20110370 All Versions_Complete File_20011101

NATURAL SYSTEMS REPORT
Replacement of Bridge No. 56
SR 1544 (South Halifax Road) over the Tar River
Nash County, North Carolina
(B-4211)
(State Project No. 8.2322601)
(Federal Aid No. BRZ-1544[2])
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared by:
EcoScience
ECOSCIENCE CORPORATION
1101 Haynes Street, Suite 101
Raleigh, NC 27604
Tel [phone] Fax [phone]

November 2001
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Paqe
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ....................................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ....................................................................................................................1
1.3 Methods ....................................................................................................................1
1.4 Project Area .............................................................................................................. 5
1.5 Physiography and Soils .............................................................................................5
2.0 WATER RESOURCES ........................................................................................................6
2.1 Waters Impacted .......................................................................................................6
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics ........................................................................................6
2.1.2 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality ..................................................... 7
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ...................................................................8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 8
3.1 Plant Communities ....................................................................................................8
3.2 Terrestrial Plant Community Areas ............................................................................9
3.3 Wildlife ....................................................................................................................11
3.3.1 Terrestrial ..........................................................................................................11
3.3.2 Aquatic ...............................................................................................................11
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife .................................................................................12
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS .............................................................................................................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ....................................................................................12
4.1.1 Permits ..............................................................................................................14
4.1.2 Mitigation ...........................................................................................................15
4.2 Protected Species ...................................................................................................15
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ..............................................................................15
4.2.2 State Protected Species ....................................................................................18
5.0 REFERENCES ..................................................................................................................19
\
1
LIST OF FIGURES
Paqe
Figure 1. Site Location ..........................................................................................................2
Figure 2. Project Area ............................................................................................................ 3
Figure 3. Plant Community Locations within Project Area ....................................................10
Figure 4. Jurisdictional Systems within Project Area ............................................................13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Project Area Plant Communities ...........................................................................11
Table 2: Jurisdictional Areas ..............................................................................................14
Table 3. Federally Protected Species .................................................................................16
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern .................................................................................18
_1
Replacement of Bridge No. 56
SR 1544 (South Halifax Road) over the Tar River
Nash County, North Carolina
(B-4211)
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge
No. 56 on SR 1544 (South Halifax Road) over the Tar River and associated floodplain (Figure
1). Bridge No. 56 spans the Tar River and adjacent banks for a distance of approximately 340
feet (103.6 meters). The existing roadway is approximately 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide with a
total, maintained right-of-way width of approximately 60 feet (18.3 meters) (Figure 2).
[Alternatives]
[Bridge demolition paragraph #1]
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this study is to provide an evaluation of biological resources in the project area.
Specific tasks performed for this study include 1) an assessment of biological features within the
project area including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, jurisdictional
wetlands, and water quality, 2) a delineation of Section 404 jurisdictional areas and subsequent
survey of jurisdictional boundaries (utilizing Trimble XRS Differential Global Positioning System
technology), 3) an evaluation of plant communities and their areas within the project area, and
4) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methods
Materials and literature supporting this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Rocky Mount, NC 7.5
minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands Inventory (NWI)
mapping (Rocky Mount, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS; formerly the Soils Conservation Service) soils mapping (SCS 1989), and recent aerial
photography and design plans (scale 1:1200) furnished by NCDOT.
The project area was visited on August 8, 2001. The project area was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features. For purposes of this evaluation, the project area has been
delineated by the NCDOT (Figure 2). Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1)
potential protected species habitat and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in the Tar River.
1
r •
f• %
? •?'s`'^` _ -_ gem __ _
I r -
l l
3 PlPcilrl'E `
1 ???o?.ragmgj
• Station
I -?r• gar

:. I Project location -?•

F Source: USGS Nashville and .?
1 Rocky Mount quadrangles.
Scale= 1:24000 ?
.

EcoScience
Corporation
„m w?. s..t ar,m
I ? no?sxb ? n?nsu
LOCATION MAP
Replacement of Bridge No. 56 (B-4211)
Nash County, North Carolina
Dwn. bg: ES FIGURE
Ckd by
ss
Deb. AUG 2001 1
p0od 00.046.09
v
O O Z
v O
W 111 L
VJ ,?, N O M 2 Z f
N m a' J
O m m OwQOQ.
Z
U O =? ° V W Z
Z
14 1

ea
m
?v
v
d
T
CL
I 1 ? ,
M?
Q N O)
00 O

u O

(6
C
? N c•C u
i N u
0
A
,
a) / m 0
N E° N
Z " ?/
/ '?
V O
Z) Z
N Q
a o
C
w
m X
0?s °
w Zo
N
4'

rn Y
N? J z U)

w
?

v
a`
LL
Q
m Z
E w

E
The field work for this investigation was conducted by EcoScience Corporation biologists
Elizabeth Scherrer, Matt Cusack, and Kirsten Collings.
Ms. Scherrer is a Project Scientist with 3 years of experience in the environmental field. She
has an M.S. in forestry from North Carolina State University, with minors in botany and ecology.
Her research involved the restoration of farmed wetlands on the North Carolina Coastal Plain,
with emphasis on the influence of microtopography on hydrology and plant communities. At Tall
Timbers Research Station in Tallahassee, FL, she designed and implemented a study of red-
cockaded woodpecker habitats in the Apalachicola National Forest. Professional expertise
includes wetland and jurisdictional area delineations, plant and wildlife identification and
community mapping, plant community parameter analysis, protected species surveys, and
environmental document preparation.
Mr. Cusack is a Project Scientist with 4 years of experience in the environmental field. He has
received a bachelor's degree in marine biology with honors in biology from the University of
North Carolina at Wilmington. He has conducted field work involving estuarine and freshwater
invertebrate ecology and sea turtle nesting biology. He has conducted aquatic toxicity research
in estuarine fauna. His professional expertise includes jurisdictional area delineations, stream
determinations, plant and wildlife identification, community mapping, protected species surveys,
and environmental planning.
Ms. Collings is a summer intern working toward a bachelor of science degree in natural
resources/ecosystem assessment at North Carolina State University. Her field experience
extends to Section 404 jurisdictional area delineation, plant identification, protected species
surveys, and environmental document preparation. She has also taken pertinent courses
including dendrology, chemistry, biology, and ecology.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by 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 (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987).
Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979). 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, Hamel 1992, Palmer and Braswell 1995, and Rohde et al. 1994). Water
quality information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (DWQ
1997, DWQ 1999). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
4
¦
The most current FWS listing of federally protected species with ranges extending into Nash
County (April 12, 2001 FWS list) was reviewed prior to initiation of the field investigation. In
addition, NHP records documenting presence of federally or state listed species were consulted
before commencing field investigations.
1.4 Project Area
The project area is located at the crossing of SR 1544 (South Halifax Road) over the Tar River
approximately 4.0 miles (6.4 kilometers) southwest of Rocky Mount, NC (Figure 1). The project
area boundary (Figure 2) has been delineated by the NCDOT. The project area is generally
linear, tapering at the ends, and spans the Tar River, associated floodplain, and adjacent
uplands along a north-south orientation for a distance of 800 feet (243.8 meters) to the north,
and 950 feet (289.6 meters) to the south. The project area is widest in the vicinity of Bridge No.
56, where the width is approximately 300 feet (91.4 meters). Included within the project area
are the Tar River, associated floodplain, and adjacent terraces. This section of the Tar River is
characterized as a well-defined, major lower Piedmont river with moderate flow velocity.
Bridge No. 56 spans approximately 340 feet (103.6 meters) and is 23 feet (7.0 meters) wide.
[Bridge structure information]
[Bridge demolition information]
1.5 Physiography and Soils
The project area is underlain by Upper Coastal Plain and Piedmont System soil region in the
Coastal Plain physiographic province of North Carolina. In this transition zone between the
Piedmont and Coastal Plain, weathered Piedmont igneous and slate belt rocks occur on the
same landscape with Coastal Plain sediments. Moderately large areas of nearly level uplands
occur with gentle valley slopes dominated by Coastal Plain sediments, or erosional debris
derived from them (Daniels et al. 1999). The project area is located within a relatively level,
narrow floodplain valley surrounded by gently sloping valley walls. Elevations in the project
area range from a high of approximately 130 feet (39.6 meters) National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD), on the northern and southern ends of the project area, to a low of
approximately 90 feet (27.4 meters) NGVD within the stream channel.
Based on soil mapping for Nash County (SCS 1989), the project area is underlain by four soil
series: Gritney sandy loam (Typic Hapludults), Wickham fine sandy loam (Typic Hapludults),
Congaree fine sandy loam (Typic Udifluvents), and Georgeville loam (Typic Hapludults). Within
v the project area, Congaree and Gritney soils occur along the river channel, and Georgeville and
Wickham are generally found on slopes and river terraces. None of these series are considered
hydric soils by the NRCS. However, the Gritney series may have inclusions of the hydric series,
Bibb, and Congaree may have inclusions of the hydric series Wehadkee in depressions and
drainageways (NRCS 1997).
5
The Gritney series consists of moderately well drained, moderately slowly permeable to slowly
permeable soils on Coastal Plain ridges and side slopes. The soils formed in Coastal Plain
sediment, and slopes are from 2 to 10 percent. Shrink-swell potential is high in the subsoil, and
a perched high water table occurs above the clay subsoil after periods of heavy rain. Acidity
ranges from moderately alkaline in the surface layer to very strongly acid in the subsurface
layers. Soil depth is typically 80 inches (203.2 centimeters).
The Wickham series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on stream terraces.
This series formed in fluvial sediment, and is subject to rare flooding. Slopes are from 0 to 3
percent, and depth of the soils are up to 67 inches (170.2 centimeters). The soils are very
strongly acid.
The Congaree series consists of frequently flooded, well drained, and nearly level soils on
floodplains of larger streams. The soils are moderately permeable, and formed in recent
alluvium. Acidity is very strongly acid to neutral through the soil pedon. Soil depths extend to at
least 92 inches (233.7 centimeters).
The Georgeville series is well drained and moderately permeable and found mainly on side
slopes in uplands. Slopes are from 6 to 10 percent. The series formed in residuum weathered
from fine grained rocks, and acidity ranges from strongly to very strongly acid. Depths of the
soil pedon are up to 78 inches (198.1 centimeters).
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
2.1 Waters Impacted
The project area is located within sub-basin 030202 of the Tar River Basin (DWQ 1999). This
area is part of USGS Hydrologic Unit 03020101 of the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The structure
targeted for replacement spans the Tar River and the Tar River floodplain. This section of the
Tar River has been assigned Stream Index Number 28-(64.5) by the N.C. Division of Water
Quality (DWQ 1997).
2.1.1 Stream Characteristics
The Tar River is a well-defined, high order, perennial stream with moderate flow over a rock,
gravel, and sand substrate. Layers of silt cover much of the substrate, especially in pools. At
Bridge No. 56, the Tar River is approximately 130 feet (39.6 meters) wide. The banks of the Tar
River are approximately 6 to 10 feet (1.8 to 3.0 meters) high and gently to steeply sloping.
During field investigations, water level was low, approximately 14 inches (0.4 meter) deep with 5
foot (1.5 meter) deep pools. Water clarity was good, with visibility to 2 feet (0.6 meter), and flow
6
L
velocity was moderate. Persistent emergent aquatic vegetation was observed, with colonies of
water willow (Justicia americana) and broad-leaved arrowhead (Sagittaria latifolia) established
along the edges of the river.
2.1.2 Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
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 WS IV NSW has been assigned to this reach of the Tar River. The
designation WS-IV denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds; point-source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted; local programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are
required. Class WS-IV waters are suitable for all Class C uses. 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. The supplemental classification NSW is intended for
waters needing additional nutrient management due to their being subject to excessive growth
of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation. In general, management strategies for point and
non-point source pollution control require no increase in nutrients over background levels. No
designated High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), Water Supply I
(WS-11), or Water Supply II (WS-II) waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the project
area (DWQ 1999). No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (0.6 kilometer) of the
project area on the Tar River. The nearest designated CA is approximately 1.7 stream miles
(2.7 kilometers) upstream of the project area, at the City of Rocky Mount reservoir.
Downstream of the project area, the old City of Rocky Mount water intake is located
approximately 4.6 stream miles (7.4 kilometers) from Bridge No. 56 and is also designated CA.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) (previously known as the Division of Environmental
Management, Water Quality Section [DEM]) has initiated a whole-basin approach to water
quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water quality for the proposed
project area is summarized in the Tar-Pamlico River Basinwide Water Quality plan (DWQ 1999).
Based on DWQ data, the Tar River is currently designated as Fully Supporting but
Threatened. The Tar River at SR 1544, has been assigned a bioclassification of Good based
on benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring in 1997.
Sub-basin 030302 of the Tar River Basin supports 16 permitted, point source discharges. Total
discharge is 22.5 million gallons per day (85.2 million liters per day). One major discharger
(Rocky Mount Wastewater Treatment Plant) accounts for a total of 21.0 million gallons per day
U (79.5 million liters per day. Fifteen minor dischargers account for 1.5 million gallons per day
(5.7 million liters per day). Most dischargers in the sub-basin are located in or near Rocky
Mount, approximately 4.0 miles (6.4 kilometers) to the northeast and downstream of the project
area. Major non-point sources of pollution for the Tar River include runoff from cropping and
pasturage, and stormwater from urbanized areas. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
7
r
pasturage, and stormwater from urbanized areas. Sedimentation and nutrient inputs are major
problems associated with non-point source discharges and often result in fecal coliform (DWQ
1999).
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
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 steams by catch basins and roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows in the
Tar River, 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 Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
Due to the composition of the Tar River streambed, sediment curtains should be utilized to
minimize potential water quality degradation as a result of bridge replacement.
[Bridge demolition paragraph #2]
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Plant Communities
Two distinct plant communities were identified within the project area: Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest (Piedmont Subtype) and disturbed/maintained land. Plant community descriptions are
based on a classification system utilized by N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and
Weakley 1990), where applicable. These communities are described below in order of their
dominance within the project area.
Disturbed/maintained land - Disturbed/maintained land occurs throughout the project area,
except for fringes of mesic hardwoods along the Tar River. This community includes the right-
of-way for SR 1544, as well as maintained lawn spaces in residential and industrial properties.
A municipal park in the northwest quadrant of the project area also supports maintained,
landscaped areas (Figure 2). At the time of field investigations, the northeast quadrant of the
8
n
River. This construction site is also included in the disturbed/maintained classification. Canopy
trees in this vegetation community are sparse. A few individuals of floodplain species such as
winged elm (Ulmus alata), sycamore (P/atanus occidentalis), and American elm (Ulmus
americana) remain as relicts of the original vegetation along the Tar River. Disturbance-
adapted species such as Chinaberry (Melia azedarach), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) are also represented. Scattered loblolly
pines (Pinus taeda) of various ages occur throughout the area. The shrub layer is also sparse
and consists of a few individuals of blackberry (Rubus argutus) and Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) along roadways, with rose mallow (Hibiscus moscheutos) and box elder (Acer
negundo) closer to the riverbanks. Vines proliferate in sunny areas and include morning glories
(Ipomoea sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), and periwinkle
(Vinca minor), a species that has escaped from cultivation. The herb layer is diverse, with sunlit
openings and a variety of moisture and exposure regimes providing a mixed environment.
Some common herbs in frequently maintained areas are dock (Rumex crispus), plantain
(Plantago rugelii), bitter-weed (Helenium amarum), and nightshade (Solanum carolinense).
Areas that undergo less frequent mowing contain wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), dog
fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), milkweed (Asclepias sp.), and aster (Aster sp.).
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype) - This community is described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring on lower slopes, steep north-facing slopes, and
ravines on well-drained, acidic soils. Under natural conditions these forests are uneven-aged,
with a component of mature trees. Regeneration normally occurs in canopy gaps left by fallen
trees. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest occurs as a riparian fringe 30 to 90 feet (9.1 to 27.4
meters) in width along the Tar River in the northeast, northwest, and southwest quadrants of the
project area. This community supports a diverse canopy layer, including black willow (Salix
nigra), white ash (Fraxinus americana), beech (Fagus grandifolia), loblolly pine, sycamore, river
birch (Betula nigra), sweetgum, American elm, and a few individuals of cypress (Taxodium
distichum) along the river banks. Shrubs and vines are less diverse, with Chinese privet,
blackberry, box elder, poison ivy, and virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana) represented. Herbs
include common blue violets (Viola papilionacea), dayflower (Commelina communts), jewelweed
(Impatiens capensis), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), lizard tail (Saururus cernuus), and
smartweed (Polygonum sp.), with wingstem and pokeweed appearing in sunnier areas.
3.2 Terrestrial Plant Community Areas
Plant communities within the project area were delineated to determine approximate area and
location of each within the project area (Figure 3). A summary of plant community areas is
presented in Table 1.
9
T, pj m I 11 " T 1
0
0D
p
m
z ?
0
m
m
m
w
0
0
' r
m ?
v 0?

P ? -N i
v m m

o
? 0 m
m m
Z
1
o m v o
v

m
m
c

N-+ m

v c
z

m
0

m
? n
:
.
t:
t:
t:
o
c
?• x
a: 0
a:
ri.
i?
v
m
m n o
0 n y a
0 m G _ ao n ?
m .. ; .. 3 -u D N ^ 7o O n
p^ __ M
3 O mD z p z CJ)
c V)
W o 8 C? 00 70? ?? m O O
m ° • Z? oz ?(-? O a CDC
o .. o z R1
X00 0 0 y O
r
Table 1. Project area plant communities. Areas are given in acres (hectares).
Plant Community Area
Disturbed/Maintained Land 6.3 (2.5)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.3 (0.1)
Total 6.5 (2.6)
3.3 Wildlife
3.3.1 Terrestrial
No terrestrial mammals were observed during the site visit but physical signs of two mammal
species, opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor) were observed within the
project area. Other mammal species expected to occur within highly disturbed habitats such as
the project area are least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), eastern
gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), red bat (Lasiurus borealis), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
floridanus), woodland vole (Microtus pinetorum), and house mouse (Mus musculus).
Birds observed within or adjacent to the corridor are Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata). Other bird species expected to be
found in this fragmented area are American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), common grackle (Quisca/us quiscula), ruby-throated hummingbird
(Archilochus colubris), eastern towhee (Pipilio erythrophthalmus), house finch (Carpodacus
mexicanus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), and European starling (Sturnus vulgaris).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed during the site visit. Some terrestrial
reptiles and amphibians which may occur within the project area include eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), American toad (Bufo americanus), southern
dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), and slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosis).
3.3.2 Aquatic
Limited investigations resulted in no observations of aquatic reptiles. Aquatic or semi-aquatic
reptiles and amphibians expected to occur within the project area vicinity include green frog
(Rana clamitans), mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), eastern musk turtle (Sternotherus
odoratus), and yellowbelly slider (Trachemys scripta). Crayfish burrows were observed within
the project area.
11