19960259 Ver 1_Complete File_19960318

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP l
eye'

T

ihm l??rjj O
REF. NO// OR R
OOM, BLDG."
rrm
FROM:: 'REF."NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOURINFORMATION -
? PLEASE ANSWER .Q FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
960259 RECElvEo
.
MAR 1 81996
t- s
ENV,
RONMENAgI?SCIENCES
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOV,rx.Non P.O. SEC"U. n
?.0. BOX 25201, RALEiGH. N.C. 27011-5201 r,.n..?,°,R,'
__.____.-•... _..,..
March 8, 1996
f ;I
401
Mr. ;Mike Smith
U S. Army Corps of Engineers
nw,_
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
'-?
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 105
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
Dear Mr. Smith:
SUBJECT: Nash and Edgecombe Counties, Proposed access street from School Street to SR
1150 (Bachelor Road) in Sharpsburg, TIP No. Y-2932B, State Project No.
8.7632022, Federal Aid Project No. STP-FY94(6)
Attached for your information are copies of the project planning reports for the subject project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR
3 30 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the
project.
We anticipate that a 401 General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the documents to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need and' auditional information, please contact ' fr. Gordon Cashiii
at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerel ,
H. Fran lin Vick, PE, Manager
GEC/pir Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. Ken Jolly, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Dorney, NCEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. Y-2932B
State Project No. 8.7632022
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-FY94(6)
A. Project Description
This project involves closing CSX Transportation Rail Passenger Crossing 629 831 C at
School Street in Sharspsburg and constructing an access road from School Street to SR 1150
(Bachelor Road). This project is located in Nash and Edgecombe Counties. See Figure 1 for the
project location.
Existing School Street is an unpaved road with an unsignalized railroad crossing. School
Street extends eastward from US 301 (North Church Street) to private properties located on the
east side of the tracks. This project proposes to close the railroad crossing which will cut off
access to the properties east of the railroad tracks. Therefore, a paved road will be constructed
from existing School Street east of the railroad tracks to SR 1150 (Bachelor Road) to maintain
access to the properties. Once the crossing is closed, vehicles will cross the railroad tracks at SR
1146 (Main Street) just south of the proposed project. The crossing at SR 1146 has signals and
crossing gates already in place.
By agreement with CSX Transportation, the proposed access road will be constructed
entirely on CSX Transportation right of way, so no additional right of way will be purchased.
B. Purpose and Need:
The purpose of this project is to improve safety for the rail corridor and for vehicles on
School Street by closing an unsignalized, at grade railroad crossing and providing better access to
the properties on the east side of the railroad tracks.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement (3R
and 4R improvements)
a rte.. , ..;,
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards and
flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
i s
2
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction
is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located
in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate
street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction
is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will
be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These
types of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including
shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in
the NEPA process. No project development on such land may proceed until the
NEPA process has been completed.
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
Estimated Costs:
Right of Way $ 0
Construction $ 49,100
Total $ 49400
Estimated Traffic:
Year: 1974 * Vehicles Per Day (VPD): 80
* This is the only traffic data available for this road. School Street only serves a
few houses and farm fields; therefore, this estimate may be high.
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
4.9-meter (16-foot) wide travelway plus 0.3 to0.6-meter (1 to 2-foot) shoulders.
Design Speed:
60 km/h (35 mph)

4

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
if any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be
completed. If the project consists 2& of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any F-1 X
unique on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? 1-1 X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than Fxone-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 1-1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? F-1 X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F] X
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
?x
F-1 x

F] x
1-1 x
YES NO
F-1 X
F-1 x
x?
7 x
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? F] x
6

s
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F-1 X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? 7 X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads,staged construction, or on-site detours? X F
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? F-1 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? u X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl I I X
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for F-1 X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided below.
Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
Jurisdictional wetlands occur in the pine flatwoods to the east of the proposed project and
extend into the CSX Transportation right of way. By agreement with CSX Transportation, the
proposed access road will be constructed entirely on CSX Transportation right of way, so no
additional right of way will be necessary. However, a permit may be required for the wetlands
located within the railroad right of way.
Also within the CSX Transportation right of way , the transportation/utilities corridor
containing the railroad tracks was probably a wetland in the past, but due to extensive filling as a
result of construction activities, it no longer meets jurisdictional criteria. The Corps of Engineers
does not recognize such previously impacted wetlands with regard to permitting requirements.
Thus impacts in the transportation/utilities corridor zone will not require a Section 404 permit.
The impacted wetland area is estimated to be 0.3 ha (0.7 acres) based on project length and
project right-of-way width. However, this estimate assumes that project construction occurs
primarily in the wet pine flatwoods community, and so represents a maximum potential value.
Impacted wetland area could be significantly reduced if the majority of project construction
occurs in the transportation/utilities corridor zone, as is currently planned.
Opportunities for avoiding wetland impacts with respect to the proposed project are limited.
The railroad immediately to the west of the project site precludes shifting the alignment in that
direction. To the east, the wet pine flatwoods extends continuously for at least 50 meters (164
feet), so relocating the project in that direction is not practical to supporting the project's
proposed goals.
8
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. Y-2932B
State Project No. 8.7632022
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-FY94(6)
Project Description :
This project involves closing CSX Transportation Rail Passenger Crossing 629 831C
at School Street in Sharspsburg and constructing an access road from School Street to SR
1150 (Bachelor Road). This project is located in Nash and Edgecombe Counties. See
Figure 1 for the project location.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
t-24-96 ? (/•
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch

4
at obert Hanson, P. E.
Project Planning Unit Head
J? 9
2,4
Date T cy R. er
Project Plai'ning Engineer
For Type II (B)
© 29 9? py? is only:
D to Fv2 Nicholas L. Graf, P. E., Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
? ? / S v

??
Ave
nton [

_

,
?? j . , ?
U
? ? g ? u 1
?
? ? ?
Costalia
/ IS
13 2
Gold ®k ?-
5 Whitaker 13 Ros,
! Battleboro
u
Red Oak 3 6 301 Lawrence 9
i JO 2 Dort has ocky Mount. -
2 6
2 Leggett
9
kwmere
, : 2 5
I
Hope
4 as'hvill N
) p
7 E
O h
WA

3 + 3
? 1,
3 61A

y
4
6
1 3 t csx 6
d?tse g .' d
64 dSe. 1
•
,. 64 23, - _. 3 ® Pri"`
6 +Tarboro 2
I

1 6.® 3 .?? harpsbor 43 258
`
3
6 5 6 Stanhope
6
C /. 1 8 ?3
Conetc,
Sol
o y
4:'gym r Pmetops 2
5
.
264 !2
6
ese
1
23
ai a Y
?- C '
? / 2
124 3
-lesfield Crisp i
O9 SCHOOL 5i •
` f
??? .. co
?, QJ Ali /
09 Ur / +? /
0 e /
/
4 ta
ACHEL
\ co?c SR 1150
V U
co Q;3
.
/?
•
/ , \6
r `,

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
8 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SHARPSBURG
CONSTRUCT ACCESS STREET
FROM SCHOOL STREET TO
SR 1150 (BACHELOR ROAD) AND
CLOSE CSX TRANSPORTATION CROSSING
NASH AND EDGECOMBE COUNTIES
TIP PROJECT Y-2932B
FIGURE 1
Spee[
9E
lel I E2
i ?'
?r e?A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
1AAkES B. HUNT JR.
CovE&y0(t
GARL-\N'D B. GARRETT JR.
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RO. BOX 5201. RALEIGH. KC 27611-5201
14 December 1995
Memorandum To: Rob Hanscn, P.E., Unit Head
From: James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist.] W
Environmental Unit
Subject: Natural resources inventory for proposed
construction of access street in Sharpsburg, Nash
and Edgecombe Counties. TIP No. Y-2932B. State
Project No. 8.7632022. Federal Aid Project No.
SAP-FY94(6).
Attention: Tracv 7"u-- er, Project Planning Engineer
, n?.t
Pro e .. ct P1?.=rning U
This document addresses four issues pertinent to the
devel opmenz of _ ?-^g--=*'._?atic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the
proposed project: water resources, biotic resources, wetlands,
and federally-protected species. Potential impacts to these
resources are assessed, and recommendations are made to minimize
detrimental effects. A completed. Ecological Threshold checklist
for a PCE is also included.
The proposed project calls for the construction of an access
street c^ new location _n Che town of Sharpsburg in Nash and
cgecv _e a1` -?••=act expends =ror^ Sc hool
=l:we C vii?ai.?.CS ? :.g:. - % • ? . - i -
Street to Bachelor Road (SR 1150) along the eastern side of the
_ ?i ter
'_.z [1 RaJ.-roQCi• ii rc._:?: :4i?'. ._ --e :,e ?.lvr?ee • .
project completion. Project length is 350 m (11=0 ft), and right-
of-way (ROW) width is 8.2 m (27.0 ft).
A °ie:.d investigation was conducted on 10 October 1995 by
NCDOT biologists James Hauser and Dale Suiter to assess natural
resources at the project site. Water resources were identified
and described. Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife
ocaulat..ons were rredicted using General cualitative habitat
assessment. Wetlands were identified and evaluated based on
criteria established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual" (Environmenta Ltaboratory, 1987) and "Guidance
e
r•r
r
?
r
r
r "
r •
r

ese
r
I^V
1
O?
?v
Co

`
3
taA \
?
2

I ,
0I ,
I` r '
f
f
sr•-

l
r '
1
.'rrhts.ers '1 Rol.
.y
?QI
i
?i

NORTH CAROLINA DEPA&nIEN OF
TRA R F HIGH
/,??/'1 DI'ViSTON SIOY OF HIGHWAYS
pf P""L`?G AND E:NTROh-.'vM- TAL
"'° BRA.liCH
SHARPSBURG
CONSTRUCT ACCESS STRE:T
FROM SCHCOL STRE=t TO MAIN STRE=t
ANO
CLOSE CSX TRANSPORTATION CRCSSING
NASH ANO EOCECOMSE COUNTIES
TIP PFC.IECT Y-29328
: ' au+ °
C-f
-C ..
Lvr Z---a
Environmental Management, 1995). Soils information for the
project site was obtained from the Soil Survey of Edgecombe
County, North Carolina (Soil Conservation'Service, 1979), and
information concerning federally protected species was obtained
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (March 29, 1995)
WATE R, TtZZ CURT CE'S
_, es-c,.rces are lnratcr9 within the Drolect
.? _ .. -
-:,o-nfoTo impacts to water quality are expected to be
-insignificant. However, Sedimentation Control Guidelines should
still be implemented to reduce -a pota-Z-=- fz -_ - - --v
uz-1 and areas. Without erosion control measures, sediment from zhe
project site could still reach surface waters through overland
flow over impervious surfaces.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Two terrestrial community types were identified in the
project area: a transportation/utilities corridor and a wet pine
flatwoods. The boundary between these two communities is distinct
and abrupt, due to intensive human disturbance in the
.raiaspOrtation/utilities Corridor conmunit'T. However, both
communities can be considered to constitute a single forest edge
habitat with respect to wildlife populations. Many faunal species
are adapted to forest/clearing boundary conditions, and wildlife
within the project area likely ;utilize both cor .u :i-ties to some
extent. The proposed project alignment runs along the length of
this forest edge zone, with portions of the project area in both
communities.
The transportation/utilities corridor community consists of
an area with coinciding right-of-ways for a railroad, powerline,
and sewerline, which has been heavily impacted and maintained by
Signiricant soil disturbance and
lull es
.-.,-,man deve1cnment act
compaction, along with frequent owing and :.cr ?ci-e
keep this community in an early successional state. As a result,
the community is dominated by herbs and grasses such as Japanese
bushclover (Lesaedeza bicolor), broomsedge (AndropoQon
virginicus_), sneezeweed (Helenium amarum), Japanese knotweed
(Polvaonum cuspidatum), dog fennel (EuDatorium capillifolium),
goldenrod (Soliaago sp.), Japanese hcneys::c{'_e (Loricera
japonica), vervain (Verbena sp.), soft rush (Juncus effusus),
barnyard grass (Echinochloa crusgalli), sedges (Carex spp.), and
panic grass (Panicum sp.). Seedlings of winged elm (Ulmus alata)
and winged su.L:ac (ELIL copallina) are also present.
The wet pine flatwoods community consists of a forest stand
dominated by loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). The forest appears to
a well-develored hardwood
midstory,rprobably resulting from natural fire suppression. The
hardwocd midstory and understory are comprised princiUally of
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red maple (Acer rubrum),
winged elm (Ulmus alata), water oak (Quercus nigra), willow oak
(Quercus oheliosl, and American holly (Ilex oDaca). A moderately
dense shrub laver is also present, comprised of switch cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), pepperbush (Clethra alnifolia), and
areenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), among others.
Wildlife found in these communities consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suitad ?o
coexistence With human development. The landscape _rmed.iately
^e area is cccup_ed to a laxae extent by
acriculture and urban development, such that the wet pine
flatwoods community constitutes a small forest fragment. Eastern
harvest mouse (Reithrodontomvs humulis), white-footed mouse
(Peromvscus leucocus), and eastern cottontail rabbit (Svlvilacus
floridanus) thrive in fields and along forest boundaries, and
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana) frequently migrate
between forests and clearings for shelter and forage. Nocturnal
mammals common to suburban areas, such as raccoon (Procyon lotor)
and Virginia opossum (Didelohis virginiana), may travel
periodically through the projeC. area, and bird populations likely
include species such as northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis),
Carolina Chickadee (Parus carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenadia
macroura), common grackle (Quiscalus cuiscula), and European
starling (Sturnus vuluaris). Common predators along the forest
edge are the red fox (Vulpes vulues), black racer (Coluber
constrictor) and red tailed hawk (Buteo Jamacensis). Birds more
common to the wet pine f latwoods interior may include
pine warbler (Dendrocia ip nus), pine siskin (Carduelis ip nus),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), and yellow-bellied sapsucker
(SDhvraDicus varius).
Impacts to both communities will result from project
construction due to the clearing and paving of portions of the
grolect area. The impacted area is estimated to be 0.2 ha (0.5
ac' I -tea ....a t= s?C= -at -on Lt liti es corridor coTiuTiu 4.-_ and 0_1 ha
1
(0.2 ac) in the wet pine flatwoods community, based on the project
length and RCW width. However, project construction usually does
not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual area impacts
may be considerably less.
According to Current project design criteria, the project
will impact primarily the transportation/utilities corridor
community. However, design criteria may change in the future due
to the potential difficulty of constructing in the corridor zone.
Thus, proportional impacts to the wet pine flatwoods community
could increase.
E
The :=-ec''ed , r.cc n- f hall.; ?-at r9sul ti na from project
construction will have-limited impact on populations of native
flora and fauna. The existing communities are already highly
altered from their natural state, and residual species are well
adapted to such conditions. Flora and fauna occuring in the these
ccrum:nities are crenerally common throughout North Carolina because
of their ability to persist in disturbed areas.
The wet Dine flatwoods community already exists as an
isolated forest fragment. The proposed alignment will only impact
a narrow band alona the edae of this forest, and so will not
significantly fragment the forest further. As a result, it is
unlikely that existing species will be displaced from the project
CL ^Z:. .C' °?: °T t:. T. in i .?_--e the tem'cora= J
effects of project construction, all cleared areas along the
roadways should be revegetated soon after project completion to
reduce the loss of wildlife habitat.
WATERS OF THE U.S.
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States", as defined in Section 33 of the
Code of Federal Reaister (CFR) Part 328.3. Any action that
proposes to place fill material into Waters of the U.S. falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Wetland areas are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytyc vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.
Field surveys revealed that no surface waters are present in
the project area. However, jurisdictional wetlands do occur in
the wet pine flatwoods community. :.ydric soils (Rains series) and
hydrophgtic vegetation are present in the project area, and there
is evidence of surface and subsurface saturated conditions (eg.
soil mottling, oxidized rhyzospheres, and water-stained leaf
lit-ter) .
This wetland area exists because of seasonably high
groundwater levels in the winter, and spring, and would be
classified as PF04B (Palustrine, Forested, Needle-leaved Evergreen
Vegetation, and Saturated Soil Conditions) based on the
classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. According to the Soil
Survey of Edgecombe County, North Carolina (1979), the Rains soil
series exhibits a seasonally high water table of 0-0.3 m (0-1.0
ft) from November to April. However, the value of this wetland
for hydrologic and biologic functions is low, ranking only 18 out
of a possible 100 on the DEM wetland values rating scale (DEM
1995).
m-' ccrr' dor was orobab1 v also a
wetland in the past, but due to extensive filling as a result of
construction activities, it no longer meets jurisdictional
criteria. The COE does not recognize such previously impacted
wetlands with regard to permitting requirements. Thus, impacts in
the corridor zone will not require a Section 404 permit.
The impacted wetland area is estimated to be 0.3 ha (0.7 ac)
based on project length and ROW width. However, this estimate
assumes that projec- conszruCLlon occurs principally in the we
Dine flatwoods community, and so represents a maximum potential
value. Impacted wetland area could be significantly reduced if
the majority of project construction occurs in the
- ar c -a-_Cr r..t 1 c? n r:_?oT zone as IS c r ent' V vla.^.ned
Final area impactsof the project will depend on the chosen
alignment, and the proportional area impacted in the wet pine
flatwoods community.
Because wetlands are present in the project area, permitting
by the COE will be required. However, a Section 404 Nationwide
Permit will probably be applicable for this project due to the
limited scope of impacts. A Nationwide Permit authorizes
activities impacting wetlands which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant environmental effect. In
addition, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification will be
required from the DEM prior to issuance of the Section 404
Nationwide Permit. 401 Water Quality Certification authorizes
federally permitted or licensed activities which may result in a
discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final decisions regarding
project permits rest with the permitting agencies.
The COE supports a policy of mitigation for wetland impacts
in order to achieve a national goal of "no net loss" of wetlands.
This policy defines mitigation to include avoidance, minimization,
and compensation of wetland impacts. These processes are to be
considered sequentially, with avoidance receiving the highest
priority. Compensation is considered only after all other options
have been precluded.
Opportunities for avoiding impacts with respect to the
proposed project are limited. The railroad 4.-=Ilediately to the
west of the project site precludes shifting the alignment in that
direction. To the east, the wet pine flatwoods extends
continuously for at least 50 m (164 ft), so relocating the project
in that direction is not practical to supporting the project's
proposed goals. Minimization of impacts could include limiting
road width and avoiding the placement of staging areas within the
wetland zone. Compensatory mitigation is usually not required for
projects of such limited size, but final authority for this
decision rests with the COE.

Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction in
the near future without strict conservation management. Federal
law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended,
proot=_cts plant and animal species which have been classified as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), or
Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the ESA require that anv action which is likely to adversely
affect such federally classified species be subject to review by
the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other potentially
endangered species may receive additional protection under
separate sta__ laws.
As of March 28, 1995, the F*ruS lists three federally protected
species for Nash and Edgecombe Counties (Table 1). A brief
description of each species's characteristics and habitat
requirements, as well as a conclusion regarding probable impacts,
follows Table 1.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Nash and Edgecombe
Counties.
Status
Scientific Name Common Name Nash Edge.
Alasmidonta heterodon dwarf wedge mussel E -
Elliptio steinstansana Tar River spinv mussel E E
Picoies borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species. that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range).
ll_fv denotes that a particular species is not listed for that
county
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
Distribution in N.C.: Franklin, Granville, Halifax,
Johnston, Nash, Vance, Wake, Warren, Wilson.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North
Carolina are found within segments of the Neuse River Basin
and in the Tar River system. This mussel is sensitive to
agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated
water to survive.

-loaf cal Conclusion: No Effect
No flowing surface waters occur in the project area,
therefore habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel does not exist.
A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
record of known populations of dwarf wedge mussels within 2.0
km (1.2 mi) of the project area. Thus, no impacts to this
species are anticipated.
ElliDtio steinstansana (Tar River spinymussei) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date ' ' S'-d' 7 °/a5
Distribution inrN.C.: Edgecombe, Franklin, Halifax,
Nash, Pitt, Vance, Warren.
The Tar River spinymussel is endemic to the Tar River
drainage basin, from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope
in Nash County. Populations of the Tar River spinymussel can
be found in streams of the Tar River Drainage Basin.
This mussel requires
oxygenated, circumneutral
of uncompacted gravel and
relatively silt-free. It
freshwater fish to act as
larvae.
a stream with fast flowing, well
pH water. The bottom is composed
coarse sand. The water needs to be
is known to rely on a species of
an intermediate host for its
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No flowing surface waters occur in the project area,
therefore habitat for the Tar River spinymussel does not
exist. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and
unique habitats revealed no record of known populations of
Tar River spinymussel within 2.0 km (1.2 mi) of the project
area. Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
Picoides borealis (red--cockaded woodpecker) E
- Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging
and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with
other stands to be_avoropriate habitat for the RCW. These
birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and
are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age.
The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable
nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
-and usually in trees that are infected with the funaus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high.. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Marginal quality habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker
exists in the project area. Loblolly pines of adequate size and
stocking occur in a small stand within the wet pine flatwoods
community. The understory of this stand is sufficiently open to
provide foraging opportunities. Due to these conditions, a survey
was conducted on 02 November 1995 by NCDOT biologists James Hauser
and Hal Bain to identify possible nesting cavity trees. No cavity
trees were found, and upon traversing the site, it was determined
that the stand was not contiguous to sufficient acreage of
foraging habitat. Based on these surveys, it was determined that
while large pines are present, the forest is not of sufficient
acreage to support a population of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique
habitats revealed no record of known populations of red-cockaded
woodpeckers within 3.3 km (2.0 mi) of the project area. Thus, no
impacts to this species are anticipated.
S IVRVEARY
Environmental impacts resulting from the proposed project
should be minimal with appropriate preliminary planning. The
project vicinity is already moderately developed, and the proposed
project simply involves the creation of a short access road along
an existing railroad. No surface waters occur in the project area
and topography is nearly level, so soil erosion and sedimentation
should be very limited. The primary issue of concern involves
potential impacts in the jurisdictional wetland which exists along
the eastern side of the project area. However, the hydrologic and
biologic value of this wetland is low, and construction activities

4' _'t-o a s--al1 arsa along the --erimeter. T_mmacts to
endangered species and other wildlife will be insignificant.
Ca V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: Y-2932B
Date: IM)
Revised: 1/94
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? V
(?) Does the project involve any habitat'hhere federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(;) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? /
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High. Quality Waters
(HQW)?
(3) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States I ?,
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the projj t involve any known underground storage . ;-
tanks (UST's or hazardous materials sites? L
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
T3??1yJ17C <??ID COORDItiA-17
(10) If the project is located within a C.A?tifA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any j
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(i=) will a i . S. Coast Gtiar? re. .it oe re _u r?'".
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any eNistinQ I
rea_ulatory floodwav?
(14) will the project require any stream relocations or channel ? --j /
chances? ?G