20110296 Ver 1_Complete File_20110401

W AT ??QG
r
Q 'C
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Coleen Sullins, Director
Division of Water Quality
June 26, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Tracy A. Walter, NCDOT Bridge Project Development Unit
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed bridge replacement projects in Division 5, Bridge Group #53:
B-4513 & B-4514 in Franklin County and B-4660 & B-4661 in Wake County.
Reference your correspondences dated June 5 and June 25, 2007 in which you requested comments for
the referenced projects. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
perennial streams, riparian buffers and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically,
impacts to:
Project Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
B-4513 Prong Cypress Creek TAR 01 B, NSW 28-31-(1
- B-4514 Tar River TAR 01 WS-IV, NSW 28-(15.5)
B-4660 Neuse River NEU 02 WS-IV, NSW 27-(20.7)
B-4661 Wake Crossroads Lake
(Powell Creek) NEU 02 C, NSW 27-26
The Natural Resources Technical Reports for these projects also indicate the presence of numerous
unnamed tributaries and jurisdictional wetlands in the area. Whenever any jurisdictional areas are
identified, the Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental
issues for the proposed projects:
Project Specific Comments:
1. Prong Cypress Creek is class B, NSW waters of the State and Wake Crossroads Lake is class C,
NSW waters of the state. DWQ is very concerned with 'sediment and erosion impacts that could
result from these projects. DWQ recommends that highly protective sediment and erosion control
BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these waters. DWQ requests that
road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices
as detailed in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
2. The Tar River and the Neuse River are class WS-1V, NSW waters of the state. DWQ is very
concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from these projects. DWQ
recommends that the most protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce
the risk of nutrient runoff to these rivers. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of
the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed in the most recent version of
NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
Transportation Permitting Unit
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] FAX [phone] Internet http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands
Noce Carotin
tura!!y
An r-nnn] nnnnrhmity/Affirmafive Action Emolover- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
3. Projects B-4513 and B-4514 are within the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts
should be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0259.
4. Projects B-4660 and B-4661 are within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should
be avoided and minimized to the greatest extent possible pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B.0233.
General Project Comments:
1. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. NC
DOT should address these concerns by describing the potential impacts that may occur to the
aquatic environments and any mitigating factors that would reduce the impacts.
2. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3624/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
Whenever an old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed
unless otherwise authorized by the USACOE.. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines
for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
4. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the stream banks and do; not require stream channel
realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allow for human and
wildlife passage beneath the structure, do not block fish passage and do not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
5. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. Stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
holes, vegetated buffers, level spreaders, detention basins, etc.) before entering the stream. Please
refer to the most current version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
6.. If concrete is used during construction, a dry work area should be maintained to prevent direct
contact between curing concrete and stream water. Water that inadvertently contacts uncured
concrete should not be discharged to surface waters due to the potential for elevated pH and
possible aquatic life and fish kills.
7. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
8. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, the site shall be graded to its preconstruction
contours and elevations. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
appropriate native woody species should be planted. When using temporary structures the area
should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact allows the area to re-vegetate
naturally and minimizes soil disturbance.
9. Sediment and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be implemented
and maintained in accordance with the most recent version of North Carolina Sediment and Erosion
Control Planning and Design Manual and the most recent version of NCS000250.
10. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area unless otherwise
approved by NC DWQ. Approved BMP measures from the most current version of NCDOT
Construction and Maintenance Activities manual such as sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams and
other diversion structures should be used to prevent excavation in flowing water.
11. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters
from leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
12. In most cases, the DWQ prefers the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with
road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to
avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If
the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills
removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills. should be removed and restored to the
natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree
species. Tall fescue should not be used in riparian areas.
13. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner
that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be properly
designed, sized and installed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Rob Ridings at [phone]
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, US Army Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copies
V..a
FTGg JCri G' "00/>
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?insq , - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPE t
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 5, 2007
John Hennessy
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1621
Dear John Hennessy: .
SUBJECT: TIP Project B-4514 - Replacement of Bridge No. 36 on SR 1003 over Tar River in Franklin
County.
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is completing the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the replacement of this structure. This project is
included in the North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled construction in
fiscal year 2011.
The alternatives under consideration at this time for this bridge replacement project are: (1)
replace in-place road closure that uses an offsite detour to maintain traffic during construction, (2)
replace on new alignment to the east and maintain traffic on existing structure, and (3) replace in-place
using an temporary structure to the east to maintain traffic.
We have provided a copy of the Executive Summary of the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR) for your use. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in
evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. Your comments will be used in the
preparation of a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be prepared in accordance
with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your agency respond by August 10, 2007
so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this document.
If you have any questions concerning any of these projects, please contact Tracy A. Walter at
[phone]. Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
Sincerely,
Tracy A. Walter
Bridge Project Planning Engineer
Enclosure
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 2728 CAPITOL BLVD - SUITE 168
BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
1551 MAIL SERVICE CENTER -
RALEIGH NC 27699-1551
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 36
ON SR 1003 OVER TAR RIVER
FRANKLIN COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
T. I . P. No B-4514
State Project No. 8.2361101
WBS No. 33797.1.1
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1003(30)
Prepared for:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways Planning and Environment
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Office of Natural Environment Unit
Raleigh, North Carolina
OF NORTH CAS
OVA x\02
?T?F?TOF TRANSe01Q
January 2007
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B-4514
Franklin County
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 36 on SR 1003 over the Tar River, Franklin County, North Carolina;
TIP No. B-4514.
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 36 on SR
1003 over the Tar River located approximately 1,200 feet (ft) south of the intersection of SR 1003 and SR
1243 in Franklin County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project study area is approximately 36.13 acres
(ac) in areal extent, generally centered along SR 1003. The project study area is located in the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. The project study area comprises an area approximately 3,200
ft in length and 500 ft in width.
Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 200 ft above mean sea level (MSL) to
240 ft above MSL. There is one non-hydric soil mapping unit that may contain hydric inclusions and
one hydric soil mapping unit within the project study area. There are five non-hydric soil mapping units
mapped within the project study area (Figure 2).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project study area is located within, sub-basin 03-03-01 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is part of
USGS hydrologic unit 03020101 (USGS 1974). Drainages within the project study area are all part of the
Tar River watershed. The Tar River (S1) Stream Index Number (SIN) [SIN 28-(15.5)] has been assigned
a Best Usage Classification (BUC) of WS-IV NSW from a point 0.6 mile upstream o aylors Creek to a
point 0.3 mile downstream of Coole Creek. No Watershed Critical Area's or water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply Waters (WS-1 or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) are located within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) has compiled a comprehensive list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7 [Section 303(d) list]. A waterbody that does not meet its water quality
standards for its designated uses is considered to be impaired. The stream segments within the project
study area or within 1.0 mile of the project study area have not been listed as impaired waters according
to the 303(d) list.
Biotic Resources
Three natural community types (Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent
Impoundment, and Dry Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest) and three other community types (successional
B-4514 1 January 2007
areas, agricultural lands,. and maintained/disturbed land) were identified within the project study area. A
summary of plant community areas is presented in the following table and are depicted on Figure 4. Areas
presented in Tables 1 and 2 are based on the total project study area of 36.13 ac.
Table 1. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities Present in the Project Study Area'.
Plant Community Area (ac) % of Project Study Area
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 6.66 18.4
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent Impoundment 0.53 1.5
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 3.07 8.5
Successional Areas 5.33 14.7
Agricultural Land 1.40 3.9
Maintained/Disturbed Land 16.01 44.3
Total: 33.00 91.3
'Project Study Area includes open water area (1.45 ac) (4.0%) and impervious surfaces (1.68 ac) (4.7%) not included in this
plant community assessment.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
S1 and its unnamed tributaries (UT) are considered to be jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Based on field investigations, the project study area also contains jurisdictional
wetlands. Approximate areas of these systems within the project study area are summarized in the
following table and are depicted in Figure 3.
B-4514 2 January 2007
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas Present in the Project Study Area.
WETLANDS
Feature
Number Characteristics" Area (ac) % of project study area DWQ Wetland
Ratingb
Wl PFO1A (Non-Riverine) 0.38 1.1 51
W2 PFOIA (Non-Riverine) 0.08 0.2 15
W3 PF01A (Riverine)° 0.15 0.4 58
W4a PEM1F (Riverine) 0.37 1.0 60
W4b PSS1B (Non-Riverine) 0.36 1.0 60
W5 PEM1F (Riverine) 0.04 0.1 18
TOTAL: 1.38 3.8
SURFACE W ATERS
STREAMS
Feature Characteristics Length (linear ft)
S1 (The Tar River) 0 Perennial (R2UBH)/Important 608
S2 (UT1 to) Intermittent (R4UBJ)/1Jnimportant 164
S3 (UT2 to Intermittent (R4UBH)/Unimportant 227
TOTAL: 999
" Wetland Type: PF01A palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded; PSS palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved
deciduous, saturated; PEM palustrine, emergent, persistant, semipermanently flooded. Riverine wetlands receive overbank flooding compared
to non-riverine wetlands which do not receive overbank flooding.
b DWQ Wetland Rating Scores from Wetland Rating Worksheet for each wetland (Appendix B).
'Isolated and non jurisdictional for USACE; DWQ will likely exert jurisdiction of these isolated areas.
d Stream Type: R2UBH riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded; R4UBJ riverine, intermittent, unconsolidated
bottom, intermittently flooded.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands located in the project study area have been analyzed based on
vegetation type (Cowardin Classification) and source of dominant hydrologic influence (riverine or non-
riverine). The project study area contains 1.38 ac of jurisdictional wetland areas that could potentially be
affected by the proposed project. The palustrine, forested wetlands within the project study area account
for 0.61, ac of the project study area. The palustrine, emergent wetlands account for 0.41 ac and the
palustrine, scrub-shrub wetlands account for 0.36 ac of the project study area. USACE did not claim
jurisdiction over W3 and is now considered anisolat .wetland. DWQ will likely claim jurisdiction over
W3. W5 would be considered a high quality wetland due to its flood storage and aquatic life value.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional streams located in the project study area have been analyzed based on two general
characteristics: flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent) and stream importance. These
characteristics can be used to determine the alternative that best avoids and minimizes impacts to
jurisdictional streams. Stream impacts are discussed as linear and areal impacts in Table 2. The Tar
River accounts for 1.45 ac of open water within the project study area. There are 608 ft of perennial
stream and 391 ft of intermittent stream located within the project study area. S1 is perennial and has
B-4514 3 January 2007
associated wetlands and therefore is considered an important stream channel and impacts to these streams
will require mitigation. S2 and S3 are considered unimportant stream channels and will not require
mitigation.
Permits
It is anticipated that this bridge project will qualify for Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23, authorizing
approved Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines.
NWP #23 [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for CEs
due to expected minimal impact. NWP #33 may be necessary if temporary construction is required for
this project that is not described in the CE including temporary structures, work, and discharges including
cofferdams.
Us mapped on the USGS map and soil map and is subject to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
S2 and S3 are not mapped on the USGS map or the soil map, and therefore are not subject to the Tar-
Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules apply to a 50-ft wide riparian buffer directly adjacent
to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. Activities in the buffer area beyond the
footprint of the existing use as classified as either "exempt," "allowable," "allowable with mitigation," or
"prohibited." Guidelines will be consulted in their entirety to review all project related uses subject to the
Buffer Rules.
Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for
such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Table
3 presents the federal protected species listed for Franklin County (11 December 2006 USFWS list).
Table 3. Federally Listed Species for Franklin County, NC (11 December 2006 USFWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Potential Biological
Status" Habitat Present Conclusion
Dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Yes MA;NLTAA
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Yes MA;NLTAAb
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
" E - Endangered.
b MA;NLTAA - May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT; NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
According to NCNHP records, there is no documentation of dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The Tar River has moderate, well oxygenated flow with substrate of sand, and cobble.
A dwarf wedgemussel survey was conducted on 28 July 2005 by Alderman Environmental Services. No
species were found within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The project may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect this species.
B-4514 4 January 2007
Biological Conclusion: MAY EFFECT; NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
According to NCNBP records, there is no documentation of Tar River spinymussel within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The Tar River has moderate, well oxygenated flow with substrate of sand and cobble.
A Tar River spinymussel survey was conducted on 28 July 2005 by Alderman Environmental Services.
No species were found within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The project may effect but is not likely
to adversely affect this species.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
According to NCNET records, there is no documentation of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The maintained roadsides, powerline, and successional areas may provide potentially
suitable habitat. Prior to initiation of the field investigations, ESI biologists visited a reference population
in eastern Wake County to determine the vegetative status on this species. Potential habitat within the
project study area was surveyed for the presence/absence of Michaux's sumac by ESI biologists Gail
Tyner and Steve Kichefski on 28 June 2006 and no individuals were observed. The survey was
conducted via pedestrian transects through potential habitat. This project will have no effect on this
species.
A review of the NCNHI' records indicates that FSC species have been documented within and adjacent to
the project study area. NCNBP records indicated that the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), yellow
lance (Elliptio lanceolata), and Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) have been documented within the
project study area. A review of the NCNBP records indicates that no state listed species have been
documented within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
CONCLUSIONS
The project study area contains 1.38 ac of jurisdictional wetland areas that could potentially be affected
by the proposed project. The palustrine, forested wetlands within the project study area account for 0.61
ac of the project study area. The palustrine, emergent wetlands account for 0.41 ac and the palustrine,
scrub-shrub wetlands account for 0.36 ac of the project study area. SI accounts for 1.45 ac of open water
within the project study area. There are 835 linear ft of perennial stream and 164 linear ft of intermittent
stream located within the project study area.
S2 and S3 are not mapped on the USGS map or the soil map, and therefore are not subject to the Tar-
Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. The Tar River is mapped on the USGS map and soil map and is subject
to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
Jurisdictional areas within the project study area were reviewed by Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as of the date of this report. The resulting Jurisdictional Determination
issued by the USACE will be forwarded to NCDOT.
Permits likely to be required for this project are a Section 404 NWP No. 23 along with the corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
B-4514 5 January 2007
The replacement of Bridge No. 36 will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. The project study area has
potentially suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. Surveys were conducted and the
project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect these species. A review of the NCNBP records
indicates that FSC species (Carolina madtom, yellow lance, and Atlantic pigtoe) have been documented
within the project study area. No state listed species are documented within 1.0 mile of the project study
area.
This natural resource technical report is based on the mapped project study area and does not take into
account final design or limits of construction, which were undefined at the time of this report.
Construction of a replacement bridge within the footprint of the existing Bridge No. 36 is recommended
to minimize impacts to wetlands and vegetative communities. Designing alternatives that expanding the
existing bridge footprint and right-of-way downstream of the existing bridge will minimize impacts to
wetlands. There may be the potential for on-site mitigation by removing portions of the existing
causeway and expanding the proposed bridge length.
B-4514 6 January 2007

sr' ;; N
`tea--'-
'J?.-. _`,._? ^ \?` ? I1 ?.J/,??`.J/ / \<?F?31? 1?`.?....- (? \ f??'?l\ •_???I ..ir?Ln L- % t'\, ??_', ' T,?4e{
\ ?LS
Project Location
rti I -
r v • t^II ?( ? 111. '?r' r %lr (?=1-_( ?/i??? \ V? ?. ?1 , ? ?.?'.
\\ ?, ) '-?? t?v, i ?. 1 ' J r?---' 1 i/1,/ / ' `z '? , '•,-
? /?1111 ?^--?? x ?' i'`1 "i'ti?`I;/•illi
`ii /j? ?? ?I It ?_ `a ?"?} '+ / 11??? \, 1 ? y 111 ?!? ; ?1\t`? ??' •S ,` ?r
335 ){
l' JI !tijrr}^:, i.L ?\!'"l 1211 i?tj\\`\,J I r?\y1 i
? til\
Project Boundary
1
LiU/, I' cn I(t G?J? C
0 1000 2000 i?.x r '? yam/ \ _ -?-- -'t;? • ?'. /
Feet C-4
1 a -" -
1 inch equals 2,000 feet.
% r•' ' + y' r, ,
Source: USGS Digital Raster Graphics, 1211 v,
> 733 1 F ; \ ,X \\
Ingleside and Kittrell Quadrangles, 1993. + I (1)1 1 P? \- L \? ?\ -- ' ?(
Disclaimer: Information represented on this map was
derived fro. sewndary data sources and is to be used + \\ •'. , ++ \ '.,_. i c
for general planning purposes only. No warranties or ._?' ,-_ __. _ _ / \ \ \ t ` \•?,_ °? t
representations of accuracy are expressed or implied..'• C\ _ _ `}_
y" ?NORn c5?q 9 Project Location Project: ER04169.00
-?• Replacement of Bridge No. 36 Date: Jan 2007
I Franklin County, North Carolina Drwn/Chkd: AJS/GT
T.I.P. No. B-4514 Figure: 1
P:\Ge Gm\Projects/2004\ER04169\MS_V8\B4514_1o tion.dgn, 01125107, 5:00 PM
WCI. , xr fc'Ei' i,?r S
K
i' R m A - 1 , r., 4 .. ;• a•?J' r,-,' r' ? ' " _ J k ?,?q i1 4 Y1 ?v, 't}
fij
^
003 t '
;,.
We =WaR•
? We$
'` t'? r.. °3 L * v .s AEU", >? Y' . a __ S?' ft ;Y x 7 ?
YYIJE? ?vO y'
.: i
1 243
-We6 `~ F Z. j f
V?'cE >1F??C {
R MIA
Hey :. Si' lan
P. 17,
w ! r,
t a ?_ ChA.
1003
.1 S AC"l
,{, ?? ''t rJ C a
3 rv\ t' \ . ,? ?tJ
4
Project Boundary
D NRCS Soil Boundary
NRCS Stream t ° 7 " ?. WeG
Soil Mapping Units ` ! r z? i 5
rN\
Hydric Soils ti ?< c a` Ad??`' 1:'
ChA Chewacla and Wehadkee soils,
0-3% slopes, frequently flooded
Non-h dric Soils with H dric Inclusions APB>.
HeB Helena sandy loam, 2-6% slopes tf .` 7 ?x { • ?
Non hydric Soils
ApB Appling loamy sand, 2-6% slopes r : ?A • '
Wa6 Wake-Saw-Wedowee complex, L 4 t 4 J!!
2-8% slopes, rocky spy
ti s7 x' S t ,
WbD Wake Wateree Wedowee complex, c? • ?rf v/ 1
8-15 /p slopes, rock t pp S•. J
WeB Wedowee sandy loam, 2-6% slopes n.?? \ °: W
WeC Wedowee sandy loam, 6-10% slopes,; r
0 500 1000
Feet
°VeB
1 into equais 1,000 feet.
Source: NRCS Sal Survey of
Franklin County, 2004.
Discla mev Information represented on this map was Y? '"=t' 5 1? pY'Q [J k ! to ? 5? ?
derived from secondary data sources and is to be used \ r q„S j . ,. \- .• Y , r' r
for general plann,ng purposes only. No warranties or 1 t - '
representations of accuracy are expressed or implied. v
?'?- S.^ ti _ o t •r `A 1? /? ',, ;'?,/ _-`
Project Soils Project: ER04169.00
-?• Replacement of Bridge No. 36 Date: Jan 2007
• Franklin County, North Carolina Drwn/Chkd: AJS/GT
T.I.P. No. B-4514 Figure: 2
P.\GeoGra.Projects\2004\ER0416g'•,CoreRB45145 ils cdr; 01/25/07. 5:30 PM
.,

it
?. 1
e ?' a+` l?

???

?/,?. ?..
.. ?jlY?a
?r
i,m +?.
?'}ii ? " f
A '

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 27, 2007
Mr. John Hennessy
DENR - Division of Water Quality
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699 -1621
Dear Mr. John Hennessy:
SUBJECT: Bridge Group #53
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch has begun the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the following projects:
B-4513, B-4514, B-4660, B-4661, B-4582, and B-4614. These projects are included in the North
Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and are scheduled construction in fiscal years
2012, 2011, 2010, 2011, 2010, and 2011 respectively.
The alternatives under consideration at this time for each of these bridge replacement
projects is as follows:
• B-4513 Franklin County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour.
• B-4514 Franklin County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour B) Replace on
new alignment to the east while maintaining traffic on existing structure C) Replace in-place
while using a temporary detour structure to the east.
• B-4660 Wake County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour B) Replace.on new
alignment to the east while maintaining traffic on existing structure C) Replace on new
alignment to the east while maintaining traffic on existing structure.
• B-4661 Wake County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour B) Replace on new
alignment to the east while maintaining traffic on existing structure.
• B-4582 Montgomery County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour.
• B-4614 Richmond County - A) Replace in-place while using an offsite detour, B) Replace
in-place while using a temporary detour structure to the north, C) Replace in-place while
using a temporary detour structure to the south.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
BRIDGE PROJECT DEVELOPMENT UNIT
1551 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1551
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WESSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
PARKER LINCOLN BLDG
2728 CAPITOL BLVD - SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604

We have provided a copy of the Executive Summary of the Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) for your use. We would appreciate any information you might have that would
be helpful in evaluating potential environmental impacts of the project. Your comments will be
used in the preparation of a federally funded Categorical Exclusion. This document will be
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act. It is desirable that your
agency respond by April 27, 2007 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
If you have any questions concerning any of these projects, please contact Tracy A. Walter at
715-2120. Please include the TIP Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
Sincerely,
Tracy A. Walter
Bridge Project Development Unit
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
? 11 `? I
? ? 11
sexy
,az
\ y c
'?? ? ,? 1443
e
,' ee
PROJECT 120
LOCATION
I
1443 4 ?
r
1 •I -
I
1ffi3
1 ? >o
! Mifrhnam I 4' ?# tl
aI
rossroads ae }
? +343
a? `"? a I
lawn
c mI ENER.S
s P
0 D _1 1 ?^ /S8-4514 WT C
M KILL DR
s? MORIiI6VILL2. NC 275M
F 479.380.8'751
VICINITY MAP F 4,43?."n
FRANKLIN COUNTY BRIDGE NO. 36
OVER TAR RIVER S T E W A R T
TIN
\?'s-"' 1. ??'r`?}r4) ?1 ?t 1 tl-`..?` ? i -?.? ` ?.???/, ?•_' 'r If Y ti\t?,,`tN1
.b •? .. f ? ? `', , f' -- ? era ? ___ _- ? ? p,-ir r .
•? efr..-=??. mss} '-'.1 ? ` /^ l 1 _? '? 1 ,`' 1 ?5 nf,?J'/1
J All
OIL
j?"_ - l?ul `j1?7,_tijl?--•. •''ir-, I Mfr` f 4 -/- I I'r `?\\ _ - .-
`
J-4 V
?,i',_' j -(--;- I`'. 1'\\ •`-.-7 1? f' -i" ` . {`_ 1 jam""..,, ,J=ti
??,lE, ( '.l iJ f/ _,? •-fit fI j Jf,r
? Jf? , i 1 jll./J f ? ?
??-? ? 33? . ?_ ... Ji ?.. 1 r ???,JI ?t / 5.ti` ', a'Sfr? ?/y` ? ? tt ?_``? •
B4514 - Bridge #36 Franklin County
SR 1003 over Tar River

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
B-4514
Franklin County
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 36 on SR 1003 over the Tar River, Franklin County, North Carolina;
TIP No. B-4514.
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 36 on SR
1003 over the Tar River located approximately 1,200 feet (ft) south of the intersection of SR 1003 and SR
1243 in Franklin County, North Carolina (Figure 1). The project study area is approximately 36.13 acres
(ac) in areal extent, generally centered along SR 1003. The project study area is located in the Piedmont
physiographic province of North Carolina. The project study area comprises an area approximately 3,200
ft in length and 500 ft in width.
Elevations within the project study area range from approximately 200 ft above mean sea level (MSL) to
240 ft above MSL. There is one non-hydric soil mapping unit that may contain hydric inclusions and
one hydric soil mapping unit within the project study area. There are five non-hydric soil mapping units
mapped within the project study area (Figure 2).
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The project study area is located within sub-basin 03-03-01 of the Tar-Pamlico River Basin and is part of
USGS hydrologic unit 03020101 (USGS 1974). Drainages within the project study area are all part of the
Tar River watershed. The Tar River (Sl) Stream Index Number (SIN) [SIN 28-(15.5)] has been assigned
a Best Usage Classification (BUC) of WS-IV NSW from a point 0.6 mile upstream of Taylors Creek to a
point 0.3 mile downstream of Coole Creek. No Watershed Critical Areas or water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), or Water Supply Waters (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) are located within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) has compiled a comprehensive list of impaired waterbodies according to the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) and 40 CFR 130.7 [Section 303(d) list]. A waterbody that does not meet its water quality
standards for its designated uses is considered to be impaired. The stream segments within the project
study area or within 1.0 mile of the project study area have not been listed as impaired waters according
to the 303(d) list.
Biotic Resources
Three natural community types (Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent
Impoundment, and Dry Mesic Oak - Hickory Forest) and three other community types (successional
B-4514 1 January 2007
areas, agricultural lands, and maintained/disturbed land) were identified within the project study area. A
summary of plant community areas is presented in the following table and are depicted on Figure 4. Areas
presented in Tables I and 2 are based on the total project study area of 36.13 ac.
Table 1. Coverage of Terrestrial Communities Present in the Project Study Area'.
Plant Community Area (ac) % of Project Study Area
Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest 6.66 18.4
Piedmont/Mountain Semipermanent Impoundment 0.53 1.5
Dry Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest 3.07 8.5
Successional Areas 5.33 14.7
Agricultural Land 1.40 3.9
Maintained/Disturbed Land 16.01 44.3
Total: 33.04 91.3
' Project Study Area includes open water area (1,45 ac) (4.0%) and impervious surfaces (1.68 ac) (4.7%) not included in this
plant community assessment.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
S 1 and its unnamed tributaries (UT) are considered to be jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act. Based on field investigations, the project study area also contains jurisdictional
wetlands. Approximate areas of these systems within the project study area are summarized in the
following table and are depicted in Figure 3.
B-4514 2 January 2007
Table 2. Jurisdictional Areas Present in the Project Study Area.
WETLANDS
Feature
Number Characteristics' Area (ac) % of project study area DWQ Wetland
Ratingb
W 1 PFO I A (Non-Riverine) 0.38 i .1 51
W2 PFO1 A (Non-Riverine) 0.08 0.2 15
W3 PFOIA (Riverine)` 0.15 0.4 58
W4a PEMIF (Riverine) 0.37 1.0 60
W4b PSSIB (Non-Riverine) 0.36 1.0 60
W5 PEMIF (Riverine) 0.04 0.1 18
TOTAL: 1.38 3.8
SURFACE WATERS
STREAMS
Feature Characteristics Length (linear ft)
S 1 (The Tar River) Perennial (R2UBH)/1rnportant 608
S2 (UTI to) Intermittent (R4UBJ)/Unimportant 164
S3 (UT2 to) Intermittent (R4UBH)/Unimportant 227
TOTAL: 999
" Wetland Type: PF01A palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded; PSS palustrine, scrub-shrub, broad-leaved
deciduous, saturated, PEM palustrine, emergent, persistant, semipermanently flooded. Riverine wetlands receive overbank flooding compared
to non-riverine wetlands which do not receive overbank flooding.
' DWQ Wetland Rating Scores from Wetland Rating Worksheet for each wetland (Appendix B).
` Isolated and non jurisdictional for USACE; DWQ will likely exert jurisdiction of these isolated areas.
' Stream Type: R2LBH riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded; R4UBJ riverine, intermittent, unconsolidated
bottom, intermittently flooded.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential impacts to jurisdictional wetlands located in the project study area have been analyzed based on
vegetation type (Cowardin Classification) and source of dominant hydrologic influence (riverine or non-
riverine). The project study area contains 1.38 ac of jurisdictional wetland areas that could potentially be
affected by the proposed project. The palustrine, forested wetlands within the project study area account
for 0.61 ac of the project study area. The palustrine, emergent wetlands account for 0.41 ac and the
palustrine, scrub-shrub wetlands account for 0.36 ac of the project study area. USACE did not claim
jurisdiction over W3 and is now considered an isolated wetland. DWQ will likely claim jurisdiction over
W3. WS would be considered a high quality wetland due to its flood storage and aquatic life value.
Impacts to Jurisdictional Streams
Jurisdictional streams located in the project study area have been analyzed based on two general
characteristics: flow characteristics (perennial or intermittent) and stream importance. These
characteristics can be used to determine the alternative that best avoids and minimizes impacts to
jurisdictional streams. Stream impacts are discussed as linear and areal impacts in Table 2. The Tar
River accounts for 1.45 ac of open water within the project study area. There are 608 ft of perennial
stream and 391 ft of intermittent stream located within the project study area. S l is perennial and has
B-4514 3 January 2007
associated wetlands and therefore is considered an important stream channel and impacts to these streams
will require mitigation. S2 and S3 are considered unimportant stream channels and will not require
mitigation.
Permits
It is anticipated that this bridge project will qualify for Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23, authorizing
approved Categorical Exclusions (CEs) under Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines.
NWP #23 j33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] has been issued by the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for CEs
due to expected minimal impact. NWP #33 may be necessary if temporary construction is required for
this project that is not described in the CE including temporary structures, work, and discharges including
cofferdams.
SI is mapped on the USGS map and soil map and is subject to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
S2 and S3 are not mapped on the USGS map or the soil map, and therefore are not subject to the Tar-
Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. The Buffer Rules apply to a 50-ft wide riparian buffer directly adjacent
to surface waters in the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. Activities in the buffer area beyond the
footprint of the existing use as classified as either "exempt," "allowable," "allowable with mitigation," or
"prohibited." Guidelines will be consulted in their entirety to review all project related uses subject to the
Buffer Rules.
Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or officially Proposed (P) for
such listing, are protected under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1473 (16 USC 1531 et seq.). Table
3 presents the federal protected species listed for Franklin County (11 December 2006 USFWS list).
Table 3. Federally Listed Species for Franklin County, NC (11 December 2006 USFWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Potential Biological
Statue Habitat Present Conclusion
Dwarf wedgemussel A.lasmidonta heterodon E Yes MA;NLTAA
Tar River spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Yes MA;NLTAAb
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E Yes No Effect
8 E - Endangered,
b MA;NLTAA - May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Biological Conclusion: MAY AFFECT; NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
According to NCNHP records, there is no documentation of dwarf wedgemussel within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The Tar River has moderate, well oxygenated flow with substrate of sand, and cobble.
A dwarf wedgemussel survey was conducted on 28 July 2005 by Alderman Environmental Services. No
species were found within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The project may affect but is not likely to
adversely affect this species.
B-4514 4 January 2007
Biological Conclusion: MAY EFFECT; NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT
According to NCNHP records, there is no documentation of Tar River spinymussel. within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The Tar River has moderate, well oxygenated flow with substrate of sand and cobble.
A Tar River spinymussel survey was conducted on 28 July 2005 by Alderman Environmental Services.
No species were found within 1.0 mile of the project study area. The project may effect but is not likely
to adversely affect this species.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
According to NCNHP records, there is no documentation of Michaux's sumac within 1.0 mile of the
project study area. The maintained roadsides, powerline, and successional areas may provide potentially
suitable habitat. Prior to initiation of the field investigations, ESI biologists visited a reference population
in eastern Wake County to determine the vegetative status on this species. Potential habitat within the
project study area was surveyed for the presence/absence of Michaux's sumac by ESI biologists Gail
Tyner and Steve Kichefski on 28 June 2006 and no individuals were observed. The survey was
conducted via pedestrian transects through potential habitat. This project will have no effect on this
species.
A review of the NCNHP records indicates that FSC species have been documented within and adjacent to
the project study area. NCNHP records indicated that the Carolina madtom (Noturus furiosus), yellow
lance (Elliptio lanceolata), and Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconaia masoni) have been documented within the
project study area. A review of the NCNHP records indicates that no state listed species have been
documented within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
CONCLUSIONS
The project study area contains 1.38 ac of jurisdictional wetland areas that could potentially be affected
by the proposed project. The palustrine, forested wetlands within the project study area account for 0.61
ac of the project study area. The palustrine, emergent wetlands account for 0.41 ac and the palustrine,
scrub-shrub wetlands account for 0.36 ac of the project study area. S 1 accounts for 1.45 ac of open water
within the project study area. There are 835 linear ft of perennial stream and 164 linear ft of intermittent
stream located within the project study area.
S2 and S3 are not mapped on the USGS map or the soil map, and therefore are not subject to the Tar-
Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules. The Tar River is mapped on the USGS map and soil map and is subject
to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer Rules.
Jurisdictional areas within the project study area were reviewed by Mr. Eric Alsmeyer of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (USACE) as of the date of this report. The resulting Jurisdictional Determination
issued by the USACE will be forwarded to NCDOT.
Permits likely to be required for this project are a Section 404 NWP No. 23 along with the corresponding
Section 401 Water Quality Certification.
B-4514 5 January 2007
The replacement of Bridge No. 36 will have no effect on Michaux's sumac. The project study area has
potentially suitable habitat for dwarf wedgemussel and Tar spinymussel. Surveys were conducted and the
project may affect but is not likely to adversely affect these species. A review of the NCNHP records
indicates that FSC species (Carolina madtom, yellow lance, and Atlantic pigtoe) have been documented
within the project study area. No state listed species are documented within 1.0 mile of the project study
area.
This natural resource technical report is based on the mapped project study area and does not take into
account final design or limits of construction, which were undefined at the time of this report.
Construction of a replacement bridge within the footprint of the existing Bridge No. 36 is recommended
to minimize impacts to wetlands and vegetative communities. Designing alternatives that expanding the
existing bridge footprint and right-of-way downstream of the existing bridge will minimize impacts to
wetlands. There may be the potential for on-site mitigation by removing portions of the existing
causeway and expanding the proposed bridge length.
B-4514 6 January 2007