,
Wetland 2). This low, moist area supports hydrophytic species such as jewelweed.
A low, linear wetland area is located within a roadside ditch in the northwest quadrant formed
by Jericho Run and NC 55 (Figure 6, Wetland 3). This area supports hydrophytic species
such as soft rush, narrow-leaved cattail (Typha angustifolia), and false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica).
h) Disturbed Pine/Hardwood Forest
Approximately 3.4 acres (24 percent] of the project study area is encompassed by disturbed
pine/hardwood forest. This community occurs on floodplain slopes and uplands in the

southwest quadrant and the northeast quadrant of the project study area. This community
consists of an immature forest characterized by an open canopy with a dense understory.
Two wetland areas were found within this community.
This community supports a sparse canopy of tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipiferaj, and
loblolly pine (Pinacs taeda). Sapling and shrub layers include canopy species as well as
willow oak (Quercus phellos), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), sycamore, bamboo
(Phyllostachys aurea), American holly (Ilex opaca), and multi-flora rose. Vines within this
community are dominated by common greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans}. The herbaceous
layer is sparsely vegetated by representative species such as Christmas fern (Polystichtcm
acrostichoides), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron}, and jewelweed.
The complexity and size of this community allow for a diverse assemblage of wildlife
including forest interior species. This community should support predators such as grey fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus}, southern ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), copperhead
(Agkistrodon contortrix), and great horned owl (Bubo virginianus); omnivores including blue
jay* and eastern box turtle; insectivores such as Carolina chickadee* (Poecile carolinensis),
wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceous), southern short-tailed
shrew (Blaring carolinensis), evening bat (Nycticeius htcmeralis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis},
Carolina anole, broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), gray treefrog, spring peeper (Pseudacris
crucifer), Fowler's toad {Bufo woodhousei), spotted salamander (Ambystoma macaclatum},
and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus); and vegetation and seed-eaters such as white-
throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), white-tailed deer, gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotymous nattali}, and marsh rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris).
A large, low, wetland area occurs in the southwestern quadrant of the project study area
(Figure b, Wetland 6}. A large portion of this area is seasonally to permanently inundated,
with water ranging to 3 feet in depth. Hydrophytic species present include soft rush, lizard's
tail, common cattail (Typha latifolia), jewelweed, black willow, marsh pennywort
{Hydroeotyle umbellate), alligator weed (Alternanthera philoxeroides), giant duckweed
(Spirodela sp.), and sedge (Carex sp.).
A small, wetland area occurs in this community slightly to the west of the larger wetland area
(Figure 6, Wetland 7). This area supports hydrophytic species such as soft rush and
jewelweed.
c) Alluvial Forest
Approximately 2.0 acres (14 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by alluvial
forest. This community occurs in the floodplain of Jericho Run. Two wetland areas were
found within the alluvial forest.
Canopy species include sycamore, red maple, loblolly pine, and river birch (Betula nigra).
Sapling and shrub layers include canopy species as well as individuals of American elm
{Ulmus Americana), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana}, tag alder, bamboo, Chinese privet,
and American holly. Herb species include jewelweed, netted chain-fern (Woodwardia
areolata), sensitive fern (Onoclea sensibilis), and southern lady fern (Athyrium aplenioides),
while vines present consist of common greenbrier, laurel-leafed greenbrier (Smilax
laurifolia), poison ivy, muscadine grape (Yitis rotundifolia}, Virginia creeper, thicket creeper
(Parthenocissus inserta), and trumpet creeper.
10

The size and stratification of this community allow for a diverse assemblage of wildlife
including forest interior species. This community should support herbivores and seed-eaters
such as northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), white throated sparrow, golden mouse,
marsh rabbit, and white-tailed deer; insectivores including blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), woad thrush, southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), eastern pipistrelle
(Pipistrellus subflavus}, red bat, Carolina anole, five-lined skink (Eumeces,fasciatus), spring
peeper, Fowler's toad, and southern cricket frog; omnivores such as raccoon* (Procyon lotor}
and eastern box turtle; predators including grey fox, barred owl (Strix varia), southern
ringneck snake, eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), and copperhead; and scavengers
such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana}.
Two low, wet areas are located in the northeast quadrant of the project study area adjacent to
Jericho Run (Figure 6, Wetlands 4 and 5). Though vegetation is sparse, these areas support
hydrophytic species such as soft rush, jewelweed, tag alder, lizard's tail, river birch, and
black willow.
d) Disturbed Pine Forest
Approximately 1.2 acres (9 percent) of the project study area is encompassed by disturbed
pine hardwood forest. This community occurs on floodplain slopes and uplands in the
northwest quadrant of the project study area. This community consists of an immature, even-
aged forest of loblolly pine with little understory.
This community supports a sparse canopy of loblolly pine, predominantly along forest edges.
The sapling layer of this community supports a dense assemblage of even-aged loblolly pine.
Shrubs present include devil's-walking-stick (Aralia spinosa), blackberry (Rubus sp.), and
wax myrtle (Myrica cerifera). Vines within this community include Virginia creeper,
trumpet creeper, and muscadine grape. The herbaceous layer is sparsely vegetated and
includes individuals of pokeweed and dog fennel.
This community, though less diverse than other forested portions of the project study area,
should support a range of wildlife species. In particular, species are expected which prefer
pine forests or brushy areas. Wildlife expected to occur within this community include
herbivores and seed-eaters such as white-throated sparrow, white-tailed deer, gray squirrel,
golden mouse, and woodland vole; insectivores including yellow-breasted chat* (Icterea
vixens), pine warbler, evening bat, red bat, Carolina anole, broadhead skink, gray treefrog,
eastern spadefoot toad (Scaphiopus holbrooki), Fowler's toad, and slimy salamander;
omnivores such as brown thrasher and eastern box turtle; and predators such as screech owl
(Otus asio), pine woods snake (Rhadinea flavilata), and copperhead.
2. Aquatic Communities
The project study area includes two perennial streams, both bounded primarily by natural
vegetation. These streams are characterized by natural and man-made channels providing diverse
habitats for fish and wildlife, (riffle-pool complexes, undercut banks, rock and organic debris in
the stream beds, and overhanging branches. These. waters are expected to support a fishery and
benthic population which serves as a food source for aquatic herptiles such as the predatory
banded water snake (Nerodia fasciata); omnivores such as eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus) and eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum); and insectivores including southern
11

leopard frog* (Rana utricularia), green frog (Rana clamitans), mud salamander (Pseudotriton
montanus), and three-lined salamander (Eurycea gacttolineata).
Minnow-sized fish were observed but not identified within Jericho Run and the UT. Fish species
that may be present in this reach of Jericho Run or the UT include smaller fish species such as
margined madtom (Noturus insignis), tadpole madtom (Notortcs gyrinus), tessellated darter
(E'theostoma olmstedi), swamp darter (Etheostoma ficsi}orme), and dusky shiner (Notropis
cacmminsae}.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Plant communities within the project study area were delineated to determine the approximate
area and location of each (Figure 6}. A summary of plant community areas and the potential
impacts to each is presented in Table 2. Several permanent and temporary impacts are anticipated
with this project. Both alternatives possess identical permanent impacts, while Alternate B
includes temporary impacts. Permanent impacts are considered to be those impacts that occur
within the proposed cut-fill limits associated with Alternate A. Temporary impacts are
considered to be those impacts which occur within the cut-fill footprint associated with the
temporary detour of Alternate B, yet outside of the cut-fill footprint of Alternate A_ In addition,
approximately 0.02 acre of alluvial forest must be timbered for the installation of the temporary
bridge structure.
,. _
ldU1C G. r1Qi1L lrV1J111111111k.1GA Yl'11.1[lll VLLL/i'lll 11116.1 Vl i~GJ Cl,I.iVG t11~.GlliRk.lvcJ
Alternate A
Preferred Alternate B
Plant Communi
... ................... . Permanent Permanent Tem ora Tata1
Maintained/D isturb ed
Land 0.51 0.51 0.26 0.77
Disturbed
PinelHardwood Forest 0 0 0.01 0.01
Alluvial Forest <0.01 <0.01 0.19 0.19
Disturbed Pine Forest 0 0 0 0
Total Q.51 ' U.51 ' Q.46 0.97
Areas are given in acres.
Projected permanent impacts to natural plant communities resulting from bridge replacements are
generally restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach
segments. Little area of natural plant community is expected to be permanently impacted by the
proposed project. Temporary impacts incur approximately the same amount of impacted area to
natural communities as permanent impacts. Although temporary impacts are considered to be
short-term, re-growth of this community to pre-project stand age and ecological function will
require several decades.
No significant habitat fragmentation is expected as a result of project activities since potential
improvements will be restricted to adjoining roadside margins. Construction noise and associated
disturbances are anticipated to have short-term impacts on avifauna and migratory wildlife
movement patterns.
No Significant Aquatic Endangered Species Habitat exists within or near the project study area.
Impacts associated with turbidity and suspended sediments resulting from bridge replacement
12

will be minimized through stringent erosion control measures. No Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW}; Threatened, Endangered, or anadromous species are anticipated to be impacted by this
project. Therefore, the replacement of Bridge No. 9 can be classified as Case 3, where there are
no special restrictions beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Construction and Maintenance Activities.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat are anticipated to be avoided by bridging the
stream system to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. Short-term impacts associated with
turbidity and suspended sediments may affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the
implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the project study area are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as waters of the United States (33 CFR Section 328.3)_ The
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) system for classification of wetlands and deepwater habitats
was used to determine the type of each wetland present (Cowardin et al. 1979}. Section 404
jurisdictional areas are depicted by Figure 6.
Jericho Run exhibits characteristics of awell-defined, third-order, perennial stream with low flow
over a sand, silt, and gravel substrate. This stream contains several unvegetated point bars
composed of sand and silt. Jericho Run can be classified as riverine, lower perennial with an
unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of sand and silt (R2UB2). The UT exhibits
characteristics of a somewhat well-defined, first-order, riverine, lower perennial stream with an
unconsolidated bottom composed primarily of silt and sand (R2UB3). The entire reach of the UT
within the project study area is contained by a man-made ditch.
Vegetated wetlands are def ned by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (a
minimum of 12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). The project study area contains
seven vegetated wetland areas (Figure b, Wetlands 1 through 7).
A vegetated wetland associated with the UT occurs in the maintained/disturbed portion of the
project study area in the southeast quadrant formed by Jericho Run and NC 55 (Figure 6, Wetland
1). This area may be defined as a permanently flooded, palustrine, emergent seep with
predominantly non-persistant vegetation (PEM2H). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, while
hydrology indicators are inundation, surface flow, and oxidized rhizospheres. This system would
be considered a "non-riverine" wetland by the DWQ, based upon its location outside of a stream
floodplain.
A small, vegetated wetland occurs in the southwest quadrant of the project study area along the
toe of the NC 55 maintained right-of--way slope, and drains to Jericho Run (Figure b, Wetland 2).
This area may be defined as an intermittently exposed, palustrine, emergent seep with
predominantly non-persistant vegetation {PEM2G). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, while
hydrology indicators are inundation, surface flow, and oxidized rhizospheres_ This system would
be considered a "riverine" wetland by the DWQ, based upon its location within the Jericho Run
floodplain.
13

A grass and herb dominated wet, linear depression is located in the northwest quadrant of the
project study area (Figure 6, Wetland 3). It can be characterized as palustrine, emergent, and
semipermanently flooded, with nonpersistant vegetation (PEM2F). Soils exhibit hydric chromas
while indicators of hydrology are inundation, surface flow, and oxidized rhizospheres. Based on
the location of this wetland as primarily within the Jericho Run floodplain, this area would be
considered "riverine" by the DWQ.
Two forested wetlands occur within the alluvial forest in the northeast quadrant of the project
study area adjacent to Jericho Run (Figure 6, Wetlands 4 and 5}. They may be classified as
palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PFO i C). Soils exhibit
hydric chromas and mottles, while hydrology indicators include inundation, water-stained leaves,
water marks, and oxidized rhizospheres. These systems would be considered "riverine" wetlands
by the DWQ, based upon their locations within the Jericho Run floodplain.
A large forested wetland occurs within the disturbed pine/hardwood forest in the southwest
quadrant of the project study area (Figure 6, Wetland 6). It may be classified as palustrine,
forested, broad-leaved deciduous, and permanently flooded (PFO 1 H). This large, inundated area
is ponded due to the deposition of fill material along the utility line corridor located between
Jericho Run and this wetland. Unable to drain to Jericho Run, this area now supports hydrophytic
vegetation, and exhibits soils with hydric chromas and hydrology indicators of inundation, water
marks, and oxidized rhizospheres. Based on the location of this wetland inside the Jericho Run
floodplain, this area would be considered "riverine" by the DWQ.
A second, smaller forested wetland is located in the disturbed pine/hardwood forest just west of
the larger wetland area (Figure 6, Wetland 7). It may be classified as palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PFO1 C). Soils exhibit hydric chromas, and hydrology
indicators are inundation, water marks, and oxidized rhizospheres. This wetland would be
considered "riverine" by the DWQ.
Both alternatives contain an identical replacement in-place component, while Alternative B also
contains a temporary on-site detour component. Permanent impacts associated with both
alternatives will occur to Wetland 2 (Figure 6, Wetland 2) and Wetland 3 (Figure 6, Wetland 3).
The Alternate B temporary detour includes temporary impacts to Wetland 2 (Figure 6, Wetland 2)
and approximately 180 linear feet of the UT (Figure 5, UT).
Information pertaining to jurisdictional area impacts within the project study area is summarized
in Table 3.
The existing bridge rails and abutments are to be removed without dropping components into
Jericho Run. However, there is potential for components of the deck to be dropped into waters of
the United States during construction. Resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete deck
is approximately 5 cubic yards. No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW); Threatened,
Endangered, or anadromous species are anticipated to be impacted by this project. Therefore, the
replacement of Bridge No. 9 can be classified as Case 3; where there are no special restrictions
beyond those outlined in NCDOT's Best Management Practices _far Construction and
Maintenance Activities.
14

Table 3. Proiected Impacts to Jurisdictional Areas
.iurisdictianal DE1VI' Alternate A
Preferred) Alternate B
Area Ratin Permanent Permanent Tetra orar Total
Jericho Run - - _ _ _
UT - - - 180 180
Wetland 1 54 - _ _ _
Wetland 2 40 <0.01 <0.01 <0.01 0.01
Wetland 3 25 <0.01 <D.O1 - 0.01
Wetland 4 33 - - _ _
Wetland 5 33 - - _ _
Wetland 6 3 8 - _ _ _
Wetland 7 4D - - _ _
Total - O,Q1 / O 0.01 / O A.01 / 180 0.02 / 180
wetjands are expressed as area ~n acres; streams are expressed as linear distance in feet.
Site numbers are depicted on Figure 6.
2. Permits
a}. Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
This project may be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The USACE has made available Nationwide Permit
(NWP) 23 (67 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002) for CEs due to minimal impacts to waters of
the U. S. expected with bridge construction. Activities under this permit are categorically
excluded from environmental documentation because they are included within a category of
activities that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
and natural environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits must satisfy all
terms and conditions of the particular permit.
b}. Section 401 Water Quality Certification
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP 23 {GC 3403}.
If temporary structures are necessary for construction activities, access fills, or dewatering of
the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, 2087; January 15, 2002) permit and the associated
General 401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3366) will be required. Impacts to vegetated
wetlands may be authorized under NWP 3 (67 FR 2020, 2078} and the associated General
401 Water Quality Certification (GC 3376). In the event that NWPs 23, 33, and 3 will not
suffice, impacts attributed to bridge replacement and associated approach improvements may
qualify under General Bridge Permit (GP) 031 issued by the Wilmington USACE District.
DWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for GP 031 (GC 3404).
Notification to the Wilmington USACE District office is required if this general permit is
utilized.
c). Bridge Demolition and Removal
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will need to be
considered during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario will be assumed with the
understanding that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be
dropped into the water. The worst-case scenario associated with the bridge removal is
15

expected to be 5 cubic yards of temporary fill. Permitting will be coordinated such that any
permit needed for bridge construction will also address issues related to bridge demolition.
3. Riparian Buffer Protection Rules for the Tar-Pamlico River Basin
The Nutrient Sensitive Waters Management Strategy for the Protection and Maintenance of
Riparian Buffers for the Neuse River Basin (15A NCAC 02B .0259} provides a designation for
uses that cause impacts to riparian buffers within the Neuse River Basin. The Neuse River Basin
Rule applies to 50-foot wide riparian buffers {measured perpendicular to the stream) directly
adjacent to surface waters in the Neuse River Basin. Designated surface waters are indicated on
USGS 7S-minute topographic maps and county soil surveys. Within the project area, Jericho
Run and the UT to Jericho Run are the only features subject to the riparian buffer rule (Figure 6}.
Changes in land use within the buffer area are considered to be buffer impacts. Land use changes
within the riparian buffer are defined as being Exempt, Allowable, Allowable with Mitigation, or
Prohibited. The Exempt designation refers to uses allowed within the buffer. The Allowable
designation refers to uses that may proceed within the riparian buffer provided there are no
practical alternatives, and that written authorization from the DWQ is obtained prior to project
development. The Allowable with Mitigation designation refers to uses that are allowed, given
there are no practical alternatives, and appropriate mitigation plans have been approved. The
Prohibited designation refers to uses that are prohibited without a variance. Exemptions to the
riparian buffer rule include the footprint of existing uses that are present and ongoing. Permanent
impacts associated with both alternatives impact less than 40 feet of riparian buffer and are
therefore Exempt under the Neuse River Basin Rules. The temporary detour associated with
Alternate B is Allowable under the Neuse River Basin Rules, provided that restoration activities
such as soil stabilization and revegetation are conducted immediately after construction. Changes
to stormwater discharges associated with this project will likely need to be discharged as diffuse
flow prior to entering the buffers.
The permanent structure and approaches associated with both alternatives propose to undertake
uses designated as Exempt under the Neuse River Basin Buffer Rule. Since the temporary
structure and easement associated with Alternate B proposes to undertake uses designated as
Allowable under the Neuse River Basin Rule, a request fora "no practicable alternatives"
determination will be made to DWQ if Alternate B is pursued.
4. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Envionmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of
waters of the United States, and specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands}, minimizing impacts, rectifying
impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA} between
the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
16

scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and
logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to surface
waters. The bridge is being replaced in the existing location with an offsite detour to maintain
traffic. This will minimize impacts to wetlands.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .OSOb(h), DWQ may require compensatory mitigation
for projects with greater than or equal to 1.0 acre of impacts to jurisdictional wetlands or greater
than or equal to 150 linear feet of total perennial stream impacts. Furthermore, in accordance
with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and
type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the impacted aquatic resource
are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and
creation of waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent
to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Mitigation for Section 404 jurisdictional areas may not need to be proposed for this project due to
the potentially limited nature of the project impacts. However, utilization of BMPs is
recommended in an effort to minimize impacts. Temporary impacts to floodplains associated
with construction activities could be mitigated by replanting disturbed areas with native riparian
species and removal of temporary fill material upon project completion. A final determination
regarding mitigation rests with the USACE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) 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.). The term "Endangered Species" is defined as "any species which is in
danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range," and the term "Threatened
Species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an Endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532).
Three federally protected species are listed for Lenoir County (February 24, 2003 USFWS list):
bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and
sensitive jointvetch (Aeschynomene virginica)_ The Bald eagle and sensitive jointvetch are listed
as Threatened, and red-cockaded woodpecker is Endangered. A summary of Biological
Conclusions for the replacement of Bridge No. 9 is represented in Table 4.
17

Tahle 4_ Federally Protected Species
Federal"
Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion Status
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus
leucocephalus No Effect T
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis No Effect E
woodpecker
Sensitive jointvetch Aeschynomene No Effect T
virginica
T- Threatened, E- Endangered, P -Proposed
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 19b7
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than 6 feet. Adult bald eagles are dark
brown with a white head and tail. Tmmature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also take birds and small
mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends from December through May (Potter et al.
1980). Bald eagles typically nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water.
Eagles forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching (Hamel 1992).
Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 7S0 to 1,500 feet from a nest tree are
considered to result in unacceptable conditions for eagles (USFWS 1987). The USFWS
recommends avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting within this
primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the primary zone boundary out to a
distance of 1.0 mile from a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted
to the non-nesting period. The USFWS also recommends avoiding alteration of natural
shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-clearing activities within 1,500
feet of known roosting sites.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for bald eagle does not exist within the project study area, and no individuals
were observed during field investigations. In addition, NHP files consulted on June 7, 2004 list
no documentation of bald eagle within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
Picoides borealis (Red-cockaded woodpecker)
Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
This small woodpecker (7 to S.5 inches long) has a black head, prominent white cheek patches,
and ablack-and-white barred back. Males often have red markings (cockades} behind the eye,
but the cockades may be absent or difficult to see {Potter et aZ. 1980). Primary habitat consists of
mature to over-mature southern pine forests dominated by loblolly, long-leaf (Pinus palacstris),
slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. scrotina) pines (Thompson and Baker 1971). Nest cavities are
constructed in the heartwood of living pines, generally older than 60 years that have been infected
with red-heart disease. Nest cavity trees tend to occur in clusters, which are referred to as
18

s
clusters. The woodpecker drills holes into the bark around the cavity entrance, resulting in a
shiny, resinous buildup around the entrance that allows for easy detection of active nest trees.
Primary nest sites for red-cockaded woodpeckers 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}. Pine flatwoods or pine-
dominated savannas which have been maintained by frequent natural or prescribed fires serve as
ideal nesting and foraging sites for this woodpecker. Development of a thick understory may
result in abandonment of cavity trees.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the project study area. No
individuals were observed, and NHP files consulted on June 7, 2004 list no documentation of this
species within 2.0 miles of the project study area.
Aeschynomene virginica (Sensitive jointvetch)
Threatened
Animal Family: Fabaceae
Date Listed: May 20, 1992
Sensitive jointvetch is a robust, bushy-branched, annual legume often exceeding 3.3 feet in
height. Young stems have bristly hairs with large, swollen bases {Leonard 1985). The alternate,
compound leaves are even-pinnate, approximately 1.3 to 2 inches wide, with 30 to 56 toothless,
gland-dotted leaflets (Radford et al. 1968). Flowers are bright greenish-yellow with red veins,
about 0.5 inch long, and are subtended by bractlets with toothed margins (Leonard 1985).
Flowers are produced on few-flowered racemes from July to October. The jointed legume
(loment} is about 2 inches long, has b to 10 segments, and a 0.5 to 1.0 inch long stalk. Sensitive
jointvetch occurs in the intertidal zone near the upper limit of tidal fluctuation. Habitat for this
species in North Carolina consists of moist to wet roadside ditches, moist fields, riverbanks and
swamps, especially in full sun. Sensitive joint-vetch is found in coastal areas from New Jersey to
the Savannah River (Leonard 1985).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for sensitive jointvetch does not occur within the project study area, due
to a lack of an intertidal zone, and dense vegetative cover of wet areas in bright sunlight.
This species was last observed within Lenoir County more than 50 years ago, and NHP
files consulted on June 7, 2004 list no documentation of this species within 2.0 miles of
the project study area.
2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 24, 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal
species of concern" (FSC). A species with this designation is one that may or may not be listed in
the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing). The FSC designation provides no federal
protection under the ESA for the species listed. NHP f les list no documentation for FSC species
within 2.0 miles of the project study area. A summary of FSC species is presented in Table 5.
19

Table 5- Federal S ecies of Conc
Scientific Name Common Name State Status~* Suitable Habitat-
Noturus furiosus "Neuse" madtom SC, PT Yes
Procambarus medialis Tar River crayfish *** Yes
Amorpha georgiana var.
Georgiana*
Georgia indigo-bush
E
Yes
Dionaea musci ula* Venus fl a SR-L, SC Yes
* Historic record -Species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago
**State Status: SC=Special Concern, PTProposed Threatened, E=Endangered, SR-
L=Significantly Rare, Limited to NC and adjacent states
***State Status not listed
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Histaric Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified as 36 CFR Part 800. Sectian 106 requires Federal
agencies to take into account the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted
projects) on properties listed in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
and to afford the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on
such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on July 29, 2003. All structures
within the APE were photographed, and later an NCDOT staff architectural historian reviewed these
photographs. There were 12 structures within the APE over fifty years of age, and all were
determined to be ineligible for the National Register of Historic Places by the NCDOT staff
architectural historian. The photographs were shown to the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
in a meeting on September 30, 2003. At that meeting HPO staff concurred that none of the 12
structures were eligible for the National Register and a form was signed that reflects these findings.
Therefore there are no National Register listed or National Register eligible properties within the APE
for this project. Copies of all correspondence and the concurrence form are included in Appendix A.
C. Archaeology
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. There are no known
archaeological sites within the proposed project area, and no archaeological investigation needed to
be conducted (see letter dated May 6, 2005 in Appendix A).
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
20

The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No substantial change
in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right of way acquisition will be limited.
No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or
local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed project will not require right-of--way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
section 4{f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (49 U.S.C. 303).
No North Carolina Geodetic Survey control monuments will be impacted during construction of this
project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the
potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and construction projects.
Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS).
Since there are no prime or important farmlands in the irrunediate vicinity of the proposed bridge the
Farmland Protection Policy does not apply.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional emission
analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required_
This project is located in Lenoir County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project
is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air
quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. Therefore, the project's impact
on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North
Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA
and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Department of Human
Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites, no regulated or
unregulated landfills or dumpsites with in the project area. No facility with underground storage tanks
(UST) was identified in the project vicinity.
21

Lenoir County is a participant in the Federal Flood Insurance Program_ The bridge is located within a
Detailed Study Area. The new structure should be designed to match or lower the existing 100-year
storm elevation upstream of the roadway. Since the proposed replacement for Bridge No. 9 would be a
structure similar in waterway opening size, it is not anticipated that it will have any significant adverse
impact on the existing floodplain and floodway. The proposed replacement will not adversely affect the
floodplain. The proposed alternatives will not modify flow characteristics and will have a minimal
impact on floodplains due to roadway encroachment. The existing drainage patterns and groundwater
will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
IX. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
A mailing list was developed based upon property owners located near the bridge. Approximately
seventeen names are included on the list. Newsletters were mailed early in the planning process to the
nearby property owners and local officials. A copy of the newsletter is attached in Appendix B. No
responses in opposition to replacing the bridge were received.
X. UNRESOLVED ISSUES AND AREAS OF CONTROVERSY
No unresolved issues or areas of controversy have been identified during the planning process and none
are anticipated.
XI. AGENCY COMMENTS
Scoping letters were sent to the following agencies listed below. Agencies that responded are marked
with an asterisk (*). Comment letters are included in Appendix A.
Federal Agencies
US Fish and Wildlife Service - Raleigh*
US Army Corps of Engineers Washington
US Army Corps of Engineers -Wilmington
Environmental Protection Agency -Raleigh
National Marine Fisheries -Beaufort
US Geological Survey -Raleigh
State Agencies
NC Wildlife Resources Commission*
NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources
NC Division of Water Quality
NC Department of Cultural Resources*
NC Division of Marine Fisheries
22

• r

Regional and Local A~:encies
Lenoir County Schools
Lenoir County Schools -Transportation Department*
Lenoir County*
Lenoir County EMS
Down East &. Eastern Carolina RPO
The following are comments received during the scoping process:
l . United States Department of the Interior -Fish and Wildlife Service
Comment: "Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the maximum extent practical."
Response: The preferred alternate, Alternative A replaces the existing bridge in the existing
location and minimizes natural environment impacts.
Comment: "Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site
bridges."
Response: An off-site detour will be utilized for this project.
Comment: "Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish
spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons. ....The general moratorium period for anadromous
fish is February 1 S- June 30."
Response: The Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be implemented,
as applicable.
Comment. "The bridge design should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology
or impede fish passage."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design.
Comment: "Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in
damming or constriction of the channel or flood plain."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location and the final bridge length will be
determined during final design_
2. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment: "We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge."
Response: The bridge will be replaced with a bridge in the existing location.
23

3. County of Lenoir
Comment: "...There are churches in the area whose parishioners use NC 55 and the bridge over
Jericho Run. Efficient replacement of the bridge will reduce the inconvenience the effort will
place on those churches."
Response: The bridge will be replaced in the existing location with a cored slab bridge which
will provide a minimum amount of time that the road is closed.
Comment: "Clearly marked Detours will be required to minimize the adverse effects of any
closure of the bridge over Jericho Run. It has been suggested that alternatives for West bound
traffic both North (at Faulkner Road) and South (at Tower Hill Road and Dunn Road} be offered
and clearly marked to reduce confusion for travelers during the replacement process."
Response: The detour route will be clearly marked with signs.
Comment: "Maintaining clean water and a healthy ecosystem with this project should be insured
during the planning, design, and construction of the new bridge and the demolition of the old
one."
Response: The bridge is being replaced in the existing location which will ensure a minimal
amount of impacts to the natural environment.
24

a {~.
~ - - - -.
-
FIGURES
Figure i - Vicinity Map
Figure 2A - Alternate A (Preferred)
Figure 2B - Alternate B
Figure 3 - Photographs of Bridge No. 9
Figure 4 - Typical Roadway Section
Figure 5 - FEMA Floodplain Map
Figure 6 - Natural Communities Map

G R
~ ~~
~_ ~ ~
Y
~
.
-~, v.
~~. ~~ ,~,
~.

.,
suK.Mp s
~
„ nt ,,.~, L N
i
.. it
ArLe.. ~.~.. .

-KOr S
..a«z,.. ~... .. Pinki4ili
i
- e
•~
1742
,183
+ . ~ ~ 1844 18 40
i +•
~`++~+ a/~.~+~` 's+ t
Q • , • ,`
•~ ~ ~~
1732 ~+ ~ ~
D
o ;~
1743 ~~
~~ ~
~~ •
r.
BrICF10 `+• - i
ChUfGh . ••
~' ~
1732 ~~ ~ ~••,
.~ , ~
••
55
~, / ` •
.~~0
+~~++ Calvary ~~•~
Church e ~'
• r~~
T~ ~.r
C ~ .-~+
181D
~ .,~',.
i /~
I /[~~7
1745 ` •~ o0
7
~ RetsQ xec ! 812 ~ 1611
~~. 111 ~AyQen ~! ' a~
ar saasvat ti
Hapkerifs ~ t ~ ,
1 j , i
2r ~'
~ •~" noon.-. r~:ti
E ~~; ~ "' ^: 1 O 1 2 MILES
5~sie~e R
e ~' '~ r 1 O 1 2 KILOMETERS
f orE
*; " SCALE
_,
~=i~ ~rC R '
_:•
is F N~ ~h
i R ;~ ~~ LEGE11tD
~~ t "' ° ~. Studied Detour
r' ~ ~ ~ Route
~. ~
•PlessarrH:!! T1t+nz=~
_ ~ ~~ 1

y NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
E~ ~~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
~'' ~~'' ~ t~ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
I.~vorR covNTY
BRIDGE NO. 9 ON NC SS
OVER , jERICHO RUN
TIP NO. B~1172
VICINITY MA.P
FIGURE 1

~`
€~~
i~°
~~ ~.~°

~,
°~°""
GR~

t' 2'
PS PS
~ .O2 ~
~ .O2 .Ol
v~~, ~
~`~ TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION
rr ~N iNESE plSt-NCES M~~tE SLOPES OutS10E t~ LYTS 6s I
TO X31, TIE pISi~NCE 6ECO~S v-RUBLE ~-Np TIC I~AlI, OR wMr.
SLOPE YAMIIAMEO.
TYPICAL BRIDGE SECTION
EKIST~IG BR~DCE IENGTH I$ 22 FT,
• ~oaraxu ~orx ~oEO ouE ro sv~~o
6~ rr Iq~,O•
v~Ru-BLE
~ _ SLOPE
ORICMUL
TRAFFIC DATA
ADT 2002 .x,000 LOS B
ADT 2004 3,200 LOS B
ADT 2030 5,700 LOS C
DUAL 5%
TTST 8%
FI/NCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION.
RUR,9L h1~OR COLLECTOR

B-4172 LENOIR COUNTY
Mon Jul 19 13:53:30 EDT 2004
~d
.~.r
~~ ' -y+.
~
~ ._,~,
~-
~
~ >;
~:_
. ;%;

as
EY139~8~ ~53'~.~~
,

~
x ~
~ I~l
.:i3' N~~ C~.i,

# ~; ~
rv
Lle_ef2r'U"i S.
YsY'd1 {Y.Cj

~`~ ~a~~.~~s:-~~s,~

'i•l~~raa~a~s:x~
~s'.s'il S1"'j ~'~~C~Th"3t5
kF~ ;ice >1:.~th~~r~
J y. t f xq'r~e~af~:
Y'~ ~I,:~Twsp^~'
_~I9 _ ' NC :~oczrr3.sr'y ~2.c~}"
.air+~~
FENA5 ODO~ERATI NG ~ TECN WCI~EIRTNER
.C. Floodplain Mapping InForma#ion Systen
On-Line Mapping Application Provides by the
Norffi Carolina Floodplairt Mapping Program
Disclaimer: this is nort a legally binding (FIRM Flood
Insurance Rate 11l6p and should nat be used as such.

NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
FEMA FLOODPLAIN MAP I
FIGURE S

L.ec~+l; n d
Fi:.i^~3r°.

f ri7C/..I 3~~9t3-r:~

iCiC~~x tcrod '~lceer>-s sac~ee.'~: ar
5,~:~

sth
J.31.4j ,- ~. ~).cxxi ^q ,% cr~ ~'~,w"iacl .~.;
y=xa,, .~~tx~~~ = -~~~~ ~~w~~.

S1aFa{ ~.r,d~,"y
i', cr~~l ~v.F~
- i~1
LENOIR COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 9 ON NC 55
OVER JERICHO RUN
TIP NO. B~172

~,~
~ ~ '~ ~
> ~ ~'
_ a .,
~~~~~~
~~~~
~ H
~ ~
<
, ~,;
~"

r~°s
~°
~
r
~~ ~
~~~ ~~
~,_
~ ~'
^,~~~
,.,;~;t
~~:
,~'
,~~'
~~"
~~.P
~~
~~
~°;~a

''
~:
~.t"
~:
~~;:

Q4~S~E,NT OF Tti~y United States Department of the Interior ;~,~ .
:.
H o FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE t - ~"~ =~ ~"" ~°
~ a
_ ~ , Raleigh Field Office ~s,; = a
_- Pou Office Box 33726 ~-'
~4RC 3 ts~9 Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 _
January 13, 2004 '~'
_ ; ~;~. `_ _ V ~~0~.
'~~.~ 'CT 'J~ j,;ti,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. ~ °~'~t~'~~A~
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of the following
nine bridges:
• B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 on NC 32 over Broad Creek
• B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek
• B-4020, Beaufort/Pitt County, Bridge No. 8 on SR 1403 over Tranters Greek
• B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 on SR 1 i 24 over Branch of Newport River
• B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 on NC 561 over Looking Glass Swamp
• B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 on NC 5 5 over Jericho Run
• B-4212, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 on NC 35 over Kirby's Creek
• B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 on SR 1918 over Carraway Creek
• B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 on SR 1001 over Bloomery Swamp
These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C:. 661-667d) and section '~ of the Endangered Species Act
(ESA) of 1973, as amended {16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to f sh and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum .extent practical; .
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, every effort should be made to identify
compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project platLning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities
to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation easements, land trusts or by

other means should be explored at the outset;
3. Off-site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
f sh and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation, including
trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 -June 30;
5. New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
6. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through a
vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large enough
to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
S. The bridge designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
A list of federally protected species for each county in North Carolina can be found at http://nc-
es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html . Additional information about the habitats in which each species is
often found can also be found at httti://endangered.fws.gov . Please note, the use of the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program data should not be substituted for actual field surveys if
suitable habitat occurs near the project site. If suitable habitat exists in the project area, we
recommend that biological surveys for the listed species be conducted and submitted to us for
review. All survey documentation must include survey methodologies and results.
We do not have any specif c comments for the individual projects, with the exception of the
following two:

8-4020, BeaufortJPitt County -There is a past occurrence of the West Indian manatee
(Trichechus manatus} less than one mile south of the project area. The Service's
Guidelines For Avoiding Impacts To The West Indian Manatee: Precautionary
Measures for Construction Activities in North Carolina Waters should be
implemented to minimize impacts to this species. These guidelines can be found at
htta://nc-es.fws. gov/eslpubiications.htrnl .
B-4055, Carteret County -There are known occurrences of red-cockaded woodpeckers
(Picoides borealis) and rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia} within two
and three miles, respectively, of the project area. If habitat for these or any other listed
species occurs at the site, appropriate surveys should be conducted. In addition, this site
occurs within the Croatan Game Lands area. Impacts to this protected area should be
minimized to the maximum extent practical.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that maybe required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classif cation scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat and waters of the US;

7. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at {919) 856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
~~~~-~~2.~~~
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Mike Bell, USACE, Washington, NC
Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
John Hennessy, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC

{~ North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Directar
MEMORANDUM
TO. Elmo Vance
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ~~ ~~.i~/ `_
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: February 5, 2004
SLFBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Beaufort, Carteret, Halifax, Lenoir,
Northampton, Wayne, and Wilson, counties. TIP Nos. B-4018, B-4019, B-4020,
B-4055', B-4132; B-4172, B-4212, B-4321, and B-4326.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d)_
Our standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
1lailin ;Address: I~i~-i.,ir,n cat I;~!<:nd I=i~il~rirs (~ ' 1 flail Sei-rice ~~enscr • I~.zlei~h, NC ?7694- l ?' i
Telephone: '~~ ] 9j'_~ ;-3(~3 i e:~t. ~S ( Fax: "-19 ? `_ ~-?Fi-}3 -

Bridge Memo
February 5, 2004
~. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank {riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge_
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual .`404' permit_
S. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Pdlr.-~I' n o ~o,~~.,~
should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be `~"ri° °dt
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10_ In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities_ Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events_
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causewaysj, and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:

Bridge Memo
February 5, 2004
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at Least 1 foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodp-lain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silled barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-~0 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
'! . disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-yeas f oodplain. Approach f lIs should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4018, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 104 over Broad Creek on NC 32. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species are found in
this portion of Broad Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February i5 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.

Bridge Memo
February 5, 2004
2. B-4019, Beaufort County, Bridge No. 103 over Runyon Creek on NC 32. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Runyon Creek, including striped bass, American shad, ever
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous f sh passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30_ Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-4020, Beaufort County, Bridge No. S over Tranter's Creek on SR 1403. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this portion of Tranter's Creek, including striped bass, American shad, river
herring, and hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
September 30_ Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-4055, Carteret County, Bridge No. 22 over Branch of Newport River on SR 1124. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Adult and juvenile anadromous species
are found in this area, including striped bass, American shad, blueback herring, and
hickory shad. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish
passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to September 30.
Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4132, Halifax County, Bridge No. 97 over Looking Glass Swamp on NC 561. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Looking Glass Swamp, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT
should follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an
in-water work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations
apply.
6. B-4172, Lenoir County, Bridge No. 9 over Jericho Run on NC 55. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-42 i2, Northampton County, Bridge No. 77 over Kirby's Creek on NC 35. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Kirby's Creek, including alewife and blueback herring. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June 15. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4321, Wayne County, Bridge No. 17 over Caraway Creek on SR 1918. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Anadromous species are found in this
portion of Caraway Creek, including alewife and blueback hemng. NCDOT should
follow all stream crossing guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water
work moratorium from February 15 to June I5. Standard recommendations apply.
9_ B-4326, Wilson County, Bridge No. 79 over Bloomery Swamp on SR 1001. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shadowed during initial bridge installation.
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box

Bridge Memo 5 February 5, 2004
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S_ Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

10i09~2003 09:42 NC DOT PDEA i 96779744
NO. 667 [i?03
Federaf Aid ~ BRSTP-55(21) 77P # H-4172 County: Lenour
C_ ONGURRENCI•K FARM FUR P~OPEl~T7ES NDT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NAT~Q.i`TAT. REGISTER t~F I[YSTORiC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Hridge No. 9 on NC SS over Jericho Run
Un 09/30i20(?3, nepresentarive9 of the
[~~~NQrt2~ Carolina Departanent of Traxtsporuition (NCQGT}
[~~//~Fede~ral Highway Administration (FI3WA}
[~/ Nord, Car©lina State Historic Preservation OfFcce (HPO}
^ Other
Reviewed the snbjeer project at
~] Scoping meeting
®~ Historic $rchitectus-AL resources photograph review sessiodconsultation
[] Other
All parties present egneed
^ There ere no properties over fifty years old within the project's area bf potential efi'ects.
There are nQ properties labs Chart fifty years old which aro considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
[~ There are laropertiea over fifty years old wit2Sin the project's Area ofPotenti8l Effects (APE), but based an the
bust ~ al ini'orma~ on available and the ph~orngraphs of aACh property, the propcriy identiFied as
~~ ~ ~ ~Y ~ (~~~~~ is considered- not eli~ibla for We Natioc~al
Re~iste, at:d no further evaluation a if t is necessary.
There are rio National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's Area of potential effects.
All properties greater than 50 years of age lateted in. the APE have bean considered at this cnnsuitetion, and based
up©st the above concurrence. ail compliQnce for historic architectwe with Section lOb afthe Nadonal Historic
,~,/ Preserrratir~n Act and G5 121-i2(a) has naafi completed far this project.
l.~d' There arse no Itistaric properties .effected. by this project. (Attach any Hates ar rlac~renta as needed
Signed:
Representati , l+t DO Date
D
FHWA. for the Division Ad '~tistrator, or aihez FederAl Agency Date
~ ~! 3~ ~~
Re resentative, [IPO Date
~~ [~
State Iistoric Preservation Officer aEe
If s survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fortn and the attached list will be inclu,ded_

z_'
* {'~ .1 .5. t ~ t lsi L ~ (~'lIII~~
~:
~~ ~~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resoui~~s
State Historic Preservation O#~ce
Peter B. Sandbeck, Administrator
Michael ~'. Easiey, Governor Office of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Teffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
Map 6, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck ~J~.•~ P~.~.,r/ -~0~~
SUBJECT: Federal Categorical Exclusion, Bridge 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run, TIP B-4172,
Lenoir County, ER 04-0107
Thank you fox pour letter of March 22, 2005, transmitting the Categorical Exclusion. (CE) for the above
project. We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 10G 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 919/733-47G3. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: John F. Sullivan
NCDOT, Federal Highway Administration
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh NC 4617 Ma+1 Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919)733-654T/715-4801
SURVEY 8c PLAi~iNING 515 N. Blount Street, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-4801

n4~~ei~ee4 stir ee NC DOT PDEA -~ 96779744 t~.500 D0Z
~~~f
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reaourets
Stste Hlaiorac Preservstian Office
Mitbael F. Easley, Governor Division of His[oriaal Rcsourcxs
Lisbeth G Evans. Secretary David L S_ Brflvk, Diroctor
Jury J. Crow. Depaty Secre~uy
Oboe ofArthives gad Flory
February ] 8, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: SracepBaldavin --` ~~tr*-~,~ ~_,,,.
Project Development nlsd Environmental Analysis
NCDOT Division of Iii hways
FRGM: David $sook G~
SLTS]ECT: Request foz Comments fos Group 54 Bridge Replacemenu:
Badge No. 1Q4 on NC 32 aver Broad Creep, Ii-40] B, Beaufort County, ERD4-©102
Bridge No_ 143 on NC 32 over Runyon Creek, $-4019, Beaufort Couasrg, £RA4--0103
Bridgt No. 8 on SR 1403 over 'I'rantess Creek, S-0U20, Heaufortf Pitt Counties, ER04-0]04
Bridge No. 22 ors SR ] 124 over Branch of Newport River, B-4055, Carteret Couutp, BRD4-©145
Bridge No. 97 on I~7C 561 over Lookirsg Glass Swamp, B~t132, Halifax County, ER04-0106
Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jeacho Rua, B-4172, Lenoir Coeusty, £R04-01 Q7
Bridge No. 77 on NC 35 Dues I{irby's Creek, B-4212, Northampton County, £R04-0078
Blidge-3~To. 17 on SR 1918 over Creek, 8-4321,'Wayne Cooney, £R04-0108...
Bridge No. 79 on SR 1001 over Blooasery Savarnp, B-4326, Wilson Couatp, ER04-Q109
Thank you for your letters of ~anuary 8, 2004, concerzursg the above projects.
We are unable to comrssent on the patcsstial effect of these psojects on cultural historic resources until we receive
further iafoursation.
Please forward a labeled 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle rrsstp for each of the about projects clearly indicating the
project viciaitp, lncatiori, and teanirLi. Iat addition, please iraclude the name of the quadrangle zaap.
There are no known archaeological sites within, the proposed pxajeet area. Based orl our knowledge of the area, it
is itnlikelp thzt guy archaeological resvvsces that essay be eligible for totschasioa is the National R,eg6,isrec of
Historic Places will be affected by the project We, therefoze, recommend dZak no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with tPiis project.. ,
Ywo copies of the resulting archae414sg~cal-swrvep-report, as well as one cope of the appropriate Site forms,
should bz forwarded to us for review .and comment as soon as they are available and well in advance of ariy
consuvcaon activities.
wrNV.hpadersute~-e.us
I.o~tlos MALliag Address TelepboselEas
IfrY3JYQN[SI'AAITON SE17 N- $lonnt SL Rslcigh, NG 4617 Moil 5etviae Gager, Raleigh, NG 27599-4617 [phone] •733-E653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount SL Raleigh, NC 4617 Mai! Sa-v,x C.asacs, Yiplei~h, NC 2'r649~6! 7 (919) 733347 .7I5~601
SURVEY sc PL.ATOVIlVG 515 N- 9lavar 5L ttOkigh. NC -461.7 t13ai1 Service Ce:utr, it^laigh. NC 27699-46I 7 [phone] •7]S-4$Ot .

ev~~e~~~a 08.00 NC DDT PDER ~ 967?9?44
February l 8, 2004
Page 2
ND . S~ D05
•
"Ihe above cammen=s aze raxdc puzsusnt tv Section 106 of the Nanonsil i~sCOaC Preservzaon Act and the
Advisory CounaI do Histoac Preservation's Rcgvlations for Compliance wish Section 106 codified ac 3b CFR
Parr S00_
Thank you for pour cooperation and consideraaon_ If you have quesooas coacerruug the above co~'~t,
contzcr Renee Gledhill-Eazley, envisot~mentsl rev~i,ew coordi~aata=, ac 919/733-4763. In all future tommunicstion_.
concerning this project, please cite the above refe:eased araclassg nwmh~=.
cc_ ~Iviary Pape Fuzr, NCDOT
Matt Wilkersos~, NCDOT

~3~20~Z884 24:49 NC DOT PDEA -~ 96779744 N0.30B D0z
County Qf Leaoir
Board of Commissioners
Qscar F_ fltrring, Jr_, Chairrna3'S Lenoir County Courthouse
Chris Humphrty, Vict•Ch©irmt-n Post Oif'ice Bax3289
Jackie Brown 130 SontA Queest Street
Gcnrge W. Graham, Jr. gewL at+ ¢.~. Kinston, NC 28502
Ear11-Larper t„!~ ~O
$ ~
Margutrite'4v;tizfield
Y'i
W °
~
~ Telephone: {252) 359-6450
1
ttaran
aysec z
~ ~ tax: (252) 559-646
~ -i
roan Dauer, CDUnYy ManagerlClefk LO ChC BOerd ~,m ~~C ~~ ~~'-
Rtbirald H. Lee, Assc County Mnnt~¢r ~08~ cw~'~~K
Lashanda .Aytch, Administre~tive Sc~retary -
.r~uary 1 ~, 2ooa l~eA ~ o ~o~
Cne o J- 1-ho a PbD. m ~
g ry rp APO o~v~stoer o~ aQ~
- -._.... _ . Envir~amerttai Managerx~en# T3irectcar _. _ .._ ~'oy ~T '~~!'yAYS. ~P~Q~ - _ -. __
laro'ect Develo ment and )/nvirontnentai Anal sis $ranch- ~y~ pE~`LO°~~~ ~
Norcfi Carolina Department of Transportation-- -~•"
i X44 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27b99-I34$
Subject: Request for comrrienta_for.~Cirr~up-SQ-fridge Replacement Project 8-4172
Dear Dr. Thorpe, FhD:
As Chairman of the Lenoir Ceunty_.Tr ~' ia.-Coinrx~ittee-I arn-responding-to .your]~etter_tQ
~~ Osear Herring, Chaircna~i of the Lenoir County Board of Commissioners dated 7anuary S, 2004.
Your- let~ef-request ec~~}t~~rt~-can-the-Ss~.ial,_Eeano~nie; Der~ograghie; I:and- Dse, and
Environmental conditions near Bridge. No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run.
D Snci~tZ Conditi©ns
The area. served by this.bridge..is_.fQUnd:in.rnral.I..enair Cnunty_..NC.SS serves business as.inrell..ag
residential traffic. Tlie residential prnperry in the area will experience the greatest benefit from a
safe bridge over Yeri~cho Run; yet-they also will-experience-the-greatest inconvenience &o>~~~an~-.
closure of the roadway w.txile the bridge is being replaced and improved. There are Churches in
. -
- ~~--~--- - rth~~~area whose parislii~on~rs-use~NG S~-atxd-th.~-bridge t}ver ~Jericho~Run: Et'Fcient replac~meni
of the bridge will reduce the inconvenience the effort vv111 place on those churches_
Erne©rnic limpact
hTC 55 and thereby.the_Bridge-o~re~Yerieho_Rur~serves as a direct-route .for individuals tra~reling,
into the City of Kinston for employment. Freight and Goods from the Kinston azea Traveling to
t)ie Fort Barnwell are$-~rill~also-be-disropted-dumirrgthis process- .Ctefu-l~r mark~cd-Detours will~be-.
required to minimize the adverse effects of any closure of the bridge. over rerichv Run. It_ has
been suggested that alternatives for West bound traffic both North (at Faulkner Road) and South
(at Tavsrer Hili Road and. Dunn-Road} be-$ffer~d -anti clearly n~arlCeef to -reduce -confuses-for.,
travelers during the replac~ezraentpxocess~_
~ Demogrsa<phic
The population served. by .this -pralect_.shnuld. Horror the diversity - of the rest of Rural Lenail<
County. l
CiMy Oc~uxaennV.enoir Cooney T.anapnrlaliow~OeiAge ovv Jerietln YLnn ~.6oe

03~ 1012004 14.49 NC DDT PDEA -~ 96779744 ND .Sag C~03
y Land use
The Lenoir County Futtue Land.U.se.Plea_f©r_xhe_properCy.stuxouoding this project is
"Conservation". The Zalung for that area is "Rural."_ Vi~ith knowledge of the potential f4r_.
flooding in that immediate area_xhe_Lenoir.County plan.r~ing_department's Dzreetor Chris S.esherg,
offered no objection to this hridge replacement project-
. 9 Enviranm~ntat
.lericlao Ru.n is a minor. trilZ.utary. to.. the.. Neese River, a... vitally. iinporzant Natural Resource.
lbtaintaining clean tvAter and a healthy ecosystem with this project should be insured during the
planning,. design and coltgtruction_af..the new bridge as well as.the .demolition of the old one.
1 wish. to thank you for considering the local issues i.n regards to this project. if 1 can be:any
additional assistance with this matter please fee! free to conta6ct ~m~.
Sincerely:
..
Russell H. Rhodes, 3r.
Lenoir County Tran,,-poifation~Comanittee-- Chairman....
Meuse Sport Shop, Inc.
225 E. New Bern Road
Kinston, NG 28~U4
252-527-5458
_ 252-523-3$79 fax
nsportsl~a earthlink.net
Cc. Oscar Herring, Cl-~irntanrLertoir..Cuu.i~ty Commissionez~
Lenoir County Commissioners
Lenoir County TransgQratiorl.C,ammiuee _Members.,
Tohn. Bauer, Lenoir County Manager

02i06i2004 BB:59 NC DBT PDEA ~ 96'7'79'744 NO. 165 DB1
s
~r
~enoi~- Caunty ~'ublic S~haols
Transportation l~epartni~nt ~~'v~~'
Anthony Mitchell Iirector ~~
1 bz4 HWY l 1 /55.
Kinston, NC 28504 ,~ ~pl~ o~
(252j 52?--7492 ~ ~~N ~' ~~
t~~t [phone] `T ~ o' .~.~°'~ ~~~y
I
1Vliatrclt xG, 2003 ~~~~~A ~u~ ~ ~~p\~ '~
Tv. William T. Goodwin. !r. PI3
Project pevel©pment & Environtrtental Analysis Drench
From: Arythony MitchelE ~~-
Schaol Transportation Director
1 G24 ~1.WY 11155
Kinston, lVC Z85Q4
Subject: Replacement of bridge No_ 9 on NC 55 over ]ericho ll~un, Lenoir County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRS"1'Y-SS(21 j_ Stalts Project No. 8.120080 !,TIP
No_ B-4172
At this lime there are five school buses routed ntf the proposed segment of NC 55 over
Jericho Run that is to be replaced. All iive schQ~vl buses cttn be reroctted.
csb
Rost~iY Fax f~9ote 7671 Date pa°~,g~-
Ta F~nm E ~v~r+e ~/A.~ u .
GoJDePt Gu. -i(,,Q ~ OOP .
P{'ICrea ~ Phpne ~
Feu M
'~,~_

-,~

/~~/T ~~~/r T ~~~f_71 /~1/~Y/T'~_ R f NORTH C'4.P
h `~OF pyOR7H C,~RG~~ .L ~ ~ I 1 ~~J~J i i J~.i a ~R~~O OG~
b
~ ~
~ ''` Lenoir County
o For Replacement of Bridge No. 9 ~ 2
Over Jericho Run On NC 55 'pr
T41~`cHTpsrQwNSQO~~r TIP Project No. 8-4172 '~FHTaFrRe•~sp°~
This newsletter is published by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to inform citizens of the
alternates for the proposed replacement and road closure of Bridge No. 9 on NC 55 over Jericho Run (TIP Project No.
B-4172). This newsletter gives an overview of the steps in the project development process and presents the bridge
replacement alternatives evaluated.
Sl r.rys 1~ rSV`'~'~S'S'
~`€ Step 5 Ea~virornnental Diocument
Step 5 Public Involvement
Step 4 Sejectian of Preferred Alternative
_ Step 3 Fxiviramnetrtal. Studies
Step 2 Alternatives Iaevelaprrient
Step 1 Project Initiatiorl/Sooping
THE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
During Step 1 of the project development process,
information was collected on the existing human and
natural environments. This information was used to
identify preliminary alternatives for replacing Bridge
No. 9. In Step 2, the preliminary alternatives were
evaluated and two "build" alternatives were selected
for detailed environmental studies. Steps 3 and 4
involved conducting the detailed environmental
studies for the "build" alternatives and selecting a
preferred alternative. The build alternatives were:
Alternate A (Preferred), replacing the existing
bridge at the existing location, while maintaining
traff c by an off-site detour route is the preferred
alternate. Alternate A was selected because of the
comparatively lower construction cost, lower
environmental impacts, and lesser construction time
associated with it. The off-site detour is along SR
1810 (Tower Hill Road), SR 1811 (Dunn Family
Road), SR 1745 (Cunningham Road}, and NC 11155
approximately 3.3 miles in length.
Alternate B replaces the bridge on existing alignment.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an
on-site temporary detour structure located south of the
existing bridge. Alternate B was not chosen because it
has comparatively higher natural environment impacts
and construction cost.
The NCDOT is aware that citizens living in the
proposed project area want to know the potential effects
of the project on their homes and businesses. However,
exact information is not available at this stage in the
planning process. Additional design work will be
performed before the actual right-of--way limits can be
established. This newsletter is to inform the public of
the replacement of Bridge No. 9 and solicit your input
on the project.
Planning and envirorunental studies for this project are
in progress. The Federal Categorical Exclusion (CE) is
scheduled for approval in February 2005. The CE will
address the potential impacts of the proposed bridge
replacement on the human and natural environments
and will include recommended design criteria for the
project. Input received from the public will be included
in the decision making process.
The right of way date for this project is 2/17/06, and the
construction date is 2/20/07.
Proiect Cosis: Alt. A Alt. B
Right of way costs - $11,000 $37,000
Construction costs - $550,000 $800,000
Total costs - $56I,OOD $837,000

`~O~ NORTH C,A o f ~yOR7}{ ~4
yP °`'~ NEWSLE7''TER ~~r`~ °~~ ~ .
'k 'R Public involvement is an important part of the project planning process. The '~` y`
o North Carolina Department of Transportation is committed to ensuring that all °. ~
9-r,, ~~ issues of public concern are considered. Please send your comments to one of the 94r Pmt
~F~7°FTRAK~'~O~ addresses listed below. Your comments are important to us? ~,Ftir°s~AHSeo
~(~ ~,/ /~ Ms. Karen B. Taylor, P.E. or Mr. Greg Purvis, P.E.
NCD~T - PD&EA Branch Wang Engineering
1548 Mail Service Center 15200 Weston Parkway, Suite 101 F
`\~_ Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548 Cary, North Carolina 27513
[phone], ext. 223 [phone]
~ emuil:khtuy~loi-(rr;dnt.statc.nc~.us enruila;~~tsr~~es ( ii'[7/7~-C'/t~r1J2E'EI"172:,=.c~~»>t
if you have transportation questions on other projects,
call the NCDOT Customer Service Office tall-free at 1-877-DOT-4YOU,
LENOiR COUNTY
Replacement of 6ridgs No. 9
Over Jericho Run
On NC 55
TIP PROJECT NO. B-4172
~.-..
ss
•~ „ _
"~ .~ -
. •~~ ~,;
`•.-••r'"~ $."a'~' _ BRIDGE NO. 8
~~ ~~'•. =
~. . _. -
' (Ct1NN/NGNAM RD.) SR 1810
~ (TOWER lilLL RD.) h,
J, , SR 1811
~ (DUNK FAMILY RD.)
,~
~ -' "~~
s
LEGEND
Studied Detoacr Route
Approximate Detour I.engsh = 3.3 miles
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
~~~aF µoerH c,~,~G
~~ ~~
yr yt
a z
o
h
~F~T Of TSt A~s4O

4 -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
Project/site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/04104
ApplicantlOwner: NGDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: ECOSCIenCe GOr oration /Scott Dads state: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: SA13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: wetland
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9.
2. Im atiens ca ensis H FACW 10.
3. Lernna sp. H OBL 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g_ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC- . 100%
Remarks:
i.svnor~e r~r±v
^ Recorded Data {Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary lndicators:
~ Inundated '
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators- (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. 4 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth io Saturated Soil (in.) ^ Other {Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

sorts
~ Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Kalmla loamy Sand Drainage Class: WD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): TypiC Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
{inches) Horizon ~Munsell Moist) {MunseN Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0+ 10yr 5I1 loamy sand
Hydric Soi! Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
® Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other {Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) {Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/D2

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands ©elineatiort Manual)
Project site: 6-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6f04/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: ECOSCIenCe COr oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Dssturbed/Maintained
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect iD: SA13
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
If needed, explain on reverse.)
~r~r~-wr~~a^
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species S#ratum Indicator
1. Festuca sp. H - 9.
2. Taraxacum of#icinale H FACU 10.
3. 19 .
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
g- 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAG- . <50%
Remarks:
uvr~o~~ r~r±v
^ Recorded Data {Describe in Remarks):
Q Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Raot Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Dep#h to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

bVILJ
~ Map Unit Name
WD
(Series and Phase): Kalmia loamy Sand Drainage Class:
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): TypIC Hap ludUltS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profle Descriptions:
Depth
Matrix Color
Mottle Colo
rs Mottle Abundance/
Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
O-3 10yr 412 loamy sand
3+ 10yr 5/6 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histoso! ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Lay er in Sandy Soils
^ 5ulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
~~^ w.^r~ ^Z~Y~owwIS1AT1~'lAl
rr~. ^ ~r^^~v ........_.~.~..
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? DYes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ®No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 'Il02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Projecdsite: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6104/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: DisturbedlMaintained
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: SE04
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: wefiand
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Impatiens capensis H FACW 9.
2. 10.
3_ 11.
~}. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14-
7, 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excludin FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
uvnian~ nw
^ Recorded Data {Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrolagy Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
® inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required}:
Depth of Surface Water: 2 {in.) ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-NeuVal Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: {in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns Sandy foam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup): Aquic Hapludults Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colo rs Mottle Abundance/ Tex#u re, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist) SizelCon#rast Structure, etc,
0-4 10yr 3/3 loamy sand
4+ 10yr 4/1 10yr 4l6 25% loamy sand
Hydric Soil indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
[~ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Suifidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
® Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils Lis#
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check} (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
{1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manua!)
Pro}ectlsite: 8-4172, NG 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/04/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor oration / Sco#t Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect 1D: SE04
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
(If needed, explain on reverse.}
VCVC IHIfV1V
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Geranium carotinianum H - 9•
2. Festuca sp. H - 10.
3. Rosa multiflora S UPL 11.
4 12.
5 13.
8. 14.
7 15.
8. 1fi.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC-}. X66%
Remarks:
f 1 ^ vlw ~...vv
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available
Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposiks
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surtace Water: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(series and Phase): Johns Sandy loam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): AgUIC Ha pludultS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Cofor Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
{inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist} Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
O-3 1 Oyr 4/2 loamy sand
3+ 10yr 5/6 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Conten# in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Suifidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No
Hydric Soiis Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ®No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetiands Delineation Manual)
ProjectlSite: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 8/04/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Da Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: CD02
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Piot ID: wetland
(lf needed, explain on reverse.)
va-v~~~
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9.
2. Typha angustifolia H OBL 10.
3. Boehmeria cylindrica H FACW+ 11.
4. Platanus occidentalis S FACW 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16-
Percent of Dominant Species that are OSL, FACW or FAC
excludin FAC- . 100%

Remarks:
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators {2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.} ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 10 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ^ Other {Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
~ Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns sandy IOam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aqu3C Ha eIUdUItS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colo rs Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) SizelContrast Structure, etc,
0-6 10yr 3/1 loam
6-10 10yr 3/1 sandy loam
10+ 2.5y 5/2 10yr 413 10% sandy clay loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Suffidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
1 LAffVU Ut 1 tK1Y1l1VAl IVIV
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) (Check}
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks
y
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/site: B-4172, NC 55 over .7ericho Run Date: 6/04104
ApplicantJOwner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: EcoScienCe Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Da Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: CD02
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
If needed, explain on reverse.)
V CL7C IHI IVIY
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominan# Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Eupatorium capillifolium H FACU 9.
2. Festuca sp. H - 10.
3. Taraxacum officinale H FACU 11.
4. Aster sp. H - 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7 15.
$ 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are DBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC- . ~5D%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators {2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) ^ Dxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.} ^ Local Soi! Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ {in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
J Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns sandy loam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup): AqulC Hap lUdultS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0+ 2.5y 3l3 sandy loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Suifidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No !s this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ®No
Remarks

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual}
Project/site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6!04!04
ApplicantfOwner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: ECOSCIence Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community [D: Alluvia! Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation}? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: SD08
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: wetland
{If needed, explain on reverse.)
~icr_~TwT~nw~
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9.
2. Saururus cernuus H OBL 10.
3. Alnus serrulata S FACW+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC- . 100%
Remarks:
~.avn~nt nrzv
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators:
^ Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 {in.) ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ {in.) ^ Loca! Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in_) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Bibb soils (frequently flooded) Drainage Class: PD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typ IC FluVagtaentS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colo rs Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-8 10yr 2/1 sandy loam
8+ 1 Oyr 4/1 10yr 412 4D% loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy 5oifs
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma C olors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/44104
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor ora#ion /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normaf Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypicai S_ituation)? ^Yes ~No Transect ID: SD08
Is the area a potential Probiem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
(if needed, explain on reverse.)
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stra#um Indicator
1. Acer rubrum S FAC 9.
2. Rubus sp. S - 10.
3. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 11.
4. Eupatorium capillifolium H FACU 12.
5. Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
excluding FAC-). X80%
Remarks:
uvnon~ nr_v
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ Na Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surtace Water: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SAILS
~ Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Bibb soi{S (frequently flooded) Drainage Class: PD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typ IC FIUVagUentS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell M oist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-6 1 Dyr 2f2 sandy loam
6+ 10yr 413 loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Sails List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check} (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ®No
Remarks
y
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Prflject/site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6104104
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: EcoSciertce Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Alluvial Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: SG08
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®Na Plot ID: wetland
(If needed, ex lain on reverse.)
r '... v ~
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 9.
2. Saururus cernuus H OBL 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
S. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excludin FAG-). 100%
Remarks:
uvr~ull~ P~/'2V
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.} ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.} ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
~ Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Norfolk loam y sand (6-10% slopes) Drainage Class: WD
Fie[d Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typ IC Paleudults Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-8 10yr 2/1 sandy loam
8+ 10yr 4/1 1 Oyr 4/2 40% loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ His#ic Epipedon ^ High Organic Con#ent in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1 /02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6104!04
ApplicantlOwner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Disturbed/Maintained
Is the site significantly disturbed {Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ISNo Transect ID: SG08
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
{If needed, ex lain on reverse.)
V F C~ ETATI[~ N
Dominant Plan# Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 . Acer rubrum S FAC 9.
2. Eupatorium capillifolium H FACU 10.
3. Ligustrum sinense S FAC 11.
4. Vitis rotundifolia V FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
T. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
{excluding FAC- . <75%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ 5ediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wettands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ {in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SAILS
Map Unit Name
{Series and Phase): Norfolk loam y Sand (6-10% slopes} Drainage Class: WD
Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup): Typ ic Paleudults Confrm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Mois#) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-6 1 Oyr 2/2 sandy loam
6+ 10yr 4/3 foamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ~No
Remarks

Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATfON
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6104104
ApplicanUOwner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor oration f Scott Davis state: Nc
DisturbedPine/Hardwood
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: CF01
is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot tD: wetland
(If needed, ex fain on reverse.)
vGr~GreT~nr.r
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S sties Stratum Indica#or
1. Impatiens capensis H FACW 9.
2. Juncus effusus H FACW+ 10.
3. 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
fl-IV17RA1 C)[~Y
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
^ Inundated
® Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
® Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 {in.) ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOfLS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns Sandy loam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy {Subgroup): Aquic Hapludu€ts Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Mansell Moist) (Mansell Moist} Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-12 10yr 2/1 loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surtace Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other {Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1/02

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
ProJecVSite: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/04104
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investi ator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Disturbed Pine/Hardwood
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect ID: CF01
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Liriodendron tulipifera C FAC 9.
2. Pinus taeda C FAC 10.
3. Phyllostachys aurea S - 11 .
4. Parthenocissus quinqufolia V FAC 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
7. 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC- . <100%
Remarks:
HY~ROL~GY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary indicators:
^ Inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 0 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pi#: 12+ (in.} ^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 12+ (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

r~
SOILS
~ Map Unit Name
{Series and Phase): Johns Sandy IOam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Aquic Hap ludults Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsep Moist) (M~nseil Moist) SizelContrast Structure, etc,
0-6 2.5y 2/2 sandy loam
6+ 10yr 513 loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Con#ent in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
^ Sultidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ^Yes ®No
Remarks
•
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 1102

QATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Pro)ect/site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/04/04
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Lenoir
Investigator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
DisturbedPine/Hardwood
Do Norma! Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Forest
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transect tD: CE04
Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: wetland
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
V FC~FT4TInN
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Empatiens capensis H FACW 9.
2. Juncos effusus H FACW+ 10.
3. Typha latifolia H OBL 11.
4. 5aururus cernuus H OBL 12.
5. Salix nigra S OBL 13.
6.Alternanthera philoxeroides H OBL 14.
7. Hydrocofyle umbellate H OBL 15.
8. 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excludin FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HVDRDL~GY
^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks):
^ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
^ Aerial Photographs
^ Other
^ No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
® inundated
^ Saturated in Upper 12 knches
® Water Marks
^ Drift Lines
^ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: ® Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: 4-18 (in.) ^ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
® Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 0 (in.) ^ Local Soil Survey Data
® FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

.~ '
SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns sandy loam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup): AgUIC Hap lUdUltS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes ®No
Pro#ile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon {Munse{i Moist) (Munsell Moist) Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-12 10yr 2f1 loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
[] Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
® Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils Lis#
® Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^No (Check) (Check)
Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^No
Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ®Yes ^No
Remarks
~, -,
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version 9/02

n
DATA FORM
~ ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: B-4172, NC 55 over Jericho Run Date: 6/04104
ApplicantlOwner: NCDDT County: Lenoir
Investigator: EcoScience Cor oration /Scott Davis State: NC
Disturbed Pine/Hardwood
Do Normal Circumstances exist on fhe site? ®Yes ^No Community ID: Forest
is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ~No Transect ID: CE04
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ®No Plot ID: upland
Qf needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator
1. Geranium carotinium H - 9.
2. Toxicodendron radicans H FAC 10.
3. Phyllostachys aurea S - 11.
4. Parthenocissus quinqufolia V FAC 12.
5. Festuca sp. H - 13.
6. 14.
7: 15.
8. 16.

Percent of Dominan# Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(exdudinq FAC-). X100%
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 (in.)
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 12+ (in.)
Depth to Saturated Sail: 12+ (in.)
etland 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 Inches
^ Water-Stained Leaves
^ Local Soil Survey Data
^ FAC-Neutral Test
^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
~ Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Johns sandy loam Drainage Class: SPD
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup}: Aquic Ha pludultS Confirm Mapped Type? ^Yes
® No
Profile Descriptions:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Col ors Mottle Abundance/ Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist} Size/Contrast Structure, etc,
0-2 2.5y 2/2 sandy loam
2t 10yr 5/3 loamy sand
Hydric Soil Indicators:
^ Histosol ^ Concretions
^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surtace Laye r in Sandy Soils
^ Sultidic Odor ^ Or anic Streakin
g g in
Sandy Soils
^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMfNATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ^Yes ®No (Check) (Check}
Wetland Hydrology Present? DYes ®No
Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No is this Sampling Point Within a Wetlands ^Yes ®No
Remarks
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92
Forms version i/02