U-3330

Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
Project Review Form
Project Number: 07-0261 County: Nash
Due Date: 02/26/2007
Date Received: 02/02/2007
Project Description: Proposal to widen US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road) in
Nash County. TIP No. U-3330
This Project is being reviewed as indicated below:
Regional Office Regional Office Area, In-House Review
Asheville S Air Soil & Water Marine Fisheries
Fayetteville T_ Water Coastal Management Water Resources
Mooresville Groundwater Wildlife Environmental Health
T Raleigh Solid Waste Mgmt
?_ Land Quality Engineer _ T Wildlife - DOT
Washington Radiation Protection
T Forest Resources
Wilmington Other
Winston-Salem Land Resources
T Parks & Recreation
Water Quality
T Water Quality - DOT
Air Quality
Manager Sign-Off/Region: Date: In-House Reviewer/Agency:
Response (check all applicable)
No objection to project as proposed. No Comment
Insufficient information to complete review Other (specify or attach comments)
Regional Office Only:
Please log into the IBEAM system and update your comments in the DSS (Decision Support System) application,
SEPA module. If you have any questions, please contact:
Melba McGee, Environmental Coordinator at [e-mail]
FEB 0 5 2007
DENR - VdAl'rck OVA
1IVETiAND5 AND STOPMWA1 ER B°,ANCV-
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Melba McGee, Office of Legislative and Intergovernmental Affairs
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to US 301 Bypass in Nash County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0301(17), State Project No. 36596.1.1, TIP No. U-3330, DENR Clearinghouse
No. 07-0261.
Reference your correspondence dated February 2, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
streams, buffers and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Stony Creek TAR 02 C NSW 28-68
Goose Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-70
UT Hornbeam Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-72-1
UT Tar River TAR 02 WS-IV NSW CA
*303(d) Listed 28-(66.5)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT consider the. following environmental issues for the
proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. These waters are class NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these
streams. 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. This project is 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.
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
Ne C
oarolm
Ntura!!y
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer- 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
3. The Tar River is listed 303(d) impaired waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff
to Tar River and its tributaries. 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.
4. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical
Area in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS CA
(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 21-1.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules { 15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. 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.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks 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.
10. 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, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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 919-733-9817.
111A 'If
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
February 7, 2007
MEMORANDUM
To: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., NCDOT PDEA
From: Rob Ridings, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Unit
Through: John Hennessy, NC DWQ Transportation Permitting Uni
Subject: Scoping comments on proposed improvements to US 301 Bypass in Nash County, Federal Aid
Project No. STP-0301(17), State Project No. 36596.1.1, TIP No. U-3330.
Reference your correspondence dated January 29, 2007 in which you requested comments for the
referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals the potential for multiple impacts to
streams, buffers and jurisdictional wetlands in the project area. More specifically, impacts to:
Stream Name River Basin &
Subbasin Stream
Classifications Stream Index
Number
Stony Creek TAR 02 C NSW 28-68
Goose Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-70
UT Hornbeam Branch TAR 02 C NSW 28-72-1
UT Tar River TAR 02 WS-IV NSW CA
*303(d) Listed 28-(66.5)
Further investigations at a higher resolution should be undertaken to verify the presence of other streams
and/or jurisdictional wetlands in the area. In the event that any jurisdictional areas are identified, the
Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT (or the consultant(s) that requested the comments)
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
Project Specific Comments:
1. These waters are class NSW waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with sediment and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that highly protective
sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to these
streams. 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. This project is 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.
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
o Carolin
Ne
Natura!!r(
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycledl10% Post Consumer Paper
3. The Tar River is listed 303(d) impaired waters of the State. DWQ is very concerned with
sediment and erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most
protective sediment and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff
to Tar River and its tributaries. 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.
4. Review of the project reveals the presence of surface waters classified as Water Supply Critical
Area in the project study area. Given the potential for impacts to these resources during the project
implementation, the DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0124) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having WS CA
(Water Supply Critical Area) classifications.
General Project Comments:
1. The environmental document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed
impacts to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping. If mitigation is necessary as
required by 15A NCAC 2H.0506(h), it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized)
mitigation plan with the environmental documentation. Appropriate mitigation plans will be
required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
2. Environmental assessment alternatives should consider design criteria that reduce the impacts to
streams and wetlands from storm water runoff. These alternatives should include road designs
that allow for treatment of the storm water runoff through best management practices as detailed
in the most recent version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices, such as grassed
swales, buffer areas, preformed scour holes, retention basins, etc.
3. After the selection of the preferred alternative and prior to an issuance of the 401 Water Quality
Certification, the NCDOT is respectfully reminded that they will need to demonstrate the
avoidance and minimization of impacts to wetlands (and streams) to the maximum extent
practical. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)}, mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 1 acre to wetlands. In the
event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate
lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may be available for use as
wetland mitigation.
4. In accordance with the Environmental Management Commission's Rules {15A NCAC
2H.0506(h)), mitigation will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single
perennial stream. In the event that mitigation is required, the mitigation plan should be designed
to replace appropriate lost functions and values. The NC Ecosystem Enhancement Program may
be available for use as stream mitigation.
5. 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.
6. If a bridge is being replaced with a hydraulic conveyance other than another bridge, DWQ
believes the use of a Nationwide Permit may be required. Please contact the US Army Corp of
Engineers to determine the required permit(s).
7. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge of bridge material into surface waters is allowed unless
otherwise authorized by the US ACOE. Strict adherence to the Corps of Engineers guidelines for
bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401 Water Quality Certification.
8. Bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream when possible.
9. Whenever possible, the DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream or grubbing of the streambanks 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.
10. 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, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to the most current
version of NC DWQ Stormwater Best Management Practices.
11. 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.
12. 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.
13. Placement of culverts and other structures in waters, streams, and wetlands shall be below the
elevation of the streambed by one foot for all culverts with a diameter greater than 48 inches, and
20 percent of the culvert diameter for culverts having a diameter less than 48 inches, to allow low
flow passage of water and aquatic life. Design and placement of culverts and other structures
including temporary erosion control measures shall not be conducted in a manner that may result
in dis-equilibrium of wetlands or streambeds or banks, adjacent to or upstream and down stream
of the above structures. The applicant is required to provide evidence that the equilibrium is being
maintained if requested in writing by DWQ. If this condition is unable to be met due to bedrock
or other limiting features encountered during construction, please contact the NC DWQ for
guidance on how to proceed and to determine whether or not a permit modification will be
required.
14. If multiple pipes or barrels are required, they should be designed to mimic natural stream cross
section as closely as possible including pipes or barrels at flood plain elevation and/or sills where
appropriate. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at the
inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition
that requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
15. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3494/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands and streams.
19. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practical. Impacts to wetlands
in borrow/waste areas could precipitate compensatory mitigation.
20. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps, NC Coastal Region Evaluation of
Wetland Significance (NC-CREWS) maps and soil survey maps are useful tools, their inherent
inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior to permit
approval.
21. 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.
22. 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.
23. 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 919-733-9817.
cc: William Wescott, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington Field Office
Ron Lucas, Federal Highway Administration ,
Jamie Guerrero, Division 4 Environmental Officer
Chris Militscher, Environmental Protection Agency
Travis Wilson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Gary Jordan, US Fish and Wildlife Service
File Copy
a a STATE °
s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 7 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR ?? Z?? SECRETARY
January 29, 2007 C.., 46
ti Fft 2007 0-2
M QJ
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
0
State Clearinghouse
Department of1 ratio ?11191 S1 ql??
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, - "Manager
z •?
Project Developm 'and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANAiySIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping'lnformation Sheet
TIP No.: U-3330
WBS No.: r TBD
Federal Aid No: TBD
Division: 4
Descri
Sent Date:
Revision Date: ?-
Meeting Date:
County: Nash
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
general Project Need:
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan / Rural Plannin10 anization Rocky Mount MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Meroer Candidate?: ? Yes ® No
? Not sure
Feasibility Study Comoleted0 ® Yes ? No 3/13/1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule
Dates: T f D
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
2012
ype o ocument.
EA
Air Quality Status• ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance
® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4

PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Lenqth of Proiect Limits: 2.3 miles
Type of Access Control.
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed: Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business); two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
No
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
Typical Section in Comoliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
Existing Posted US 301: 45- Proposed Design US 301:45-
Speed: mph Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT): % TTST: US 301: 4%
Current Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
Design Year: (2030) US 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Design Standards Applicable: AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Uonstruction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
13.6 million 200,000 13.8 million
PAGE 2 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR ) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
- The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within -the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers" .
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted during field site
PAGE 3 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
visits. The Stony CreekMetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts.(i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4OF4

Q
el
r End Project
j. rk
.,y +? 0
x A

a
Begin Project
Rocky Mount

US 301 Bypass Project
May Drive to NC 43/48 TIP No. U-3330 Location Map
NTS
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1
e„a STN7[y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
January 29, 2007
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
Department of if`israt c
Gregory J. Thorpe,
Project Developme
Fft 2007

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Co
Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting. we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWNCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping'lnformation Sheet
TIP No.: U-3330
WBS No.: TBD
Federal Aid No: TBD
Division: r-4
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: Nash
-?
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
P
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan /Rural Plannina Organization Rocky Mount MPO
Area:
NEP V404 Meraer Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Studv Completed? ® Yes ? No 3/13/1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule
Dates: Ty e of r )e%
t
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
2010
2012
p cumen .
EA
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits 2.3 miles.
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed; Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business); two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Tvpe)•
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Wad
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
US 301: 45 Proposed Design US 301: 45
mph Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT): % TTST: US 301: 4%
Current Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
Design Year: (2030) US 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Design Standards Applicable: - AASHTO C? 3R

Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
No
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
construction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
13.6 million 4 200,000 13.8 million
a
PAGE 2 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
= The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within -the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers" .
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted during field site
PAGE 3 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts _(i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4OF4

T ,i
Rocky Mount

I
5 US 3:01 Bypass Project
Location Map
May Drive to NC 43/48 TIP No. U-3330 NTS
_.; Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1
Begin Pro
a '
SfnTFo
? S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO:
Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director
State Clearinghouse
V
2007
Aft Department of app ratic

LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
M
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, V..'" Manager
Project Developm and Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWWCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping'lnformation Sheet
TIP No.: U-3330
WBS No•: TBD
Federal Aid No: TBD
Division: 4
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting-Date.. -?
County: Nash
rroiect Uescription•
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
General Proiect Need-
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Rocky Mount MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Merger Candidate?: ? Yes ® No
? Not sure
Feasibilitv Studv Completed?- ® Yes ? No 3/13/1995 1 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document: June 2008 EA
Right of Way: 2010
Let:
Air Quality Status• ? Non-attainment
? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits: 2.3 miles
Type of Access Control
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
functional
Classification:
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Desi nation Facilit Tv e
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination
® Yes
Right of WA
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
j eed:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed: Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business); two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
[I No
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
US 301: 45- Proposed Design US 301: 45-
mph Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT)• % TTST: US 301: 4%
C
n
urre
t Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
D
i
es
gn Year: (2030) US 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Design Standards Applicable: C? AASHTO L .? 3R
Railroad Involvement-
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
No
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
Construction: Right rnf \Nav- -r„+.,i f?

13.6 million - ??
200,000 %JLa%-OVOL.
13.8 million

d
PAGE 2OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR ) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
= The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within -the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers".
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted durina field site
PAGE 3OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4110/06
visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts.(i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4OF4
End Project'
s..
0

6Q
. k
Begin Project
Rocky Mour
i
US 301 Bypass Project
May Drive to NC 43/48 TIP No. U-3330 Location Map
NTS
f Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1
µ SfAh o-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 77 1 LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR ???2O??J1 J ??? SECRETARY
January 29, 2007
ti
? 2007
M 00
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Chrys Baggett, Director o
State Clearinghouse
Department of i rahoh:%% ?g?119t ?t Vl?t
FROM: Gregory J. Thorpe, -manager
Project Deve10 in sand Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping'lnformation Sheet
TIP No.. U-3330
WQS No.:
TBD
Federal Aid No: TBD
Division: 4
Sent Date:
Revision Date: ?-
Meeting Date:
County: Nash
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan / Rural Punning Organization
Area. Rocky Mount MPO
NEPA/404 Merger Candidatel ? Yes ® No
? Not sure
Feasibility Study Comoleted?: ® Yes ? No 3/13/1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project SchPriule
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document: June 2008
EA
Right of Way: 2010
Let: 1_ 2012
Air Quality Status• ? Non-attainment
? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Project Limits 2.3 miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed: Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business); two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type)'
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
No -
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes F? No
Right of Way:
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
-Existing Posted
Speed: US 301: 45 Proposed Design US 301: 45-
h
mp
Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT): % TTST: US 301: 4%
Current Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
Design Year: (2030) US 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Desion Standards Applicable: C? AASHTO 3R
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Lonstruction: Right of Way: Total Cost:
13.6 million 200,000 13.8 million

PAGE 2OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR ) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
- The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within -the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers" .
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted during field site
PAGE 3OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10106
visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts.(i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4OF4
zi.
End Projects
.. s t
- X:m
??: '?? , ?? ? ? (/ a. sit ?` ? ?? ??? ??? ?
is y
ARC

a
3?18y4 t ? .,

sQ;
Rocky Mount
Legend
i---- S uy Ar
a..,?m,..... f r e a rn s
US 301 Bypass Project
Location Map
May Drive to NC 43/48 TIP No. U-3330 NTS
`,.. Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Ms. Nicole Thomson
Division of Water Qt
Central Office-,--,
Project Developm etlands
Gregory J. Thorp

_ ?t
?0
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWWWCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-3330
WBS No.: TBD
Federal Aid No: TBD
Division: 4
Sent Date:
Revision Date:
Meeting Date:
County: r Nash
n:
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Rocky Mount MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?- ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed: ® Yes E] No 3/13/1995 -? Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Proiect Schedule:
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
2010
2012
EA
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits: 2.3 miles
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventorv:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed: Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business ; two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
N
o
F I
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Wad
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing Posted
Speed:_
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
US 301: 45 Proposed Design US 301: 45-
mph Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT): % TTST: US 301: 4%
Current Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
Design Year: 2030) US 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Design Standards Applicable: ?X AASHTO C? 3R

Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Gonstruction: Right of Wa : Total Cost:
13.6 million 200,000 13.8 million
PAGE 2 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR ) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
- The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers" .
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known, to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted during field site
PAGE 3 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4 OF 4
}
4 Y r , .
M1r
End Project 3o1°ypa7 J
S'q
?y 5
"iw
??., ass ""r"'G??'?i,???f•i?•?P ? ?=- {`rte;-S' ? ?` ?;?.?^5? ??r?-3 '? ?'
r ?
ry '0
' ? r '`?`, Q v? t.,?a?s ?.r? '? -•v? ASS ? ,,
y y? + ti
-IN
:I?-•x`?? ycz+Q bh tvNlr?p_t? S ??j#'7? r^ k L.. - -_
Y 1
t
r
k
a
fi

?b c
y S¢ 4 p Rocky Mount ? M
Begin Project.:

k --,N, K/rL i

a
Legend
?- -: Skidy Area
Streams
Nash County

? "3Y ass Project
Bypass
? ?
`" May Drive to NC 43/48 TIP No. U-3330 Location N Map
ap
Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1

y F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
January 29, 2007
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Mr. John Hennessy
Division of Water.4
Gregory J. Thorpe,
Project Developme
SUBJECT: Widening of US 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to
NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road), Rocky Mount, Federal-Aid Project
STP-0301(17), WBS 36596.1.1, TIP Project No. U-3330
The Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch is starting the project
development, environmental and engineering studies for the U-3330. The project is included in
the Draft 2007-2013 North Carolina Transportation Improvement Program and is scheduled for
right of way in fiscal year 2010 and construction in fiscal year 2012.
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping information sheets for the proposed
project. We would appreciate any information you might have that would be helpful in evaluating
potential environmental impacts of the project. If applicable, please identify any permits or
approvals that may be required by your agency. A scoping meeting will be scheduled with NCDOT
staff to discuss the proposed project in more detail. In order to include your comments in our
materials for this meeting, we would appreciate your response by March 12, 2007. If you would
like to attend the scoping meeting, please notify the project engineer.
It is anticipated that a federally funded Environmental Assessment/Finding of No
Significant Impact will be prepared for this project. This document will be prepared in
accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
If you have any questions concerning the project, please contact Ted Devens, P. E.,
Project Planning Engineer, of this Branch at [phone], Ext. 360. Please include the TIP
Project Number in all correspondence and comments.
GJT/plr
Attachment
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
C jf???SF .9
? ;- 1.6
n;??tp4;;
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Analysis Branch
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Scoping Information Sheet
TIP No.: U-3330
WBS No.: TBD
Federal Aid No: ?- TBD
Division: 4
Sent Date: ?-
Revision Date: ?-
Meeting Date:
County: Nash
The project is located in the City of Rocky Mount, in Nash County and involves widening
the existing 301 Bypass from SR 1836 (May Drive) to NC 43/48 (Benvenue Road). The
improvements involve widening from a four-lane divided facility to a six-lane facility.
There are three exisitng interchanges along this corridor, NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, and
US 64 business, as well as nine signalized intersections.
The purpose of the project is to increase capacity and improve travel conditions and safety
along the facility.
Metropolitan / Rural Planning Organization Rocky Mount MPO
Area:
NEPA/404 Merg er Candidate?: ? Yes ® No ? Not sure
Feasibility Stud y Completed?: ® Yes ? No 3/13/1995 Date
Type of Environmental Documents to be Prepared / Project Schedule:
Dates: Type of Document:
Environmental Document:
Right of Way:
Let:
2010
2012
EA
Air Quality Status: ? Non-attainment ? Maintenance ® Attainment
PAGE 1 OF 4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Design Criteria:
Length of Proiect Limits: 2.3 miles -,
Type of Access Control:
(Existing / Proposed)
Structure Inventory:
Functional
Classification:
Rev 4/10/06
Existing: Partial
Proposed: Partial
Three interchanges (NC 43/48, US 64 Bypass, 64
Business ; two bridges over Stony Creek; two RCBCs
US 301- Principal arterial
Strategic Highway Corridor
Information:
CTP/Thoroughfare Plan
Designation (Facility Type):
Roadway Typical
Section:
(Existing / Proposed)
No
US 301 - Major thoroughfare
Existing: 4-lane divided
Proposed: 6-lane divided
Typical Section in Compliance with Conformity Determination:
® Yes ? No
Right of Wad
(Existing / Proposed)
Existing: 200 feet
Proposed: 200 - 250 feet
Existing Posted US 301: 45 Proposed Design US 301:
Speed: mph Speed: 50 mph
Traffic (AADT): % TTST: US 301: 4%
Current Year: (2005) US 301 - 18,700 % Dual: IUS 301: 2%
Design Year: (2030 ITS 301 - 29,000 % DHV: US 301: 8%
Desiqn Standards Applicable: AASHTO C? 3R
Railroad Involvement:
Not applicable
Cost Estimate:
TIP Estimate:
Current Estimate:
Lonstruction: Right of Wa : Total Cost:
13.6 million 200,000 13.8 million
PAGE 2OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures
Rev 4/10/06
Natural / Human Environmental Information (include
comments from agencies):
- Final Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR ) completed June 2006
- USACE Jurisdictional Determination received January 2006
- The aquatic communities within the project study area consist of streams, beaver
impacted areas, a naturalized borrow area, and wetlands. Goose Branch is a perennial,
beaver impacted stream, which flows into the Tar River. Stony Creek is a stable, large
perennial stream within the project area. There are two Unnamed Tributaries (UTs) that
join together to become UT Saddletree Swamp and one pond within the project study
area. All wetlands within the project study area share very similar soil properties and
are located within the floodplains of the streams.
- The jurisdictional streams within the project study area fall within the Tar-Pamlico
River Basin and are therefore subject to the rules for the "Protection and Maintenance
of Existing Riparian Buffers" .
- The USFWS lists four federally protected species for Nash County. They are as
follows:
(1) Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Ground surveys for RCW habitat within the project study area were conducted along
with the other field studies described in this report. No large open stands of pines are
located within the project study area. Planted pines of less than 10 inch dbh are located
adjacent to the on and off ramps of US 64 which do not provide adequate habitat for the
red-cockaded woodpecker. The high degree of urbanization within the project vicinity
would preclude the RCW from using the area for foraging.
(2) Dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The USFWS has noted a population of Dwarf wedge mussel in Stony Creek, upstream
of the project area and has requested that a mussel survey be conducted. Additionally,
the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) is known to exist in
the Tar River, which Stony Creek is a tributary of. Although neither mussel species are
reported to exist within the project study area, the USFWS requested that a mussel
survey be conducted in Stony Creek extending 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of the project limits. Additionally, NCDWQ may require additional
sedimentation control measures in order to protect mussel habitat. Concurrence will be
required from the USFWS following the findings of the mussel survey.
(3) Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - Endangered
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: May Affect-Not Likely to Adversely Affect
Although no specimens of the Tar spinymussel have been noted near the project area,
Stony Creek provides sufficient habitat. As stated previously, USFWS has requested a
survey for this species.
(4) Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalusie) - Threatened
No evidence of bald eagles within or near the project area was noted during field site
PAGE 3OF4
PDEA Scoping Procedures Rev 4/10/06
visits. The Stony Creek/Wetland F complex provides limited aquatic resources to attract
bald eagles. The associated water bodies are too small and the surrounding area is too
urbanized to support them in anything other than in a transient role. Additionally, land
use within a one mile radius of the project study area is heavily commercialized and
does not provide suitable habitat for bald eagles visits.
- There are 9 Federal Species of Concern (FSCs) listed by the USFWS for Nash
County. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed
no documented occurrences of FSCs within 1 mile of the project study area. In a letter
dated March 22, 2005, the NCNHP noted three occurrences of rare species within 0.5
miles of the proposed project in the vicinity of Sunset Park. These species are as
follows:
• A creeper (Strophitus undulatus) - State Threatened
• Eastern lampmussel (Lampsilis radiata radiata) - State Threatened
• Roanoke slabshell (Elliptio roanokensis) - State Threatened
- There are no structures within the immediate vicinity that appear to be over 50 years
old. In a letter dated April 12, 2005 the SHPO stated that they were aware of no historic
resources that would be affected by the project.
- Social impacts (i.e., relocations, EJ, community cohesion etc) unlikely.
PAGE 4OF4
#W _-11
S Z
?..
End Project T
-A V
,?" ro :.
dT?•rr _ -f _? ?• 1 ./i-., ?, tom` ; +if ?? .- i? ,_ - ? ` n ? <?
t 6 t h3 +l any Yy?
d
46,
Y r lY?; S f r ?T y {<? N T.
Ail,
.4 ^ 7r .. ?fl {'' to T'?'. eh
Begin Project ` 4
L V
M? d76kY a.
r ?t
sa x,
pi?nan. +xcw v
? f
A N, X L I N
w if f W I' N S
_ A S
?bt3
Mar's w - }
Fav ?1. }f)
A 4 Lam; I E A X n
S NiJr(?.. 50?
` ?? tw 5 ?}{Mt ..
"•"r? W.vulfYt / ?
OCK
k " bWunt I?Ljnt. t•
0 G E C; o 1
_ ,jkK,et
yF
? (li Co uc
r Geri ? ? ? Irk.
{ 3 ?

t? .
T ?_? a3 1R? ? -
P
?5h Rocky Mount
?. ?Ft'rs Q? '?1 C -
Nash County
Legend
? a
.S r t' nn s
U 301 Bypass Project
May Drive to NC 43148 TIP No. U-3330 Location Map
NTS
MT Nash County, North Carolina Exhibit 1
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
stanW.com
,Y
Stantec
April 12, 2005
Mr. Brian Wrenn
North Carolina Department of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
Qc?c?r?unr??
APR 1 3 2005
DENR • WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Re: U-3330, US 301 Bypass Widening NRTR, Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wrenn:

Please find a copy of the correspondence I sent to Bill Biddlecome regarding the, revised
wetland mapping. I enjoyed meeting you and Christina. Should I continue to send
correspondence to you, or is Christina going to be handling the project? Let me know if there is
anything else you need. My number is [phone] ext. 265.
Sincerely,
0-
Lia E. Myott
Scientist, Environmental Management
Imyott astantec.com
Files
Stantec Consulting Services Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
stanW.com
4
i
Stantec
April 11, 2005
APR 1 3
Mr. Bill Biddlecome ??0?
DFNR-WER
AT
US Army Corps of Engineers ST QY"
?++wAr?Ry
Washington Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Re: U-3330, US 301 Bypass Widening NRTR, Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Biddlecome:
Please find the attached figures depicting the revised jurisdictional waters identified during the
jurisdictional field visit on April 6, 2005 within the project study area identified by NCDOT for U-
3330 in Rocky Mount.
The riverine wetland associated with Stony Creek has been included and the wetland line F has
been modified as we discussed during your field visit. Attached are tables for each wetland
include coordinates corresponding with each wetland flag.
Wetlands Summary:
- The Goose Branch Wetland (0.60 ac) is a bottomland hardwood wetland (GA and GB)
located on the floodplain of Goose Branch and impacted by beaver activity. During the
recent field visit on April 6th, it was noted that the large beaver dam had been removed.
- Lowe's naturalized borrow area (4.829 ac) is a man-made waterbody created by the
construction of the US 64 interchange and enhanced by beaver activity that exists
between the Lowe's complex and the US 64 off-ramp.
- Wetland F, the largest wetland (3.841 ac) in the project study area is located in the
southeast portion of the study area and is hydrologically fed by Stony Creek and the
road drainage from US 64.
- Wetland D, is a small riverine wetland (0.131 ac) located on the left bank of Stony Creek,
east of US 301 Bypass.
- Wetland S (0.028 ac) is located on the Stony Creek floodplain, west of US 301 bypass.
This wetland receives additional stormwater from the Hardee's parking lot adjacent to
the Stony Creek floodplain.
- Wetland E is a wet flat type wetland (0.253 ac) that was determined to be an isolated
wetland during the April 6, 2005 field visit, and will be covered by the NCDWQ isolated
wetland rules.
Stream Summary:
- Goose Branch is a perennial stream, with 580 linear feet within the project area. When
not impacted by beaver activity it is 8 inches to 3 feet in depth and 4-10 feet wide.
Stony Creek is a large perennial stream, with 725 linear feet within the project area. It is
37-57 feet wide and 5-8 feet deep and is listed as a §303d water.
Lowe's Unnamed tributary, a small perennial stream fed by the Lowe's naturalized
borrow area, is 190 linear feet in length. It averages 2 feet in width and 6 inches in
depth.
Please review the attached information, and let me know if there is anything else you need to
make your jurisdictional determination. Feel free to contact me at [phone] x 265 with
any questions. I enjoyed meeting you.
Sincerely,
,-4- Z A f -
Lia E. Myott
Scientist, Environmental Management
I myott(aD-sta ntec. com
Copy DWQ
Files
$talntec
U-3330 - Rocky Mount Wetland Tables
Goose Branch '- East
Figure Label Flag Latitude Lon itude
GB1 begin goose-10 2352913.167 810352.391
G13-2 goose-8 2352864.247 810432.957
GB-3 goose-7 2352823.639 810461.062
GB-4 goose-6 2352789.505 810497.422
GB-5 goose Ib/culy 2352809.971 810508.177
GB-6 goose-4 2352903.936 810457.825
GB-7 e-3 2352993.345 810412.757
GB-8 end 2353010.98 810405.71
Goose Branch -' West
Figure Label Flag Latitude Longitude
GA-1 c-05 2352555.577 810754.216
GA-2 c-06 2352579.558 810721.322
GA-3 c-07 2352597.238 810665.838
GA-4 c-08 2352575.224 810636.539
GA-5 c-09 2352540.346 810617.837
GA-6 c-10 2352493.756 810619.709
GA-7 c-11 2352458.346 810638.23
GA-8 end 2352422.47 810683.04
Lowe's Naturalized Borrow Area
Figure Label Point Latitude Longitude
L1 to-4 2348840.84 808679.98
L2 Io-5 2349043.05 808560.44
L3 to-6 2349069.2 808528.051
L4 to-8 2349155.72 808276.904
L5 10-9 2349274.988 808276.904
L6 to-10 2349371.338 808180.855
L7 to-11 2349486.095 808082.358
L8 to-13 2349498.835 808043.339
L9 to-14 2349540.127 808064.077
L10 to-15 2349572.51 808129.799
1-11 to-16 2349440.58 808250.545
L12 to-17 2349336.3 808307.97
L13 lo-18 2349282.86 808381.26
L14 lo-19 2349142.05 808572.73
L15 lo-20 2349072.13 808680.98
L16 to-21 2348942.1 808831.81
L17 lo-22 2348735.61 808991.69
L18 lo-23 2348444.36 809208.78
Wetland E - Non-j risdictional
Figure Label Fla Latitude Longitude
E1 begin ROW fence 62-e5 row 2350418.472 807950.044
E2 62-e4 2350431.452 807969.14
E3 62-e3 2350500.31 807975.541
E4 62-e2 2350519.851 807998.822
E5 e11 2350387.684 807984.728
E6 e10 2350303.201 807964.312
E7 e9 2350240.55 807968.662
E8 e8 2350171.46 807952.454
E9 e2 2350168.306 807931.759
E10 e6 2350191.634 807940.775
E11 e5 2350247.133 807949.414
E12 end ROW fence e4-end 2350291.44 807909.881
Ston Creek near F
Figure Label _
Fla Latitude Longitude
D1 fc-0 2349350.14 807145.3
D2 fc-1 2349316.398 807138.676
D3 fc-2 2349262.133 807091.937
D4 fc-3 2349232.88 807071.538
D5 fc-4 2349214.625 807043.605
D6 fc-5 2349197.805 807032.252
D7 fc-6 2349179.317 807012.326
D8 fc-8 2349180.815 806988.35
Stony Creek near Hardee's
---
Figure Label Flag Latitude Longitude
S1 ston wet1 2348797.062 807237.46
S2 ston wet2 2348855.141 807262.663
S3 ston wet3 2348885.04 807199.228
S4 stony wet4 2348847.01 807175.388
HI
Wetland R
Figure Label Flag Latitude Longitude
F1 trib1 a1 2349466.196 807296.295
F2 fb-Oa 2349435.372 807316.266
F3 fb-0 2349408.33 807273.727
F4 fb-1 2349309.75 807208.766
F5 fb-2 2349257.942 807140.176
F6 fb-3 2349210.145 807071.165
F7 fb-4 2349182.889 807042.693
F8 fb-5 2349157.588 807027.861
F9 fb-6 2349149.599 807040.967
F10 fb-8 2349160.434 807072.546
F11 fb-9 2349156.39 807108.86
F12 fb-10 2349199.265 807151.972
F13 fb-11 2349225.195 807194.478
F14 fb-12 2349256.107 807239.982
F15 fb-13 2349292.379 807288.165
F16 fb-14 2349332.072 807338.626
F17 fb-15 2349376.844 807359.631
F18 fb-16 2349412.672 807390.815
F19 fb-17 2349440.585 807403.239
F20 fb-18 2349480.177 2349480.18
F21 fb-19 2349509.294 807460.678
F22 fb-20 2349451.515 807496.167
F23 fb-21 2349417.02 807508.476
F24 fb-22 2349437.97 807535.274
F25 fb-24 2349449.762 807589.421
F26 fb-25 2349473.515 807631.981
F27 1 2349567.062 807754.919
F28 2 2349602.832 807809.058
F29 3 2349660.414 807886.983
F30 4 2349701.239 807951.55
F31 5 2349776.406 807939.897
F32 6 2349803.065 807981.914
F33 7 2349830.561 808019.364
F34 s1 2349945.214 807975.343
F35 f1 2350029.206 807957.753
F36 f2 2350045.06 807935.37
F37 f3 2350029.81 807907.255
F38 fa7 2350036.923 807857.666
F39 fah 2350073.03 807790.074
z
z?

N o U)
CD o
0) CD
:3
s (n
w
?0 o
o
-
m
r+ =
02.
o -

CD
0
(7 7-
.,y..c .• o-? 00.
< . a ,.
J-10F
?•' i fir- i-?T ?'? .i ?E^:? ? ?"? y,^ r• k:y .#?ca. ? -? :,
¢91 7-
Wum
7 _. T
PAIM
i j? ',h ;yam' ' ?i`a `? - -• .s ? .,? ?? - v,3i.? ' 9
41.
41-
c e ?i
S4 ..,A
r
•s rte, - _"a '
,
ow,
?.+
n°? - F
t*-
04
O
s
: Fj y fp T
- 4.,.- '? .ate-•a.-•, ? ~ -y fka£? ? ,?,-,,, ' 'A! +,t:? y t4f ''?• . - - ,? ..
` nr ire s"q? ,_ y-s 4 y' "y
Cl)
- 1
cil
ffi4 m p ?a B (A
Ti' s }ate' y_
M a.
4
,/sit > y
a
e'l
Iva
PA,
?',.. ! r ? ? ?`li. ?? ??• ?- a was+-: *, ?..`" a~?• ?* .+ r ? , s:
p?p? a? ',:? ? ' +
IA A
i
i`
o Z

77 (-) CD
c O
0
? -1?C
< O?
zNW

5- w
CD o
D
rn 0 ?•
n
c
u m
?

Q o

0
3z
(D 0
0
h
o
o
0
0
D
;a
o cn
r-*-

-?

c-nD
0
0 0-
cn
C

CD C:
Q
?
D

CD
w
r
a

31822762
April 7, 2005
Mr. Bill Biddlecombe
Washington Regulatory Field Office
US Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1000
Washington, North Carolina 27889-1000
Oil
9A
O
N?9?1 C?
9?? ? cf
s
RE: Request for 404 Wetland Jurisdictional Concurrence: New Bern Bypass from US
17 to US 70, Craven and Jones Counties, North Carolina
NCDOT TIP Project No. R-2301A
Dear Mr. Biddlecombe,
The information and data provided was collected during the jurisdictional stream and wetland
delineation surveys conducted by URS Corporation - North Carolina during the months of
August, September, October, and November 2004 for the subject project. This survey was
conducted as a supplement to the existing Natural Resources Technical Report as well as to
update and receive concurrence for the project area.
Enclosed you will find the following information:
USACE Routine Wetland Determination Forms
NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms
Maps Showing Stream and Wetland Locations
I look forward to seeing you at the field visit on April 19, 2005. Please feel free to contact me at
[phone] with any questions or needs for additional information.
Best regards,
URS Corporation - North Carolina
viCK(o A4 i I u r
Vickie M. Miller
Environmental Scientist
VMM:bkc
Enclosures
cc: Nikki Thompson - NCDWQ
Colista Freeman, PE - NCDOT
Davidian Byrd - NCDOT
Jeff Koontz, PE - URS Corporation
URS Corporation
1600 Perimeter Park Drive, Suite 100
Morrisville, NC 27560
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Q-.\31822762 New Bern Bypass\USACE Biddlecombe request April 2005.doc
Kc?cN-+s on-1 i ne,
?Onma" Fa?e_
Vegetation Monitoring Protocols J
a 0 S -Stream Projects
from CSWS' Monitoring Guidance (draft)
&OkAOkk (March 23, 2005)
Q,mo.?G . ? ', ones - s4v?m ? AZ K (v\ces
??wp2,usac?.a?m .m•?
Riparian vegetation will be surveyed and monitored as prescribed below to determine the success of
buffer re-vegetation and soil bioengineering methods utilized and hardiness of plant species installed in
-relation to urban stream restoration. Monitoring will reveal the presence of distressed or dead plants and
will facilitate timely and proper maintenance to ensure the function of the vegetation in association with
project-specific goals (e.g., bank stabilization, in-stream habitat improvement, buffer habitat improvement,
buffer pollutant removal, etc).
Approach:
Vegetation monitoring will be consistently approached for each project to include vegetation population
statistics and general reconnaissance information. The success of a project's vegetation will typically be
evaluated in three "phases":
Phase Description Objective
1 As-Built Survey Upon completion of project construction. Compares installation to design.
Sets baseline for future
comparisons.
2 Establishment Annually followin each of the first two Focus on survival and
Phase complete growing season after installation replacement criteria of installed
of vegetation (initial planting and mass re- vegetation.
plantings). Typically Post-Con-Years 1
AM
and 2. q?w C
3 Growth Phase Annually after Establishment Phase for Focus on the overall function of all
remaining years of the monitoring period, vegetation (installed and
depending upon project-specific volunteer) in relation to the project
objectives. Typically Post-Con Years 3, 4 specific goals such as soil stability,
and 5. in-stream habitat, riparian buffer
habitat, etc. MLKC ?uw<<kx)nvU
The survey approach for any particular phase will vary slightly depending on the project size as follows:
Riparian survey areas > 1/4-acre 00,890 sf): Evaluate overall site statistics using plots in addition to
performing a cursory level project-wide general reconnaissance based on the following relationship:
tee. }-? gek i
Reach* Length (If) # Plots
< 1,000 2
1,001 to 5,000 4
> 5,000 6
*Reach refers to each individual, contiguous restored/enhanced
stream length within a project.
Riparian survey areas < 1/4-acre: Survey entire site (without plots) for site statistics, such as total
stem counts and/or percent cover and general reconnaissance information.
Timing:
• The As-Built Vegetation Survey will be conducted within 4-6 weeks of plant community installation so
that any deviations from the design specifications can be documented and corrected as required.
Page 1 of 5
Vegetation Monitoring - Stream Projects
CSWS Monitoring Guidance
March 2005
Using the as-built channel geomorphic survey plan sheet(s) is recommended for field notes and is
required as base plan in vegetation reporting.
Subsequent surveys (Establishment Phase and Growth Phase events) should be conducted during
the latter part of the growing season, typically the summer months of July 1 through September 30.
The timing of these monitoring events allows for observation of the maturation of the plant
communities facilitating identification of diseased or dead plants for the purpose of replanting, if
neces i late fall or winter. Each annual survey after the initial Establishment Phase Monitoring
Event' performed within +/- 1 week of the initial established target date in order to facilitate
compatibility of year-to-year comparisons.
Initial Plot Set-Up (ifor riparian areas > 114acre, or as otherwise directed by CSWS1:
Permanent plots will be permanently monumented during the As-Built Phase for riparian areas > 1/4-acre,
or as otherwise directed by CSWS.
Plot Lay-Out:
Permanent Plots - space plot(s) equidistant from one another and between the project limits as
measured along the longitudinal profile of the study reach.
If professional judgement of site conditions within the designated permanent plots determines additional
plot(s) are warranted, then "temporary" plots will be established for the Establishment Phase. The
Temporary Plot(s) will be located randomly from year to year within the portion of the stream reach not
covered by the permanent plot(s). Temporary Plot(s) may be discontinued at end of Establishment
Phase.
Each plot will be a 16-foot wide rectangular quadrant that extends from the outward limit of the
conservation easement (or other CSWS-designated riparian area extent) on the left side of the reach
across the stream to-the outward limit of the conservation easement (or other CSWS-designated riparian
area extent) on the ri ht side of the reach. Monuments shall be located at points a-d as shown on the
attached Sample Vegetation lot Layout figure where points a and d are located at the center of the
outward limits of the plot and b and c are located at the plot center along the waters edge of normal
stream flow on the left and right sides respectively.
Plot Demarcation:
• Plots will be demarcated during the as-built event and will be re-established each subsequent year by
relocating the installed monuments.
• Temporary plots will be demarcated at the beginning of each vegetation survey event and marked
with pin flagging or equivalent temporary monuments.
• Each vegetation plot will be marked along its centerline with four 18-inch #3 rebar monuments driven
flush with ground surface at locations a-d shown on the attached Sample Vegetation Plot Layout
figure. The rebar may be capped for labeling. For visibility, PVC or electrical conduit (approximate
36-inch length and 1 %4 to 2-inch diameter) shall be driven centered over the rebar to a finished
exposed height of approximately 2 feet and labeled with permanent marker following the identification
system outlined below in Plot Location Recording.
• Monuments "a" and "d" for each plot will be installed at the center of the outer extent of the plot (e.g.,
easement boundary).
• Monuments "b" and "c" for each plot will be installed along the plot centerline at the top of bank (or at
top of low bank if multiple embankments). Please note: this monument does not mark the streamside
extent of the plot but rather is intended to be a visible guide for aligning the plot centerline location.
(This monument will also double as the photograph reference location (PRL) monument for the
opposing sides of the plot.)
Page 2 of 5
Vegetation Monitoring - Stream Projects
CSWS Monitoring Guidance
Plot Location Recording:
March 2005
Vegetation plot monuments will be surveyed with standard land survey methodology and will be tied to
the North Carolina State Plane Coordinate System (North American Datum 1983). Global Positioning
System (GPS) tied to the 1983 NC State Plane Coordinate Datum may also be used to identify each
monument's location. Survey/GPS locations for each monument will be identified and labeled on the
project's base map and tabulated.
Each monument identity will be recorded using the following (system):
o all Vegetation Plot ID's will begin with prefix W",
o plots will be sequentially numbered from upstream to downstream beginning with V-1, and
o each monument label will include a subscript that corresponds to the rebar monument location (a,
b, c or d always follow left to right across the plot).
o Example: V-1 a and V-1 b identify the monuments on left side of first plot and V-1 c and V-1 d
identify monuments on right side of first plot as shown on Figure 4.
Survey Methodo/gy:
To facilitate spatial orientation and consistent photograph alignment during plot surveys, a string, tape or
other linear device should be temporarily extended between a plot's monuments (if practicable) as a
visual centerline reference. The tape shall be left in place until photographs are taken.
Vegetation Photographs:
The purpose of the vegetation photo-documentation is to visually document the maturation and survival of
the vegetation in relation to project success and stream and riparian function. Photograph locations and
orientation will be recreated in as nearly the same manner as possible from the previous years'
monitoring event photographs (available from CSWS).
Photo-documentation will include,
(1) Unbiased Views
a. Views of representative areas taken from reproducible position(s) labeled as Photo
Reference Locations (PRL)
b. Taken annually of each plot or subject area at the time of vegetation monitoring.
c. PRLs are demarcated with permanent monuments.
d. On sites > % acre (or with plots), each plot will be photographed from PRLs located at
recorded plot monuments b and c with views oriented across the channel at the opposite
bank/buffer. The view will center the plot horizontally using the plot centerline and
vertically using the stream edge and easement boundary as top and bottom references
respectively.
e. On sites < % acre (or with no plots), the vegetation will be photographed from 2 PRLs,
one located at the upstream extent and the other located at the downstream extent of the
project area. Three photographs will be taken from each PRL, totaling 6 photos per
project, as described below:
i. One photo at each PRL will be taken looking along stream centerline. The view
from the upstream PRL will be oriented downstream across the project area and
the view from the downstream PRL will be oriented upstream across the project
area.
ii. The second and third photo at each PRL will be taken at an approximate 45°
angle to the left and to the right of the stream centerline, respectively. The angle
may be adjusted slightly to capture the project area; however, the angle shall be
recorded.
Page 3 of 5
Vegetation Monitoring - Stream Projects
CSWS Monitoring Guidance
March 2005
(2) Additional other photographs, as needed, to show noteworthy features or areas (e.g., soil
conditions, typical specimens, representative species, areas of special concern, volunteer
wetland, etc.).
Additional specifications for proper photo documentation (e.g., digital or 35 mm camera, film type,
presentation, captioning, etc.) are described in the associated Photo Documentation and Reporting
sections of CSWS' Monitoring Guidance (draft pending).
Vegetation Data Collection:
Plant communities adjacent to the stream channel (channel banks and buffer) will be assessed through
evaluation of population statistics and general site observations. Data will be recorded on Riparian
Vegetation Survey Table 1 or other similar data form, pre-approved by CSWS, and the location and
extent of significant communities and concerns will be documented on a project base map (PBM). It is
recommended that the as-built channel geomorphic survey plan sheet(s) be used for field note-taking to
simplify the transcription to PBM in reporting.
NOTE: During the As-Built Survey, all newly installed vegetation within a plot should be tagged to
demarcate installed versus volunteer species. The tag shall not restrict growth of the plant and should
endure weather and high flow conditions. Tags should be replaced annually if needed through the
duration of Establishment Phase.
Data collected shall include:
1. For all phases:
a. Identification of vegetation in each plot for projects > % acre, OR across entire site for
projects < % acre, using scientific nomenclature. Identification should include species but
at least genus if species level is un-identifiable.
b. Document qualitative observations of volunteer and invasive species, overall vegetative
community health, limiting factors, and appropriate management concerns' in each plot
for projects > % acre, AND across entire site.
L Qualitative observations shall be compiled for each plot and also for areas
"between plots" in order to avoid duplication. It is recommended that between-
plot qualitative observations be made while relocating from one plot to the next
and should be recorded on data form/table by referencing the location as
combination of the adjacent plot ID's (e.g., V1:V2).
2. For As-built and Establishment Phases only:
a. Perform stem counts of planted woody species in plots for projects > % acre, OR across
entire site for projects < % acre. Specimens with 2 or more stems originating from a
single base shall be counted as "one stem".
3. For Establishment and Growth Phases only:
a. Estimate overall percent cover of the riparian vegetation coverage in plots, if plots
required OR across entire site depending on project size.
b. Identify, characterize, and delineate (if size warrants) volunteer wetlands using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Wetland data will be recorded on the
relevant forms.
' CSWS expects our vegetation monitoring consultants to assess what appropriate management
concerns may entail for a specific project or a specific phase of a project. Some common concerns
include predation, mowing, chemical eradication by property owners, illegal dumping, and wilt/stress
(especially during as-built and survival phases).
Page 4 of 5
Vegetation Monitoring - Stream Projects
CSWS Monitoring Guidance March 2005
Data Submittal:
Data for each phase of monitoring will be submitted to CSWS within 15 days of completion of field work,
unless otherwise requested/approved by CSWS. Data will be evaluated specific to each phase as
follows:
• The As-Built Vegetation Survey data submittal will present the as-installed information to confirm
the continuity of the installation with the design specifications and to identify/explain any
deviations that may be observed. The design specifications and construction inspector's notes
will be directly compared to the installation of the vegetation.
• The Establishment Phase Survey data submittals will present a plant inventory/identification and
assessment of the riparian vegetation primarily in relation to its vitality and survival. Other factors
will also be evaluated in consideration of the overall project goals. The data will be compared to
the design objectives and survival success criteria.
The Growth Phase Survey data submittals will present a plant inventory/identification and
assessment of the riparian vegetation in relation to its function as part of the project including
overall project goals. The data will be compared to the design objectives and functional success.
All findings of deviation from stated goals of each monitoring phase will be reported to CSWS, initially via
email and subsequently via a technical letter report. Limiting factors will be identified and
recommendations for improvement will be presented. The format of the Letter Report is specified in the
associated Reporting section of CSWS' Monitoring Guidance Document (draft). Submittals to CSWS
shall be provided in electronic (disk) and hardcopy report formats and will include:
• Tabulation of all data collected such as stem counts, species identification/composition, and
percent cover (graphical depiction may also be used in addition to tables if necessary).
• Mapping that includes plot locations and the location and extent of significant communities and
concerns. These items should be documented on the project base map (must utilize the base
plan developed through As-Built channel geomorphic survey.
• Photograph log that includes view(s) taken from each PRL, paired with that of previous
monitoring event unless As-Built views (captioned once for the pair and labeled by date/year at
top of each column), and keyed to PRLs identified on the project base map.
• Presentation of the monitoring objective(s), methodology, discussion and conclusions.
Page 5 of 5

?-
r
m
T
CD
FD

ti
1
? J
3

o
-r CD ?
Cf)
` f
co 2

c7L

6

?r ?di?I
m O o

75

F2ll
:n
I I
7C'

\
Z>
7 to n ai 7
?
d 0l ? l
_._ I n N rr
0 ::3

is ? N
J
c -
1= ?
/

?D

I

Stantec Consulting Services Inc
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh NC 27606
Tel: [phone] Fax: [phone]
scan tec.com

%?
Stantec
March 28, 2005
[2 0 d?p
MAR 3 12005
Mr. Brian Wrenn
North Carolina Department of Water Quality
Transportation Permitting Unit
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Ste 250
Raleigh, NC 27604
DENR - WATER QUALITY
WETLANDS AND STORMWATER BRANCH
Re: U-3330, US 301 Bypass Widening NRTR, Rocky Mount, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Wrenn:
Please find the attached figures depicting the jurisdictional waters identified by Pete Colwell and
myself on March 3, 2005 within the project study area identified by NCDOT for U-3330 in Rocky
Mount. Due to the urban nature of the project, roadway widening alternatives will be largely
dependent on the findings of this NRTR.
We identified 2 streams (Goose Branch and Stony Creek) and a possible man-made
jurisdictional stream (Lowe's tributary) in the project study area. Both Goose Branch and Stony
Creek flow into the Tar River and are subject to the Tar-Pamlico Riparian Buffer rules. Stony
Creek is listed as a North Carolina 303(d) Impaired Water body in the Tar Pamlico River Basin
on the 2004 North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters List (2004
Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report) Public Review Draft. It has been listed as being
biologically impaired since 1998.
The potential jurisdictional stream (Lowe's tributary) is located just south of the US 64 Bypass /
US 301 Bypass interchange. This stream parallels the existing US 301 Bypass and is located
just outside of the existing Right-Of-Way. It is not shown as a blue-line on USGS mapping and
does not appear on soils maps. It was apparently created when the stormwater system for the
Lowe's site was completed. The stream flows out of the borrow area created from the
construction of the US 64 interchange. This borrow area is completely inundated and has been
strongly effected by beaver activity. Although man-made, the stream appears intermittent and
capable of supporting aquatic life as long as the beavers are controlling the water table in the
area.
There are also riverine wetlands associated with both Goose Branch and Stony Creek that are
identified in the exhibits.
- The Goose Branch Wetland (0.60 ac) is a bottomland hardwood wetland located on the
floodplain of Goose Branch. The water table has been raised significantly by beavers in
the last few years.
• •
Wetland E, small seep wetland (0.254 ac), is located just south of the oh-ramp to US 64.
Although hydrology and soils are pretty strongly hydric, the vegetation ha many upland
species such as oaks.
Lowe's swamp (4.829 ac) is a man-made swamp created by the constructio of the US
64 interchange and enhanced by beaver activity exists between the Lowe's co plex and
the US 64 off-ramp.
- Wetland F, the largest wetland (3.637 ac) in the project study area is located in the
southeast portion of the study area and is hydrologically fed by Stony Creek an the
road drainage from US 64.
- A very small wetland (0.028 ac) is located on the Stony Creek floodplain, west of US 3 1
bypass. This wetland receives additional stormwater from the Hardee's parking I t
adjacent to the Stony Creek floodplain.
Please review the attached information, and let me know if there is anything else you would like
me to bring to the site visit on April 6, 2005. We will be meeting in the Lowe's Parking Lot near
the IHOP at 1:00 pm. Please feel free to contact Pete or myself at [phone]. Thanks for
your assistance, and I look forward to seeing you there.
Sincerely,
Lia E. Myott
Scientist, Environmental Management
lmyott(cDstantec.com
Files
Stantec
-qnti S
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class: ova
Taxonomy (Subgroup): 'j 11? Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
1Z + 1 o R 1 aid ar-,

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
(] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ J Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ J Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
?Q Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? YE NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? Y NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
Hvdric Soil Present? YES rffO-?
Remarks:
Svk.a.-Q..? ?(.e?ac?.e?? Yl Qii._E.?. ?R?t ?nArO W2?'t'C? rt ?i ?„'`? C?-e?! /?'77?,5
i?tLC????e S [.va? SSY7)Yv? S?'D?'n'l`?-? o?`?.?1 c? c.t.?-?(? .
z
D
MAR 3 1 2005
DENR - VVA € ER QUALITY
WETLANDS AFaD STORMVVATER BRANCH
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - 33 3 D Date: '313105-
Applicant / Owner: Count : Jag k
Investigator: M , a al State: IJ t?
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y NO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? E Transect ID: - 5_SC I
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES YO?j Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Su
sp.
- e7,6
FR
9
2 N1 tcrp e i kN^ S He (6 FA C4 10
3 ar?cl.w? fle 11
4 Fac-03L 12
5 F-4 p a r1L:- l FA-c tc. 13
6 14
7 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC excludin FAC-):
Remarks:
FCoe t p Catvi c k`? ck-.-N + ? - OVA
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
K No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
K Inundated
PQ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[X] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
I (in) Secondary indicators (2 or more Required)
pCJ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
O (in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ J Local Soil Survey Data
1 O (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
L ] Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage class: aa-z__
Taxonomy (Subgroup): - is Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
- 16
M 312-
1
49 (K 3 1-2- lD e 5-1 (p 1 2 a > tie n
- ?? 0 5/(o D Z M l S? a
2 r- iZ S/

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[) Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[ J Aquic Moisture Regime
[ J Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ J High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES NO
H dric Soil Present? YES
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - 3 3 0 Date: Z Ma rc)k 057-
Applicant / Owner: Count : r,)a ?
Investigator: L i cL M State: C
Do Normal Circumstanc s exist on the site? NO Communit y ID: "-r- F
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES Transect ID:
Is the area a otential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant S ecies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 AXA_c d Tr e- e- FAC U- 9
2 Q I r2.2 FAC 10
3 IqCCA n ru w` Tr e-e AC. 11
4 u?aA aCi lree FA•C-4 12
5 e roc b - 13
6 (Q V P4C- 14
7 ToK ??m n t/ ? -Ac 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : Sb°/
Remarks: 04-5 are- N
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ] Aerial Photographs [ ] Inundated
[ J Other [ ] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ J Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available [ ] Drift Lines
[ J Sediment Deposits
FIELD OBSERVATIONS [ J Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water _ (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit (in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ J Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil (in) [ J FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class: r0ar
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T A Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist OFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
b - o /o yfz 3/ s
/D •- I -t- /b 3

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
[Xj Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YE NO
Hvdric Soil Present? NO
Remarks:
-K !S 1J?? S pait7? '?'?c ?T?SVI,c? ?Lvc??U tR? ?'1
ak'o "hC?-U-b
$ [7??V?1? r v?,c lam. us ?.
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: p Date: 2 2 C)!;-
Applicant / Owner: Count : a t.-
Investi ator: LiA M State: tlNC_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? NO Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 Ac" rat. ?,? w. Tr 4-e - 1^A•C.. 9 MIcr i v?M
2 & 10 cxn O-w S
p.
b

6 GL
3 11 eti r A-C
4 k; .? w. u ?(u? I•'r*-2 7=?c+ 12 vC3 L
5 &X fA nL5 f f- e*-- F-AC'LZ 13
6 ajdfgS < Stir+?b F,4CW4 14
7 134 arj em i [icL 5r1??b F4 C 15
$ of "W? _ r*--o 16
Percen of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 75p?o
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
[4 No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ] Inundated
p?J Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[x] Drift Lines
Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in) [x] Water-stained Leaves
[A Local Soil Survey Data
0 (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): M Drainage Class: oo-ir-
Taxonomy (Subgroup): - q Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
it U
Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
O - 0
- /r U /Z 10YZ S
din
10741
bo a

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ ] Sulfidic Odor
Dd Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[X] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Gm?arks: /
Y r ? y?_ '? 5 tvL ,
? 1, a U r,?.?Z:Q,?
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? ES NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland. YES NO
Hvdric Soil Present? NO
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: p Date: ZZ !-kct r 0'5-
Applicant / Owner: NC-DOT- 20 ,,3 Count : a,s
Investigator: ,4 tA- e-t{ State: N C
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Y S NO Community ID: Wes-( E
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES O Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 i ui -- al c- I- ?r2z A<-fi 9 av?cc.L,m
2 e ru. (C.,14 k ? FAC to - 10
kA-r- kt
3 c j r? 'Free, t.4C 11
4 Ace c? cu .-r fAC- 12
5 'Rn k 13
6 Z G,cµ? FAC - 14
7 LO-4 ILC-C-0- 1'a C-^ U FA<- 15
8 To C-A ?L.O H V % F 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- :
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[) Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ ] Other
N No Recorded Data Available
FIELD OBSERVATIONS
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[ ] Inundated
Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits
L4 Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in) [) Water-stained Leaves
T [ ] Local Soil Survey Data
11 (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
[ j Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): r Drainage Class:
Taxonomy (Subgroup): Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO

Depth Horizon Matrix Color
inches Munsell Moist PROFILE DESCRIPTION
Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0-12t 0 2 2

HYDRIC SOIL INDICATORS:
[ ] Histosol
[ ] Histic Epipedon
[ J Sulfidic Odor
[ ] Aquic Moisture Regime
[ ] Reducing Conditions
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors [ ] Concretions
[ ] High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
[ ] Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
[ ] Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
[ ] Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks: n
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? YES NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? YES Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? YES
Hvdric Soil Present? YES
Remarks:
MAR 3 1 2005
ye ? W T F
H QUALITY
r, ; ' ??aR BRANCH
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - 333a Date: 3 3 D
Applicant / Owner: Count : t}a
Investigator: j j&, fA46-ff q- ark l State: N C_
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? NO Community ID: U rick - oofe mvtcl
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (If needed, explain on reverse) YES Plot ID: C=C
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1 i u 4aed-zL 1 r-ee_ FA C 9
2 QL, r -rre e F 4c_0 - 10
3 ro.c?- -
T C+ 11
4 I'La o ,'&_?J., I Ps J e F C cJ - 12
5 i' ?. r,n i"h e r? 2 N 13
6 s er FA 14
7 Lon?c_e rc. o, ant V1 V'_.Q FAC- 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- : 7 9
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ J Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks)
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
[ ] Aerial Photographs
[ J Other
0 No Recorded Data Available
I FIELD OBSERVATIONS I
Depth of Surface Water
Depth of Free Water in Pit
Depth to Saturated Soil
WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
Primary Indicators:
[) Inundated
[ ] Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
[ ] Drift Lines
[ J Sediment Deposits
[ ] Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
(in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
(in) [ ] Water-stained Leaves
[ j Local Soil Survey Data
(in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
[ ] Other (Explain in Remarks)
SOILS
Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Drainage Class: ooh
Taxonomy (Subgroup): ke?kic Enab'a?y Field Observations Confirm Mapped Type? YES NO
=RC?"r`ILE DESCRIPTION
Depth Horizon Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Munsell Moist Munsell Moist Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
joy 'V/ 2- caM
- o I 10 K S iv\ a.1A a wt
$' Zfi
In S?
1D
'IZ_ S-1 (P

m 49

oacse are

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
Gle ed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks
Remarks:
We+(,, _ is LocoM_,L n -PA-e. o?La, v,
e Gos,-- _1?mv JA- ?t -I& j"
WETLAND DETERMINATION
H dro h is Vegetation Present? NO
Wetland Hydrology Present? KFM NO Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? ES NO
H dric Soil Present? ES NO
Remarks:
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: - 3 0 Date: 3 3,16
Applicant / Owner: Count : tit t j
Investigator: Lea r-ka a c -bal State: NC.
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? YE NO Community ID: WeA(nn - m
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? YES Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? (if needed, explain on reverse) YES Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator

2 r ,r-A- cuw- Tf C 10
3 ' u, da < a L? -Er F Ct 11
4 F1 I-"
an i
Tr
12
5 ri c? Ger. era h 1= C+ 13
6 &Lpc-cA& -1 ; a ;'
s r r-AcO - 14
__
7 LiSy- <urv? n1j`: 15
8 nicec? a F,4 - 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- :
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
[ ] Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) WETLAND HYDROLOGY INDICATORS
[ ] Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators:
[ ] Aerial Photographs [ ] Inundated
[ J Other [XJ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
[ ] Water Marks
No Recorded Data Available Drift Lines
[ ] Sediment Deposits

FIELD OBSERVATIONS Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water N/A (in) Secondary Indicators (2 or more Required)
[ ] Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches
Depth of Free Water in Pit (in) Water-stained Leaves
[ ] Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil $ (in) [ ] FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter -1
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? *NOTE: 1 Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski This Ste And #5 Below*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARYHYDROLOGY INDICA TOR POINTS:
W
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambe . N/ SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(* NOTE. If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
POINTS:
SECONDARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondarv) =,00 (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent) ;
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: M -333a
DWQ Project Number:
Date: 3(3 / 0,3
Location/Directions:
River Basin: Ta <, Z%ve-?_
Nearest Named Stream: _S, e l Latitude: Signature:
USGS QUAD: Zoc.ky ['-kO`-"' t Longitude:
County: ?J a 51- Evaluator: ? 1 a MALI 6 Y J
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a matt-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
(*NOTE: IfBed & Bank Caused By Ditchint' And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: Z
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 2 i s )
PRIMARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 5
W
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY]NDICA TOR POINTS: I,'
1. Geomorpholou Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 C27 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
ORE
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SC
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
(no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5 .u- ;
(extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max points)
3 Riparian zone 0= 6 0- 4 0- 5
(no buffer=0; contiguous, wide buffer=max points) s
4' Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers O- 5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges=O; no discharges=max points)
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
Q (no discharge=0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
6 Presence of adjacent floodplain 0-4 0-4 0-2
y (no flood lain=0; extensive flood lain=max points)
x 7 Entrenchment / floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flooding=max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
0-6
0-4
0-2
(no wetlands=0; large adjacent wetlands=max points
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive chaanelization=O; natural meander=max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive deposition=O; little or no sediment--nax points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
(fine, homogeneous=O; large, diverse sizes=max points)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening 0-5 0 - 4 0-5
' I
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks=max points) i,
H 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
(severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks°max oints
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
(no visible roots=O; dense roots throughout--max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production 0-5 0-4 0-5
(substantial impact--0; no evidence=max points)
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
p 0-3 0-5 0-6
les or pools=O; well-developed=max points)
(no riffles/ri
17 Habitat complexity 0-6 0-6 0-6
(little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)
?q
Z 18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
(no shading vegetation=O; continuous canopy=max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded=O; loose structure=max points)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0 - 4
0 - 5
0 - 5
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
21 Presence of amphibians 0-4 0-4 0-4
p (no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
W
22 Presence of fish 4
0= 0-4 0-4
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0- 6 0- 5 0- 5 a
(no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max points)
Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

USACE AID# DW'Q # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
FE-23 -AW
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: '-
5. Name of stream: q ;rt'?_ ',::-
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: 72-
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
2. Evaluator's name: L' `-
L
4. Time of evaluation: Y-°t.
6. River basin::'
8. Stream order: 2 y; c c A-6 ?2_ r-
10. County: -Jo '7.
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
?1 S??:: `1 .F.. , :.t.._.s._..{.-
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather conditions:--
16. Site conditions at time of visit: K(-7 ! v,,; `7 G• r s
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
'? () -34 i-? s <?
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
l 18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point's Yl' ENO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad ma YES---'NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES', NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: t ,1.J% Residential I//-"' % Commercial ' / % Industrial _% Agricultural
% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: /Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
a
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
? f Y
Evaluator's Signature Date I ?? N e-,, , c,,A. 0 %-
This channel evaluation form is intended tWbe used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: U-33.56) River Basin:` &.r 2ii e.-C County: tJus k Evaluator: R_? C_0/wed
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature:
Date: 2/Z3/e5- USGS QUAD: 2oc-k IM o"vTi__ Longitude:
Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
II. Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 I t 2 3
PRIMARYHYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
8 Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 3
(*NOTE: if Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*)
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On Togo Map Anti/Or In Field) Present? Yes=3 N?
PRIMA R Y GEOMORPHOL OG Y INDICA TOR POINTS:
4) Are Bivalves Present? 1 2 3
PRIMARYBIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1.5 Tooo Qy-o-L
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 2 does rw*S"'.s
1. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 1 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
II. Hydrolou Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 f? 1.5
Last Known Rain? *NOTE. L [Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski This Ste And #5 Bel w*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed N/ SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary)= (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent)

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGIOIN POINT RANGE
SCORE'
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal Piedmont Mountain
1 Presence of flow /persistent pools in stream
0-5
0-4
0-5
(no flow or saturation=0; strong flow=max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration 0-6 0-5 0-5
(extensive alteration=0; no alteration=max onts)
3 Riparian zone
0-6
0-4
0-5 O
(no buffer=0; contiguous, wide buffer=max points)
4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical dischargers 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive discharges=O; no dischar es=max oints
5 Groundwater discharge 0-3 0-4 0-4
I
Q (no discharge=0; springs, seeps, wetlands, etc.=max points)
U 6 Presence of adjacent floodplain
=
0 - 4
0 - 4
0 - 2
d
max points)
(no flood lain=0; extensive flood lain
ox. 7 Entrenchment /floodplain access 0- 5 0- 4 0- 2 O
(deeply entrenched=0; frequent flood in =max points)
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands
j 0-6 0-4 0-2
0
acent wetlands=max points
(no wetlands=0; large ad
9 Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3
(extensive channelization=0; natural meander=max points)
FO Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
(extensive de osition=0; little or no sediment--max points)
11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate NA* 0-4 0-5
AIA
(fine, homogeneous=0; large, diverse sizes=max oints)
12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
=
0-5
0-4
0-5 pn
max oints)
(deeply incised=0; stable bed & banks
H 13 Presence of major bank failures 0-5 0-5 0-5
.7 (severe erosion=0; no erosion, sable banks=max points)
d 14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3 0-4 0-5
'
r no visible roots=0; dense roots throughout--max points)
15 Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production

=
0-5
0-4
0-5
-7
max points)
(substantial impact-0; no evidence i A
16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0-5 0-6
(no riffles/ripples or pools=O; well-develo ed=max points)
d 17 Habitat complexity 0- 6 0- 6 0- 6 l ?k
(little or no habitat=0; frequent, varied habitats=max points)

Q 18 Canopy coverage over`streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
s
x (no shading vegetation--O; continuous cano - ax points)
19 Substrate embeddedness
= NA* 0-4 0-4
rd A
max poi s)
(deeply embedded=0; loose structure
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5 iJu
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points) I LL tSp
21 Presence of amphibians- 0-4 0-4 0-4
U
O (no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points) o

O 22 Presence of fish 0-4 0-4
0- 4
M N?
I
(no evidence=0; common, numerous types=max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use 0-6 0-5 0-5
I
(no evidence=0; abundant evidence=max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page) a
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
left-
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:
3. Date of evaluation: 2 13 ),D
`
5. Name of stream: t1 I P, f r , . Lywo r
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
j
2. Evaluator's name: 1
4. Time of evaluation: Z r 2,,-'),? r"
6. River basin:
8. Stream order:-- ! "a.`'. mo,
1 '
10. County:,1 t},. `6N
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
P 3,,
i '
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: 1? G?. n_?.-ti• ( "`.:
16. Site conditions at time of

17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters _ Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES. NO 'If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES r`NO20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential j 000/6 Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: N% 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> 10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): a,
Comments: ...? ?°C'P c r==- ? Z?
0l,_k _r hA 1C Yv, ?) __G L:.a I o r: r1 it
Evaluator's Signature / r, Date t-1 C? r, wa1
This channel evaluation form is intended tgbe used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaf litter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 ` -
Last Known Rain? *NOTE: 1 Ditch Indicated In #9 Above Ski This Ste And #S Below*) 10
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed:.DVAAJ SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPI,
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skin This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
TOTAL PINTS (Primary + Secondary)= H (If Greater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The Stream Is At Least
Intermittent) ;
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: U - 33 3 D River Basin: Ta c 2%,Je,.r County: NSO-S ?A Evaluator:
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: GOpS???qCAJLatitude: Signature:
Date: z? 3?DS USGS QUAD: Rock-) M.oLA_ " Longitude:
Location/Directions:
*PLEASE NOTE: If evaluator and landowner agree that the feature is a man-made ditch, then use of this form is not
necessary. Also, if in the best professional judgement of the evaluator, the feature is a man-made ditch and not a modified
natural stream-this rating system should not be used*
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
('NOTE- If Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
H. Hydrolou Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater ?^
Flow/Discharge Present? 0 1 t? 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators. (Circle One Number Per Line)
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: (p
3) noes i opograpny inaicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGYINDICA TOR POINTS: 2
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 TI) 2 3 olkl
7) Tc The ITMA Texture In Streamherl

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
ECOREGION POINT RANGE
E
# CHARACTERISTICS Coastal Piedmont Mountain SCOR
1 Presence of flow / persistent pools in.stream 0-5 0-4 0-5
?
(no flow or saturation = 0; strong flow= max points)
2 Evidence of past human alteration
0-6'
0=5
0-5 2
(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration =max points)
Riparian zone 0- 6 0- 4 0-5
3
(no buffer= 0; contiguous, wide buffer = max points)
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges
0-5
0-4
0-4
(extensive discharges = 0; no discharges = max points)
a S Groundwater discharge

p 0-3 0-4 ` 0-4
Z
d s, wetlands, etc. = max points)
(no di
charge= 0; springs, see

6 s
Presence of adjacent floodplain
0-4
0--4
0-2 3
(no floodplain = 0; extensive floodplain = max points)

7 Entrenchment /floodplain access
0-5
0-4
0-2 ?l
3
(deeply entrenched = 0; frequent flooding = max points ) '
8 Presence of adjacent wetlands 0-6 0-4 0-2 3
(no wetlands = 0; large adjacent wetlands = max points)
Channel sinuosity 0-5 0-4 0-3 ?2
(extensi% e channelization = 0; natural meander = max ints)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0- 4 2
(extensive deposition= 0; little or no sediment = max points)

11 Size & diversity of channel bed substrate
?xA
0-4
0-5
(fine, homogenous = 0; large, diverse sizes = max points)

12 Evidence of channel incision or widening
0-5
0-4
0-5
y, (deeply incised = 0; stable bed & banks = max points)

13 Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
r- (severe erosion = 0 no erosion; stable banks = max points)
{Y1
d'
14 Root depth and density on banks
0-3
0-4
0-5 -?
Z)
(no visible roots = 0; dense roots throughout = max points) .
4
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or timber production
? ? -
0-5 0-4 0-5 , l
(substantial impact =0; no evidence = max points)

16 Presence of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes
0-3
0-5
0-6
? (no riffles/ripples or pools = 0; well-developed = max points)

17 Habitat complexity
0-6
0-6
0-6
(little or no habitat = 0; frequent, varied habitats ° max points)

18 Canopy coverage over streambed
0-5
0-5
0-5
_(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous canoe = max points)
19 Substrate embeddedness NA* 0-4 0-4
(deeply embedded = 0; loose structure = max)

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4)
0-4
0-5
0-5
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

?I Presence of amphibians
0-4
-0-4
0-4
0 (no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)

O'
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4
3
(no evidence = 0; common, numerous types = max points)
p
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-- L?
(no evidence = 0; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible 100 100 100
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page)
dil
•.Vi,1k,
b J,.'d
,ba ?}
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name: vD e ;a J
3. Date of evaluation: 3/1- 4. Time of evaluation:
5. Name ofstream: o0S{ ?jtanc.?. 6. River basin: . r
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: Z11A 0111141-(-
9. Length of reach evaluated: ('C?t 10. County: )`? (I "P
11. Site coordinates (if.known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
12. Subdivision name (if any
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS Topo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: fi ` ? '4t
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 5?,I, 0 W
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? ES NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested
22. Bankfull width: " d-0
_% Cleared / Logged _% Other (_ )
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends
-Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
-Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): r-` Comments
Evaluator's Signature ,` , ,,,rl'' Date /?? y %
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

r
i e
# Vdr
f.
l
K f I
34 1 {d :? 9 j

.`? ((1.. _ 45 'i?+C? 5`.fL .'ft h lfl lj I
g.;x ?iPHOTO 2: Goose Branch Downstream from US 301 Bypass.

.41

Y _ rt

' -; Yi
.,c
fads ' r '

c ?
?y ? f Y
i
K A7
?e

US 301 Bypass.

?# t
°
r --
t

ll 4

t >.
'-S

r a"

R r
fr-'t.Y 4 .1 . l der
1
-i
A'
Dam - Downstream from US 301 Bypass.
y ?4y_
a.-
4;
=td

t
: .
„ ??
++
gym.

t f ?? d !

?- rJi qt.y ?+
PHOTO 5: Lowe's Tributary - Upstream of US 301 Bypass, Fed by Lowe's Borrow
Area.

PHOTO 6. Lowe's Tributary - Downstream of US 301 Bypass, Flowing into
Wetland F.

4 :l

g US 301 Bridge from Loop Road Bridge.

t
k

i
wig
i
' r

t• '? !1.
a-
PHOTO 11: Wetland F - South of US 64 Ramp.

_?.. __ ?", fi -. -.. .. eG-'+?, .._.. '? ?iir?i2?--.:' 3?-?+.' '?'L y?eM+YgiFKv'?'.?G •+?ry"`a? ?..:
z
F `131
e.?.?s..:•r
16
PHOTO 13: Wetland F - Stony Creek Floodplain, Old Braided Channel.
11 .

PHOTO 14:
Wetland - Near Loop Road Bridge.

Legend
Project Area
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
U - 3330
Natural Resources Technical Report
Nash County, North Carolina
Figure 1. Project Vicinity
a
Legend
Project Study Area
North Carolina
-.' Department of Transportation
U - 3330
Natural Resources Technical Report
Nash County, North Carolina
Figure 2. Project Location
0 0.25 0.5 .
Mlles
t
z
c
a)@

cn ?
CD o
0
0?
Z?w
?w
0
?o
0
02
w 0
CL
N
v
0

0
?z
CD 0
0
0
in 0 W
0

2 Z G) -0 0
a

0
o_

a

=3
N
0
cn' 00
(n
m

a? ?.
CD
,0.

?
a z
_

CD
m
a

L
r
m
CQ
cD
4-
l

Cf) Z?
O N

O CO)
CD

CD
X
O
c
?j -n C

n l< 0
z cn w
O
CL O W
CD
0
3 0

. C)
.
?
D 0
o
M
-o
O

0
3 Z
= O
O_ 3
--I iv
o
O
0
m
O \
o
3 ?
co cn
o(o
CD
CD
o Z
O
CD 3
CA

n
N
Q O
= d
'
. 2.
%< rn n
51 O
( -
Q.
D
CD

I
- ? C
D
Q
.
O N

cn ii

cu
v
3 D

v
a
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
March 21, 2005
Lia Myott
Stantec Consulting Services, Inc.
801 Jones Franklin Road Suite 300
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
Dear Ms. Myott:
This letter is in response to your request for comments from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed widening of US 301 Bypass
from NC 43/48 to May Drive, Nash County, North Carolina (TIP No. U-3330). These comments
provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For road widening projects the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
1. Wetland and forest impacts should be avoided and minimized to the maximal extent
practical. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas;
2. Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or
occur on a bridge structure wherever feasible. Bridges should be long enough to allow
for sufficient wildlife passage along stream corridors. Where bridging is not feasible,
culvert structures that maintain natural water flow and hydraulic regimes without
scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage should be employed;
Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. To the extent possible, piers and bents
should be placed outside the bank-full width of the stream. If spanning the flood plain is
not feasible, culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to
restore some of the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of
flood waters within the affected area;
4. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
5. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset unavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
6. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
7. Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented; and
8. Activities within designated riparian buffers should be avoided or minimized.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/couniyfr.html .
The federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) has been observed in
Stony Creek several miles upstream of the project area. In addition, Stony Creek is a tributary to
the Tar River, which supports the federally endangered Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana).
Though neither of the species is known to occur near the project area, it is prudent that mussel
surveys be conducted in Stony Creek at the project site if suitable habitat exists. Mussel surveys
must extend 100 meters upstream and 400 meters downstream of the project limits.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project, supported by
tabular data, if available, and including a discussion of the project's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including a "no action alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. Design features, construction techniques, or any other mitigation measures which would
be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or minimize
impacts to waters of the US; and,
8. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.

Pete Wnjamir
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC