The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20080053 Ver 1_Application_20080109 0~~~~ ~~~~ STATE of NORTH CAROLINA a /~~ ~qN ~ ~, , ~' .~ ~~ 8~r~~YgT~R c~ ~~~~~~~. "~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT GOVERNOR SECRETARY January 3, 2008 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27615-6814 Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer NCDOT Coordinator 080053 Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 17 over Cedar Creek on SR 1109 in Franklin County. WBS Element No. MA05003B The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 17 over Cedar Creek on SR 1109 in Franklin County. The existing five span bridge (total length of 150 feet) is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The Department proposes to install athree-span bridge (1 @ 56 feet, 1 @ ~5 feet and 1 @ 51 feet) with drilled piers located on the banks of Cedar Creek. Impacts to Waters of the United States The removal of the existing structure and construction of the new bridge will result in impacts to Cedar Creek (NCDENR-DWQ Index No. 28-29-(2), Best Usage Classification C NSW, HUC 03020101) in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. A small floodplain pool wetland (NCWAM assessment) is located in the project footprint. The wetland data forms and Approved Jurisdictional Determination Form are located in Appendix A. Temporary Impacts The existing bridge structure will be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris will not fall into the water. The Department proposes to provide access for the installation of drilled piers (Interior Bents 1 and 2) by installing temporary cau y~ in Cedar Creek directly adjacent to both banks, resulting in 0.02 acre._ __ temporary fill in surface waters. All in-stream material utilized during construction of the causeways wi e remove prtor to completion of the project. Permanent Impacts The Department proposes to permanently stabilize the streambanks by installittg.40_lineat__ feet of Class II rip ra that will extend up to End Bents 1 and 2. The rip rap located on the ba sn cf w'il~also offer long-term stability as-the Interior Bents 1 and 2 are located right Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704 Phone: (919) 560-6081 Fax: (919) 560-3371 ~_ ~ ~,., ~Lf _ ~ ~ d _ _~_ ,~ ~ s ~~'~ ~ ,,, ~. ~` ~ I /. ~ ~ t t ~::~, ~~`" ~ ~~~ ~ ~ Site ~._ _ - r -- :~ .~' ~ ~. ... / ~ ~ _ i ,_ , m_ ____ -} - _ .._ . ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ . ~ JJf ti ~, f. _.. ,,.. _ ~/ / i ---- ) ~ ~ ,l/'~ ti r ~ . S,, L ~~ 4, ti 1 i ,~ r J w ,._~ r f ~/ ~ ~ M, ;,,~-- ~ ~ ~ ~ ',;.. .. i "_ i; ~ t f - i .-._. _ ,~ I ~ ~ ti j ~ ~ t v~ i 7 ~- .» :~ ~~,,... 4, ~ f ,,. - • .,~ I ~ ~, ~~ t / -~.. ', ~ ' `- ' i 3 .~ . f ~ ~' y~ ; ~,.. c t 11 ,~ ~G'Npr t ~. ~ t ~ ~ -- ~ ~ l.;l I ,, , ~ ~ ' ~, y ;~ , t ;~ _. I ,--~ f ~ ~ - _ . v , ..,- ~ ' - ~ t ~' i_ 1~-- r °~~ :, ( . _ _ .... , i ~ j 'i ' I ~3~ ~ _ r , .. _ ~ Y/ _• f 1 .. I F' -~~/. L ,~ t ~ ~ ~ . ~ ~ d. ~`~ ~' ~ f , y,. I _.. ~;. '~ ~ ~ ~'" jj 1 f Replacement of Bridge No. 17 over Cedar Creek on SR 1109 r ~~ ~ M _. ~,r' ~ `J .: -- Franklin County _ Louisburg USGS topo map (1978, 1984) - ~' '~ ~f s, NCMA Project No. MA05003B ~~ ;~ ,,, , 1:24,000 Figure 1 , ~~ ~~~ .... , _, . ., '~, ~~` ~; ~,- ~; 1, _w._ ~ _. ~ ~ !" `~,~-. -.-,..a ..~ ~ ~ ~ ~ f ~ ~ 1 _~ ~'` r- .. ,.~ ~, -_ _. . /' ,* ., r > f _ ~~ ~; t . ~,~ : ~.i .. .:_. . ~.. ~~ ~~ t --. f f J ~ , ~ .,...y: ~; , ~ t ~ ~ ~l ~ ~ 1 i f' ~~ 4._,r~ ~i '~~ ~ ~ ~,i~ I I / _ _ ~ I = J ( t(ha~eJ ..I .I }; ~~ ~ ~1 ,' `~ _ . ;_ ,_ ~ 4 ~~ .~ 263- f" ,-, ,~, t ,' __. _ ~ ' .,~ ,, i ~ f g - ~~ . ! ~ ~ 'r ~~~ t ~~ ( l ~' ~:. ~ ,~ ~ Copyright (L) 1;;y8, Maptech, Inc. t '~ ' s r, ~ ..,..t ~,.__~ ~ . ~ .. _ k ~ •~ fh ' q' Y-e v. ~' ~. ~ ~ , ^ ,~~s +, a, YL''~ #~. r~ ) ~~f. s 4~ -yr. ~~ ' e ,. d c - ~` ~:. i .... .. _ ti ~ ~. 7 ~., T ., ~`rAb ' h µ:T. .~, ~:3$ .-: _~ _ -- Photo .1.. View of Bridge 17 over Cedar Creek in Franklin County. High berm separating wetland from Cedar Creek. r .~ (-Y" ~ _ ': L } ,L:y~'1~+~- Y ~ ~;t f~ ~~4 I~ },,91 1 T y~ `~'°'tM' '; ~'k. r s ~'j .., °'ix' ' a. s~ .. s ~~f ~ ~fi '~z~ ;~z~ p ~~ if ~v' ~.~~,,'~. '~S r f 7~.', ~'~~, ~ u i <.., ~i .-E.. .~} f ~ ~ +• sr S.• ~ ~ ~. , +* dpi-. ~". -_ ~Yf~, ~ `~'~ A~~~ ~. ~ iii g . .- . + ~s :.:~• a d v .,e i w ;C ,~ ~ ~ ~ t~ i+~ ~~ r-< y **. ~~ .fir i' <^.s ~ r~' - ' _ a ^ ` .i ` ".."R". t`_ ~~: ~ ~ qtr r1 f-k i. .r '(" ~ .~ i t r "~• Photo 2. ~1iew of wetland adjacent to but not abutting an RPW (Cedar Ck.) 2 along the OWH mark of Cedar Creek. Construction associated with the bridge will result in minor impacts to a floodplain pool wetland. Mechanized clearing and installation of erosion control devices will impact a total of <0.01 acres (or'76 ft2) of this wetland. -~ Riparian Buffer The proposed project involves replacement of a bridge structure over a stream that is subject to the Tar-Pamlico River Buffer Rules. Cedar Creek is depicted on the most recent version of the Louisburg (USGS 1978, 1984) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and the Soil Survey of Franklin County (USDA-NRCS, 2004) (Figure 2). Riparian buffer impacts at the site have been separated into two activities: bridge structure improvements and roadway improvements. Bridge structure improvements Impacts to buffers adjacent to Cedar Creek associated with bridge improvements total 4,776 ft2 in Zone 1 and 486 ftz in Zone 2 (TOTAL BRIDGE IMPACTS: 5,262 ft2). All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones associated with construction of the bridge were followed. Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include utilizing the current alignment and construction within the existing transportation facility. According to the buffer rules, bridges impacts are ALLOWABLE. Temporary erosion control measures will be placed within the permitted footprint of this project. Roadway improvements Impacts to buffers adjacent to Cedar Creek associated with roadway improvements total 218 ft2 in Zone 1 and 1,330 ft2 in Zone 2 (TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACTS: 1,548 ft2). All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones associated with construction of the minor roadway improvements associated with construction of this project were followed. Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include utilizing the current alignment and construction within the existing transportation facility. According to the buffer rules, these roadway improvements are EXEMPT. Temporary erosion control measures will be placed within the permitted footpnnTof this project. Waters of the U.S. Mitigation Avoidance: Permanent and temporary impacts to Cedar Creek and wetlands from the proposed construction cannot be avoided. The floodplain pool wetland is located at the toe of fill at Station 9+OS Rt. Minimization: The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-upon area by using the existing aligmnent for new construction. Construction of the project will primarily occur within the existing transportation facility (i.e. fill slope). All efforts will be made to further minimize impacts to the floodplain pool wetland during construction. 3 Compensatory Miti ag tion: Compensatory mitigation is not proposed for wetland and stream impacts due to minimal impacts. Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA. As of January 3, 2008, there are three federally protected species listed for Franklin County. They include dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The roadway shoulders along SR 1109 are heavily maintained, eliminating the possibility for Michaux's sumac to exist in this area. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated September 2006) revealed no occurrences of Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat observed during the June 4, 2007 site visit and the NHP database review, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for this species. A mussel survey conducted by The Catena Group in September 17, 2003 indicated that seven Elliptio spp. were collected during aone-hour survey. However, the report indicated that dwarf wedgemussel is known to occur in Cedar Creek downstream at its crossing with US 401 and the Tar spinymussel in the main stem of Tar River. The presence of these species. could not be discounted by personr_el from The Catena Group. Mussel specialists from the NCDOT conducted an updated survey at the site on June 14, 2007 following standard survey protocols. They noted that it is extremely unlikely that either dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel is located at the crossing due to instability of the creek (very sandy with some gravel). Only four Elliptio mussels (Elliptio complanata) were observed during the survey. However, a Biological Determination of may affect, not likely to adversely affect the Tar River spinymussel or dwarf-wedgemussel was rendered as dwarf-wedgemussel was observed in Cedar Creek approximately one mile below the project site. The Department proposes to follow Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds during the design and construction of the project. This information was forwarded to the USFWS on November 26, 2007. The USFWS responded on December 6, 2007 that they concur with the determination that the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel (see Appendix B). Summary Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3, 13 and 33 and NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3687, 3689 and 3688 and riparian buffer authorization for above-described activities. An automated payment procedure has been implemented between the NCDOT and NCDENR-DWQ which enables NCDOT Division 5 to apply for the 401 WQC without submitting a check for this permit application. This procedure will provide payment to the NCDWQ by charging the permit application fee directly to the appropriate NCDOT WBS Element No. MA05003B. Apre-construction notification, photographs and permit drawings are attached with this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Murray at (919) 220- 4633. °~ S' cerely J. W. owman, P.E. Division Engineer cc: Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ Mike Summers, NCDOT Office Use Only: Form Version March OS 20080053 USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. (If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".) I. Processing Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: ^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules ^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ ® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification 2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 3. 13 and 33 3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is not required, check here: ^ 4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII, and check here: ^ 5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^ II. Applicant Information 1. Owner/Applicant Information Name:NCDOT Division 5. J. W. Bowman, P.E. (Division En Mailing Address: 2612 N. Duke St.. Durham, NC 27704 Telephone Number:~919) 220-4633 Fax Number: (919) 560-3371 E-mail Address: wbowmanndot.state.nc.us 2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.) Name: Company Affiliation:, Mailing Address: Telephone Number: Fax Number: E-mail Address: Page 1 of 9 III. Project Information Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided. 1. Name of project: Proposed replacement of Bride 17 on SR 1109 over Cedar Creek in Franklin Count 2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NCDOT WBS Element No. MA05003B. 3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A 4. Location County: Franklin Nearest Town: Louisburg Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Louisburg, travel west on NC 56, turn left and travel southwest on SR 1109 to project site. 5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.) Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): Site 1 36.0600 °N 78.3541 °W 6. Property size (acres): approximately 1.0 acres 7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Cedar Creek 8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico (Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.) 9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: Existing land uses along SR 1109 are primarily rural and forested. Page 2 of 9 10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The °~ NCDOT proposes to replace Bride No. 17 with a new three-span bride. Equipment may include excavator backhoe bulldozer, grader, and crane. 11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace the structurally deficient bride. IV. Prior Project History V. If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules. None available. VI. Future Project Plans Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application. VII. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the~roj_ect will result in the followingimpacts: The Department proposes to provide access for installation of drilled piers by installing a temporary causeways on both banks of Cedar Creek. This will result in 0.02 acre temporary fill in surface waters. All in-stream material utilized during construction of the causeway will be removed prior to completion of the project. The Department proposes to permanently stabilize the banks Cedar Creek by installing 40 linear feet of Class II rip rap that will extend up to End Bents 1 and 2. Constraction associated with Page 3 of 9 the bridge will result in minor impacts to a floodplain pool wetland. Mechanized clearing and installation of erosion control devices will impact a total of <0.01 acres (or 76 ftZ) of this wetland. 1. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact (indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres) es/no) (linear feet 1 Mech. clearing and Floodplain pool Yes 30 ft <0.01 installation of EC devices Total Wetland Impact (acres) <0.01 2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: <0.01 ac Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560. Stream Perennial Average Impact or Stream Width Impact Length Area of Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent Before (linear feet) Impact (indicate ' Impact (acres) on ma 60 ft 1 Cedar Ck. Streambank stabilization Perennial 40 ft (both bank) <0.01 60 ft 1 Cedar Ck. Temp. causeway Perennial 40 ft (both banks) 0.02 Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.02 4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc. Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact indicate on ma) ocean, etc.) (acres Total Open Water Impact (acres) Page 4 of 9 5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project: Stream Impact (acres): ~~ 0.02 ac Wetland Impact (acres): <0.01 ac O en Water Im act (acres): NONE Total Im act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02 ac Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 401inear feet for streambank stabilization 6. Isolated Waters Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE. N/A 7. Pond Creation If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application. Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond, local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A VIII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization) Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Avoidance: Construction of the proiect cannot avoid impacts to waters of the United States. The existing bridge structure must be replaced. Rip rap is necessary on streambank for long-term stability. Minimization• The Rroposed rip rap on the banks has been minimized as much as possible while providing the required long-term stability. The proposed project occurs on the existing alignment with minimal additional impacts. All efforts will be made during construction to minimize impacts to floodplain pool located at 9+50 Rt. IX. Mitigation DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to Page 5 of 9 freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial streams. USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that maybe appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values, preferable in the same watershed. If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html. 1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view, preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed. Mitigation for the project will not be provided because of minimal impacts. 1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at (919) 715-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information: Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A X. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ) 1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^ Page 6 of 9 XI. 2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at (919) 733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation. Yes ^ No 3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^ Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ) It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the applicant's discretion. 1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )? Yes ® No ^ Z. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer multipliers. Site 1 Brid a S tructure Im rovements Zone* Impact s uare feet) Multiplier Required Miti ation 1 4,776 3 (2 for Catawba) None 2 486 1.5 None Total ~ 5,262 I ~ None * Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1. Site 1 Roadwa Im rovements Zone* Impact Multiplier Required (s uare feet) Miti ation 1 218 3 (2 for Catawba) None 2 1,330 1.5 None Total 1,548 lv'one I * Zore 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the rear bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1. Page 7 of 9 3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A XII. Stormwater (required by DWQ) Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed impervious level. There is approximately 0.2 acre existing impervious surface within the 1.0 acres project site. A total of 2 345 square feet of additional impervious surface is proposed with this ,project. Stormwater runoff will be discharged through an PFSH located near 9+75 Lt. XIII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ) Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. This proiect will not generate wastewater. XIV. Violations (required by DWQ) Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules? Yes ^ No Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No XV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ) Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This NCMA project will not result in additional development XVI. Other Circumstances (Optional): It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work schec~les (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and eatene~ S ecies, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control). ,~ i/ ~~ /~ _ / _ ApplicantiAgent's ignature Date s signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) Page 8 of 9 Appendix A Wetland data forms and approved jurisdictional determination form DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual) Project /Site: ~r . I7 o ues CeflY Ck un ¢. t oy Date: IZ-~ l3~ ~'7 Applicant /Owner: Nc9 oT County: ~r•,,. tl~.~ Investigator: ~rrw State: AJc . Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes / ivo Community ID: UQ( Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No / Transect ID: Is the area a potential problem area? Yes Nom Plot ID: (explain on reverse if needed) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator 1~ai+/t,ry ecc?cQewl~l,b ~ F/Kl~r~ g, 2.i'_i~~ed[~IJn 4~uliT°~-~~ -~- -~/I'G- 10. 3. Ac ti r.~o r ~...~. ~_ f~~ 11. 4. L. ,,: ~ lv _~ ~ c t 12. 5.~ ccr f~ra...~ ~_ ~~~ 13. 6. V r.~g a r~[r c can. ~_ f c- 14. 7.r^ ~~~`..t1;,v,.,. (o.tl`~ol~ u. H / F A~ ~ 15. 8. ~ o ~ / ~/IC - 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). Z S'O ~~ Remarks: N~,a~~ 1~w}~~ SP ~~; z S P~~x.t~-- HYDROLOGY _ Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Primary tndicators: Other _ Inundated ~o Recorded Data Available Saturated in Upper 12" -Water Marks Drift Lines Field Observations: Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: ~1/~(in.) Secondary Indicators: ~~ Depth to Free Water in Pit: T IZ (in.) Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12" _ WaterStained Leaves ~~ Depth to Saturated Soil: 7 ~2 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: SOILS Map Unit Name I (Series and Phase): 1~2~,~-~G, ~~.~, to ~.~.~ Drainage Class: ~~~ Taxonomy (Subgroup):~~ vu ao~ „~~ ~; c~ `-(5'~; oc~~e Q15 Confirm Mapped Type? Yes_ No `~ Profile Descriation: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) AbundancelContrast Structure, etc. 12 ~ ~ ~ ~ `t~2 ~tj 3 S ~-- Hydric Soil Indicators: Histosol Concretions _ Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _ Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils Aquic Moisture Regime Listed On Local Hydric Soils List Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List _Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: ~~'tilg~rG 5 0,~ rlof ~f~un'r' , WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes ~ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No ~ Hydric Soils Present? Yes No ~ Remarks: Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes_ No/ /VU/1- w C~'~ ° ~ u+-0. Porn -~ DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Determination Manual) Project /Site: fi (• 17 g~~. ~tcQc/- C'1- ~,. 5(L II o 5 Date: t: ~ 13~ ~ 7 Applicant /Owner: u~ ~a'r Investigator: ,~ r r County: Fr n.~ ~ t~~, State: ti ~ Do normal circumstances exist on the site? Yes / No Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical situation)? Yes No ~ Is the area a potential problem area? Yes No ~ Community ID: (arF~~ Transect ID: Plot ID: (explain on reverse if needed) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Saecies Stratum Indicator 1. C~cK Car-•o~ y ~ D ~L 9. 2. C ~ r J.•-~ F ~4c 10. 3. ~Jn25 ~n~ ;un.. lwf~ ~ol~u.~. ~~ 11. 4. 12. 5. 13. 6. 14. 7. 15. 8. 16. Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excluding FAC-). ? ~~ Remarks: P <l~ ~~ +nr~ 6 ~F- h~(d~~ P ~K'~ I C 5Q e c: e 5 ~~t-- S ;-Ic HYDROLOGY Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks): Wetland Hydrology Indicators _ Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Aerial Photographs Primary Indicators: Other Inundated maturated in Upper 12" No Recorded Data Available `Water Marks _ Drift Lines Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: N~ R' (in.) Secondary Indicators: (2" .,~ Oxidized Roots Channels in Upper 12" Depth to Free Water in Pit: ~1n.) ,/ WaterStained Leaves ~~ ~ Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 17 (in.) _ FAC-Neutral Test Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: w e x-1,,,9- (~.~ ~,-a~ ~ a ~ ~.+- 5~~~1-t- SOILS Map Unit Name aa (Series and Phase): ~e`~ °~~ 5G^~^ ,~ ''1< <S gr Drainage Class: 5P~ Taxonomy (Subgroup): F'~~~u au<.~ t=c~ yti'~u~tQfS Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions, (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moistl Abundance/Contrast Structure. etc. ~-O L. f+ci G-~ ~~ to ~t z ~~, T o~'S ~ ~ (z- -~ (~ ~, ~-b I Z 2. S ~c s~~, ~~~ ~ 2-z~ ~a r ~ ~ a-L (z- 2~ s~~ ~- ~ l~ can ~- ~ Hydric Soil Indicators: _ Histosol Concretions Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils _Sulfidic Odor ,Aquic Moisture Regime Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils fisted On Local Hydric Soils List ~ educing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List -Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors -Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: r /„ WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes `~ No Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes ~ No Hydric Soils Present? Yes ~ No Remarks: Is the Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes '~ No l.J C ~" \ GVt d ~ ~G.~- ~ D J ~ 1 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish borough: Franklin City: Louisburg Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0599385° N, Long. 78.3540852° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Cedar Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 Q~ Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Q Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): [[ Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CVVA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t TNWs, including territorial seas [^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs Relatively permanent waters2 (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs [] Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 96 linear feet: 60 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.01 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 1987 Delineation ManuaM Elevation of established OHWM (if known):Not Known. 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section [II below. ' For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TTfV1W and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally' (e.g., typically 3 months). ~ Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF SECTION iII: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section IILD.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick. List Average annual rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick List Mbutaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWS: Tributary stream order, if known: ° Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review azea, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that applvl: Tributary is: ^ Natural °~ ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of tvn/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ^ Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ ^ changes in the character of soil ^ ^ shelving ^ ^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^ ^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^ ^ sediment deposition ^ ^ water staining ^ ^ other (list): ^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ ^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ ^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings/characteristics ^ tidal gauges ^ other (list): the presence of litter and debris destruction of terrestrial vegetation the presence of wrack line sediment sorting scour multiple observed or predicted flow events abrupt change in plant community ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ survey to available datum; ^ physical markings; ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: •~ ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: 0.01 acres impact; however total size of wetland is 0.1 acres Wetland type. Explain:Floodplain Pool (NCWAM assessment). Wetland quality. Explain:Medium quality. Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: No. (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: No Flow`. Explain: Surface flow is: Not present Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Yes. Explain findings: Source of hydrology in wetland appears to be groundwater flow. ^ Dye (or other) test performed: No. (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ® Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ® Ecological connection. Explain: Amphibian reproduction, habitat for amphibians/reptiles, pollutant filter. ® Separated by berm barrier. Explain: Wetland is separated by Cedar Creek by a berm. (d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW Project wetlands are 5-10 river miles from TNW. Project waters are 5-IQ aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: No F{ow. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the 2 - 5-year floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Source of hydrology appears to be ground water. Undeveloped watershed. Identify specific pollutants, if known: Roadway runoff and crop land runoff enter wetland. (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ® Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):Forested riparian buffer. ® Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:Small saplings with scattered herbaceous vegetation. Cover: QO%. ® Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ® Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:Serve as floodplain pool for amphibian reproduction. 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directl abuts? Y/N) Size (in acres Directly abuts? (Y/Nl Size (in acres) Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III. D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: Source of hydrology in wetland appears to be groundwater. There are no indications that wetland receives water from overbank flooding except possibly during a hurricane event. However, there is likely a strong ecological and chemical connection between the wetland and Cedar Creek. Watershed of Cedar Creek is large. Wetland will support amphibian reproduction and also provide food and habitat for both amphibians and reptiles. Close proximity of wetland to RPW would result in these species also utilizing Cedar Creek which is located approximately 6 to 7 miles from Tar River, a TNW. Wetland would also serve to trap and filter pollutants from adjacent roadway and adjacent crop land and prevent transfer to TNW. D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLI~: I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. 2. P.PWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typica}iy flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: ^ Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ^ Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: 4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that~tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ~' Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.01 acres impact and 0.1 acres in total size acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters v As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):10 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. gSee Footnote # 3. ' To complete the anaiysis refer to the key in Section III. D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EP.4 HQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding Ck'A Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. ^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. ^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. ••Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Wetlands: acres. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLE: If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: Other. (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: }~ Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicandconsultant. ^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: ^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: ~^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Franklin County Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ^ State/L,ocal wetland inventory map(s): ^ FEMA/FIRM maps: ^ 100-year Fioodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date): or ®Other (Name & Date):See permit application. ^ Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: ^ Applicable/supporting case law: ^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature: ^ Other information (please specify): Identify type(s) of waters: B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: Appendix B USFWS Concurrence letter (12/6/07) United States Department of the Interior F[SH AND WILDLIFE SERV[CE Raleigh Field Office Post Office Box 33726 Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726 December 6, 2007 Chris Murray North Carolina Department of Transportation 2612 N. Duke Street Durham, North Carolina 27704 Dear Mr. Murray: This letter is in response to your letter of November 26, 2007 which provided the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of Transportation that the replacement of Bridge No. 17 on SR 1109 over Cedar Creek in Franklin County (MA05003B) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). According to information provided, mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on September 17, 2003 and June 14, 2007. The surveys extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of SR 1109. Neither of the federally listed species was found, and only a few individuals of the common Elliptio spp. were observed. Habitat conditions were less than ideal due to instability in the stream substrate (i.e. very sandy). However, the dwarf wedgemussel has historically been found approximately one mile downstream of the project site. Based on the mussel survey results and other available information, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed bridge replacement may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the dwarf wedgemussel and Tar River spinymussel. We believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied for these species. We remind you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of ±his identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that maybe affected by this identified action. The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at (919) 856-4520 (Ext. 32). Sincerely, ~"- Pete Benjamin Field Supervisor cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE, Raleigh, NC Rob Ridings, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC 'ExISTING BRIDGE °li FIVE SPAN BRIDGE OF TOTAL LENGTH = 149.9' & 24'CLEAR ROADWAY WITH PRESTRESSED CONCRETE t CHANNEL S, TIMBER PILES. TIMBER ABUTMENTS. TO BE REMOVED i O / / O ~l ~'NORK POINT °3 INTERIOR BENT ^2 (~ WORK POINT °l--~ WORK POINT '2 m~ FILL FACE EN~ BENT =1 INTERIOR BENT °I ~~ i ~ /CEDAR / A, /~ ~/_[REEK CL II RIP RAP E ~. Y li (((///~((/ / TEL 103.0Y~ ~~ Ts`; "' ~ l5" CMP I 4x4 PSH W/ 2 BOWS E TEMPOR RY CAUSEW SHOULDER BERM GUTTER ~ ~ +~i F W/ GE TEXTILE IC S1A 9+78 TO BEG. BR. LT. _ E _ -S c MIN 2'THICKNE E _ - - - , ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ (RETAI AS PE ANENT FOR STABI ITY 0~ ANKS ONLY - R/W F F ~ _ _ ~ _ / - -~ - ~ 0 ~ ,(~1 1~, ~ __ 4-- - ~ V a ~ ~ ;C_~ i U~ - - - - - . ~Ll_L, ~ i ~ ~ ~Ll~l1 U ~' ~ i 11(;~ ~ u Z__ i-,~- ~,. -~-----~~r tLU~t, (1., - F ----- F ----- -E E i _ ~ ~ i~F F\ / ~ -" /E - ~~ ~~ ~'k`~ S SHOULDER BERM GUTTER- STA 9+60 TO BEG. BR, RT HYDRAULIC DATA FF~ 110 100 90 8G 70 _~ 6Q DESIGN DISCHARGE = 5200 CFS FREQUENCY OF DESIGN FLOOD = 28 YR. DESIGN HIGH WATER ELEVATION = 102.0 DRAINAGE AREA = 40.2 SD. MT. BASIC DISCHARGE (0100) = 7500 CFS 9ASIC HIGH WATER ELEVATION = 105.9 OVERTOPPING FLOOD DATA OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 11,000 CFS FREQUENCY OF OVERTOPPING FLOOD = 500 YR. OVERTOPPING FLDOD ELEVATION = 105.95 WORK POINT °1 FILL FACE END BENT °I STA.9+93.700 G.P, EL. 106.194 6EGIN APPROACH SLAB STA. 9+82.855 BEGIN GRADE STA.E+50.G0 EL. = 106.090 CLASS Ii~ RIP RAP HP !2x53 J STEEL PILES EST. L = 20- . cRnwN Ar : J.C. PENDERGRAFT OnIE : 10/06 CHECKED BY : J.A, pILWORTH oarE : 10/06 9+ao i E E 1 0~' ti ~ti WORK POINT "2 WORK POINT =3 INTERIOR BENT °l INTERIOR BENT °2 ST A. ID+49.951 STA.Il+05.047 PLAN SCALE:1"= 2 -0" CL STA 10+75.00 ~CR GR EL=ID'n.672 /z: ~LOPE~~ - - - - -~, - - - -~, - '~;~'- _ ~ - W.S. it - /:u. MiN. ~ EXCAVATE EXISTING ~ MIN. ~~ ROAC FILL ' 50 CY ~ -3'-0"CDLUMN &-'~ CLASS iI~ ~~; 3'-6"ORILLED PIER i RIP RAP MIN TIP / EL = 63.50 ~~~MTN TIP EL = 59 00 ~~+ PROFILE ALONG ~ SURVEY SCALE: !"= 20'-0" NOTES 1. PILES AT END BENTS 1 AND 2 SHALL BE DRIVEN TO A MINIMUM ~ BEARING CAPACITY OF 45 TONS EACH. ~ ~ _'• WHEN DRIV'NG PILES, THE MAxIMUM BtOW COUNT SHALL NOT BE EzCEEOED. 3. FOR DRILLED PIERS, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. ~~ 4. DRILLED PIERS HAVE 3EEN DESIGNED FOR AN APPLIED LOAD OF 42O NIPS EACH AT THE TIP OF THE PIER. ~ 5. DRILLED PIERS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR B07H SKIN FRICTION AND TIP & ARING. THE REQUIRED TIP BEARING CAPACITY IS IB ~ ~ TSF. THE TIP BEARING CAP ACITr SHALL BE VERIFIED. 6. DRILLED PIERS AT BENT 1 SHALL EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION NO HIGHER THAN 63.5 FEET AND SATISFY THE REQUIRED TIP BEARING ~ CAPACITY WITH A MINIMUPn PENETRATION OF 4 FEET INTO ROCK r- (~ AS DEFINED 9't iNE DRILLED PIERS SPECIAL PROVISION. DRILLED ly - PIERS AT BFtdT 2 SHALL EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION NO HIGHER TH V AN 59.0 FEET AND SATISFY THE REQUIRED TIP BEARING 0~ Qj CAPACITr WITH A MINIMUM PENETRATION OF 4 FEET INTO ROCK ~ AS DEFINED BY THE DRILLED PIERS SPECIAL PROVISION / . 7. THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATION 15CE1FOR BENT I IS 68 5 FEET , . THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATION (SCEIFOR BENT 2 TS 63.3 FEET. ' ' THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATIONS ARE FOR USE BY MAINTENANCE - w' ~~r. POINT sv ~ FORCES TO MONITOR POSSIBLE SCOUR PROBLEMS DURING THE LIFE FILL FACE END BENT °2 OF STRUCTURE. ~ ~ 8. SPT TEST LNG IS NCT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE TIP BEARING CAPACITYf n: THE DRP LED PIERS. 9. CSL TUBES ARE REQUIRED AND CSL TESTING MAY BE REQUIRED FOR DRILLED PIERS. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CRDSSHOLE E SONIC LOGGI"iG. lO,SLURRY CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT BE USED FOR THIS PROJECT, E ~ I1. SID INSPECTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE BOTTOM CLE ~ ~~ ANLINESS OF THE DRILLED PIERS. - - - _- - F _ 12, THE OUANITY OF RiP RAP TO BE PAID FOR WILL BE THE ACTUAL (1 (TO~~~~('I~ ~ NUMBER OF TONS OF EACH CLASS OF RIP RAP WHICH HAS BEEN \ \ U L~ U F ~ INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED WORK. R/W - THE RIP RAP WILL BE MEASURED BY BEING WEIGHED IN TRUCKS CERTIFIED WEIGHING DEVICES. THE OUANITY OF RIP RAP WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE CONTRACT UNI7 PRICE PER TON. PLAIN REP RAP CLASS II 12'-0"THICK)W/ FILTER FABRIC END BENT NO.I - 270 TONS END BENT N0.2 = 205 TONS - TOTAL= 475 TONS 13.THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FHWA'S R/W ? _ - TECHNICAL ADVISORY 75140.20 (SCOUR AT BRIDGES). F ' ' 14. THE EXISTING BRIDGE SHALL BE REMOVED BY SAWING AND/OR NON - (~ SHATTERING METHODS SUCH THAT DEBRIS WILL NOT FALL ~1 -- INTO THE WATER. ~ --------r,--- ~'' ~ E / iS. A0T 1200 FOR YEAR 2001. E / ENVIRONMENTAL NOTESe -® Mechan, clearing and EC devices in wetland -Temporary causeway Buffer impacts calculated from ETF to easement limits WORK POINT °4 FILL FACE END BENT "2 STA. U+55.298 GP. EL 107.151 i~/z: SLOPE BHP '2X53 STEEL PA"eS EST. L = l1' ~ LEFT EST.L = 4i' ! RIGHT CH SLAB 13 ENO GRADE STA.I3+OG.00 EL. = 1'.0.060 ,,,.,...w.. ~,.; SEAL `: `o~. 22012 f? / 13}GO ?_IeipF, N.C.27d06 ~, ETHEAILL 9w. 919 8518077 ENGINEERING Fax: 919 BSIB107 TnANSPORTATION PLANNING/DES;GN - BP(DGf/STRUCTUPE OfSrGN C"RL/S%TE DESIGN - GiS/GPS - CONSTRUCi(ON OBSERVARON WBS N0. 37024 FRANKLIN COUNTY STATION• 10+75.000 -L- REPLACES BRIDGE N0. 17 Sf11E OF NOq iN CAPOLINe DEPARTMENT OF TP,ANSPORTATION 0.eLEIGq GENERAL DRAWIi~G BRG.# 17 ON SR 1169 OVER CEDAR CREEK REVISIONS (SHEET On tE: ~NO~ Bx: OniE: II 3