20000433 Ver 1_Complete File_20000329

Cl
0
0
0
L
r
r. r
? ryi i N
Uu
°a-
oz?N
U
Z
Q
d
U)
}
J
Q
Z
ZQ
OJ
H Z
?w
Oz
4. Z
cn 0
Zof
LL W
0w
F- F- CO
?- Z Z t
aww?
WD!E U?
CL
< 0 c) S
J I1 I N
C) > Of
Q0U)z
J
V0Qz
= W
?000 w
0
aa..??
- l
?l CJ LJ?? ._)

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 9 on
SR 1101 over the Tar River
Vance/Franklin Counties
State Project No. 8.2390501
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1101(4)
TIP Project No. B-3052
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit 423 and #33 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the
following special commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
Commitments Developed through Project Development and Design
Division 5 Resident F,ngineer
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts. This is a standard NC'DOT
Procechn•e.
Division 5 Resident F.nginecr/Roadcicle Environmental
I Iigh Quality Waters (HQW) - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed and properly
maintained throughout project construction. Where HQW measures do not supersede, all
standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
11t'dratrlics Unit
Every effort will be made during design to minimize drainage from the bridge deck directly into
the stream channel under normal flow conditions. No deck cb•ains were placed directly over the
stream from bank to bank.
Division S Resident Ent=ineer/Rowhide Environmental
The existing bride will be dismantled from the top down. Pilings from the existing bridge will
be cut off at the streambed or natural ground elevation. Turbidity curtains or other appropriate
means will be used to restrict the movement of any sediment disturbed during this process.
Nattn•al Wsfems Grout
A final survey for the Tar spiny ntussei will be conducted before construction begins. The
NCWRC & USFWS will be notified of the survey results. If the surveyor discovers endangered
mussels, the Federal Highway Administration will initiate formal consultation proceedings.
Conchcctetl by cVCDOT biologist on December 3, 1999.
Division 5 Resident Fngineer
Ms. Candice Martino of USFWS [phone], Mr. Tim Savidge ofNCDOT Project
Development & Environmental Analysis [phone], Mr. David Cox of NCWRC (919) 528-
9886, and Mr. John Alderman of NCWRC [phone] will be invited by the Resident
Engineer to attend a preconstruction meeting.

Pa,-,e I of 2 July 17, 2000

Commitments Developed through Permitting
Division 3 Resident F_ngineetlfly( rcmlics Unit
Stormwater shall be directed to sheetflow at nonerosive velocities through the protected stream
buffers.
Division 3 Resident EnrfineenMi-th•aulics Unit
New roadside ditches shall be constructed to provide a stormwater facility that controls nitrogen
and attenuates flow before discharging to the riparian buffer. In reference to Permit Conclition 2
for project B-3052, it has come to my attention that the lroi•cling of the conclition was ambiguous
and confusing. For pnahoses of clarification, ct storn li,ater facili!v to remove nitrogen and
attenuate flow is only required tisrhen yott cannot provide sheet/low of stornnrater through a
riparian buffer. 1f flow spreader locatecl at the encl of a clitch that prontotes shcetjImi, of
starnrnrater prior to its entering the bt fifer does not require a stornnnrater manctgemtent facility. 1
trust this has clan'tftecl the confusion. Please let the know if I ccnn be of fnn'ther assistance. June
28, 2000 E-snail froth John Hennessy (DfVg) to Eric Black (NCD01).
Division 5 Resident En.gineen
TEMPORARY CAUSEWAY RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeway will
be removed. The temporary till areas will be graded back to the original contours. Elevations
and contours in the vicinity of the proposed causeway are available from the field survey
notes.
2. Restoration Schedule: The project schedule currently calls for a September 19, 2000 letting
date with an availability date of October 30, 2000. It is expected that the contractor will
begin the construction of the causeway at that time. Following the completion of the bridge
substructure, the contractor will remove the temporary causeway. The estimated construction
times indicate that the causeway will need to remain in place for approximately five months.
3. Disposal Plan: The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the rip rap used for
the temporary causeway. After the causeway is no longer required, all material placed in the
creek will be removed and become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be
required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and the disposal of all unused materials
off-site.
Division 5 Resident Engineer/Roadside Euvimnmenttal
Disturbed areas will be revegetated upon completion of the project.
Contacts
Eric Black, NCDOT (919) 733-1 176
Eric Alsmcycr, USACOE [phone] ext 23
John Hennessy, NCDWQ [phone]
Page 2 of 2 July 17, 2000
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
4 o
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
June 1, 2000
Vance & Franklin Counties
DWQ Project No. 000433
APPROVAL OF 401Quality Certification and ADDITIONAL CONDITIONS and Tar-Patnlico River Buffer
Rules
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC, 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, as described in your application dated March 3, 2000, and in accordance with the
attached conditions and those listed below, to impact 0.028 acres of surface waters in the Tar River and
0.324 acres of Tar River Buffers to replace Bridge No. 9 on Sr 1101 over the Tar River in Vance and
Franklin Counties. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this till is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3197. Certification 3197 corresponds to Nationwide Permit Number
23 issued by the Corps of Engineers. This approval is also valid for the Tar-Pamlico River buffer rules
(15A NCAC 2B .0259). In addition, you should acquire any other federal, state or local permits before you
proceed with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and
Water Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is valid solely for the purpose and design described in your application (unless modified below).
Should your project change, you must notify the DWQ and submit a new application. If the property is sold, the new
owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter, and is thereby responsible for complying with
all the conditions. If total wetland tills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, or of total impacts to
streams (now or in the future) exceed 150 linear feet, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A
NCAC 2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). ). This approval shall expire with the corresponding Nationwide Permit expires or as
otherwise provided in the General Certification. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in
the attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
1. Stormwater shall be directed to sheetflow at nonerosive velocities through the protected'
stream buffers.
2. New roadside ditches shall be constructed to provide a stormwater facility to that controls
nitrogen and attenuates flow before discharging to the riparian buffer.
Wetlands/301 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/1017c post consumer paper
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
Kerr T. Stevens, Director ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition, which conforms to Chapter 1508 of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 301 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-9616.
Sincerely,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Central Files
c:\ncdot\TIP B-3052\wqc\000433wgc.doc
PT Stevens
Wetlands/401 Unit 1621 Mail Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 507o recycled/10'7o post consumer paper
1
GENERAL CERTIFICATION FOR PROJECTS ELIGIBLE
FOR CORPS OF ENGINEERS NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBER 23 (APPROVED
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSIONS)
This General Certification is issued in conformity with?the
requirements of Section 401, Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 of the
United States and subject to the North Carolina Division of Water
Quality Regulations in 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B
.0200 for the discharge of fill material to waters and wetland areas
as described in 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23). This Certification
replaces Water Quality Certification Number 2670 issued on January 21,
1992 and Water Quality Certification Number 2734 issued on May 1 1993.
This WQC is rescinded when the Corps of Engineers reauthorize
Nationwide Permit 23 or when deemed appropriate by the Director of the
DWQ.
The State of North Carolina certifies that the specified
category of activity will not violate applicable portions of Sections
301, 302, 303, 306 and 307 of the Public Laws 92-500 and 95-217 if
conducted in accordance with the conditions hereinafter set forth.
Conditions of Certification:
1. Proposed fill or substantial modification of waters or
wetlands for this General Certification requires written
notification to the Division of Water Quality regarding the
extent of impact to waters and wetlands;
2. Two copies shall be submitted to DWQ at the time of
notification in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a);
3. Fill or alteration of more than one acre (0.45 ha) of
wetlands will require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC .0506 (h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may utilize the state's
43 06/01/2000 2:51 PN1
I?Ietland Restoration Program;
4. Fill or alteration of more than 150 linear feet (45.7 meters)
or streams may require compensatory mitigation in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H .0506(h). Written DWQ approval is required
for this mitigation plan which may utilize the state's
Wetland Restoration Program;
5. That appropriate sediment and erosion control practices which
equal or exceed those outlined in the most recent edition of
the "North Carolina Erosion and Sediment Control Planning and
Design Manual" or "North Carolina Surface Mining Manual"
(available from the Division of Land Resources in the DEHNR
Regional or Central Offices) are utilized to prevent
exceedances of the appropriate turbidity water quality
standard (50 NTUs in streams and rivers not designated as
trout by DWQ; 25 NTUs in all saltwater classes, and all lakes
and reservoirs; and 10 NTUs in trout waters);
6. All sediment and erosion control measures placed in wetlands
or waters shall be removed and the natural grade restored
after the Division of Land Resources has released the
project;
7. If an environmental document is required, this Certification
is not valid until a FONSI or ROD is issued by the State
Clearinghouse;
3. That additional site-specific conditions may be added to
projects proposed under this Certification in order to ensure
compliance with all applicable water quality and effluent
standards;
9. If the project is not completed within three years from the
date of the first notification to DWQ, then the applicant
will again need to notify DWQ.
Non-compliance with or violation of the conditions herein set
of 3 06/01/2000 2:51 PM
forth by a specific fill project shall result in revocation of
this Certification for the project and may also result in criminal
and/or civil penalties.
The Director of the North Carolina Division of Water Quality may
require submission of a formal application for individual
certification for any project in this category of activity, if it is
determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse
effect upon water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses
of the wetland or downstream waters are precluded.
Public hearings may be held for specific applications or
group of applications prior to a Certification decision if deemed
in the public's best interest by the Director of the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality.
Effective date: 11 February 1997.
DIVISION OF WATER QUALITY
By
A. Preston Howard, Jr. P.E.,
Director
gencert.23
WQC # 3107
)t'3 06/01/2000 2:51 PM
B-3052
Subject: B-3052
Date: Tue, 30 May 2000 16:33:52 -0400
From: Eric Black <[e-mail]>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>,
"A. T. (Andrew) Nottingham" <[e-mail]>
John
There are no other ditches draining to the Tar River on this project (all other flow is sheet flow away from
the road). Additionally, the total Tar buffer impact that could occur within the Right-of-way is 0.324 acres
(under 1/3 acre). The buffer impact under the bridge was an additional 0.064 acres. The hydraulics
engineer also indicated that we could put a level spreader on the outlet of the drainage ditch to spread the
flow. If you have any other questions, please contact me at [phone].
Thanks,
Eric Black
1 of 1 06/01/2000 2:33 PM
MAR.31'2000 16:28 #1279 P.031/044
X33
PRE-DISCHARGE NOTIFICATION PCN
TO: US Fish & Wildlife Service
Raleigh, NC PAX [phone]
State Historic Preservation Office
Raleigh, NC FAX [phone]
NC Division of Water Quality
Raleigh, NC fAX [phone]
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Creedmoor, NC PAX (919) $28-9839
1. ACTION ID: 200020792 and 200020793
2. APPLICANT: NCDOT/TIP D-3052/SR 1101 Bridgo ROPI -/
vanc® a Sranklin Countioo
3. DATE OF TRANSMITTAL: April. 3, 2000
4. RESPONSE DEADLINE(5 days from transmittal): April 7, 2000
5. COMMENT DEADLINE(10 days from response deadline): April 17, 2000
6. SEND COMMENTS TO: RALEIGH REGULATORY FIELD OFFICE
RALEIGH, NC
ATTN: Eric Alssrloyor
FAX: [phone]
We are also forwarding the attached PCN to the Fish and Wildlife
Service, for review and cornmment concerning any likely affect to any
threatened or endangered species or their critical habitat within that
agency's jurisdiction.
15 ?.
MAR.31'2000 16:28 #1279 P.032/044
apO
07
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611.5201 DAVID MCCOY
GoviaNOR SECRETARY
March. 3, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Vance/Franklin County. Replacement of bridge No. 9 on SR 1101 over the
Tar River. Federal Aid Projcct No. BR7-1101(4). State Project No.
8.2390501. TIP Project No. B-3052.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 9 over the Tar River (DWQ Index # 28-5.7) a Division of Water Quality "Class WS-
V NSW" Waters of the State. The project consists of replacing the current bridge with a
300 ft long and 28 ft wide bridge at the existing location and approximately the same
elevation. Approach construction will include resurfacing and widening the existing
roadway to two 1 I ft. Janes with 9 ft. grass shoulders installing guardrails where
appropriate. Shoulders will be tapered to 6 ft. where guardrails are not required. All
traffic will be detoured along NC 56, US 1, and SR 1100 during construction.
STREAM IMPACTS
Stream impacts associated with the bridge replacement will occur from the construction
of a temporary causeway. Construction. of the causeway will consist of plain Class I
riprap topped with a layer of smaller washed stone and require a total of 300 yd3 (0.028
ac) of temporary fill in the Tar River. Bridge No. 9 is composed completely of timber
and steel. Therefore, there will be no discharge from the demolition into Waters of the
United States. Additional impacts include a total of 0.26 acres of Tar/Pamlico stream
buffer impacts resulting from mechanical disturbance or fill. Disturbed areas will be
revegetated upon completion of the project.

MAR.31'2000 16:28 #1279 P.033/044
RESTORATION PLAN
1. Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the
causeway will be removed. The temporary fill areas will be graded back to the
original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed causeway
are available from the field survey notes.
2. Restoration Schedule: The project schedule currently calls for a September 19, 2000
letting date with an availability date of October 30, 2000. It is expected that the
contractor will begin the construction of the causeway at that time. Following the
completion of the bridge substructure, the contractor will remove the temporary
causeway. The estimated construction times indicate that the causeway will need to
remain in place for approximately five months.
3. Dist)osal Plan: The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the rip rap
used for the temporary causeway. After the causeway is no longer required, all
materi at placed in the creek will be removed and become the property of the
contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal
of and the disposal of all unused materials off-site.
THREATENED AND / OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are four species that are listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) for Vance and
Franklin County, North Carolina. Relevant information for those species listed for Vance
and Franklin Counties are included in Table t.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for Franklin and Vance Counties.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion Survey Date
Alasmidonta etcro on Dwarf wedge mussel E No effect July 10, 1997*
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spiney mussel E of likely to adversely
effect July 10, 1997*
Haliaeetus leucocepha us Bald eagle T No effect
Rhus michawril Michaux's sumac E No effect Jul 10, 1997
• Resurveyed on December 3, 1999.
•*Sultable habitat•notpresent.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
Action Classification Form (PCE), Preeonstruetion Notification (PCN), Permit drawings,
and Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) 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 23 and Nationwide 33 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Vol. 61, No. 241.
Other approvals required for the project includes the issuance of a North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(NCDENR DWQ) 401 General Certification. We anticipate a 401 General Certification
will apply to this project and are providing one copy of the PCE, PCN, Permit drawings,
and NRTR to the Division of Water Quality, for their review.

MAR.31'2000 16:29
#1279 P.034/044
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric
Black at [phone].
Sincerely,
?/- C. h-'4
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Domey, NCDWQ
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Design
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Jon Nance, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis

MAR.31'2000 16:29
DEM ID: CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):NWP 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL HANAGEtZHT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVE11 (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT; Project Dovolopm©nt and Environmontal Analynim.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Poet Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME): (WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGEN'T'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
Hillittm D. Gilmore P.E. Branch Mann or
5. LOCATION OF WORTS (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLX A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: vanco/Franklin NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Franklinton NC
1
#1279 P.035/044

MAR.31'2000 16:29
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Dri a
No 9 is locatod over tho Tar Rivor on SR 1101 (Grissom Road).
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Tar Rivor (Class STS-V 119W)
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
($A), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7C- IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO (x]
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x) IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/A
2
#1279 P.036/044
BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
.. 0 ..".
MAR.31'2000 16:29
#1279 P.037/044
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: N/A
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFT.LR RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT ,AFTER:
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A _ FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Tamorary placomcnt of rock into channol for construction of
causeway (0.028 ac)
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): _Roplacemont of existing bridgo and approach ways. Existing bridgo
will be roplacad with a 3001 x 28' bridgo. Approach work will consist
of rosurfacincq and widening the roadway to two 11' lanos w/ 9' shouldorn
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: pridga Roplacem©nt _(Public
Transportation)
3
MAR.31'2000 16:29
#1279 P.038/044
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): N/A
SF
T9 GG
NTAC
T THE U
W ISH 2i9 r.,rT nr -,-? G;RVIG
I
-
.
15. YG
c ARE

M

w /TTTTl?fi T]T?[`Tte1TiPGt T TLT [•T T[?"rf?j("TCl_• 1
1 L•r]f11?2 _
Z S=SC17D ?Z71J T. V4 JiT•
BR T-5 GGNTAGSS '
T I
P1

? ?+
iz$ 111T S
4TT AREA WR+c-il-4iik-y?5C
FFS
GTE By THS nRoPe"SS9
`
f
-ReP?ERT
pRagseg. T
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO (I (IF NO, GO TO 18)
d. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x) NO H
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x) NO H
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE•DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT. REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
MAR.31'2000 16:30
#1279 P.039/044
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rasidontial and
Forested proporty.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: 17ETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT 132 IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER 03' A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIH'ICATION, AND
3) (IN TSE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY 13 CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
C .A:t & 4) .I -,z
OWNER'S/AGEN" S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
3 3 za20
DATE
5
MAR.31'2000 16:30
#1279 P.040/044
C Mo

1

Z ? O

0 z>
?? ! .. 7 w v ,
y A: ul 0
A
W

_ e

N
W
J

o
C V
\

w

U,
[4AR.31'2000 16:30
#1279 P.041/044
LEGEND
IN W LINE WT
--WLB WETLANO BOUNDARY 4-6 PROPOSED BRIDGE 6
C`17-t
WETLAND
4.6
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT 6
DENOTES FILL IN
2
WETLAND
® PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48' 15
DENOTES FILL IN
2 (DASHED LINES D ENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCT URES) 54' PIPES 6
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER 2
(POND) SINGLE TREE 2
DENOTES TEMPORARY 2
FILL IN WETLANO WOODS LINE 2
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND 2
DRAINAGE INLET
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE 2
K1d
WATER. ROOTWAD 2
D DENOTES MECHANIZED
' '
2
CLEARING
•
?--- 4 FLOW DIRECTION 2
RIP RAP 2
TB 2•4
- TOP OF BANK
•- W?• - EOCE OF WATER 2 f c 1 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER 2
OR PARCEL NUMBER
? 2
IF AVAILABLE
-
- ?. PROP.L1MtT OF CUT
- -F -_ PROP-LIMIT OF FILL 2
-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY 2
2
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE 2
-TOE- TEMP.DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
- EAB--• EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
PLANT BOUNDARY
0
WATER SURFACE 2
xxxxx LIVE STAKES 2
BOULDER 6 N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
---- CORE FIBER ROLLS VANCE FRANKLIN COUNTY
PROJECT:8.2390501 (13-3052)
BRIDGE N0.9 SR1101 & SR1203
S AMP ? ? OVER TAR RIVER
9/00
T 2 OF G
MAR.31'2000 16:31
1 .J? Q
1
Lam[ ?'
? o
EE
0
cr-)
t? r
a
J
\ \ \
ba'y\
.r?e\
bb \
Z
J
J
Q
F-
N ?
a ?
a
o
c
w
#1279 P.042/044

C' r r

/ rr__
L r
<z w

G Y U O >
Z
zU
liJ .Ti
Cd M N
<

L0? _
0Fa
I
v; oow c? o
w ??
\
G >
Z Fn

?.
z >
A W
N
?

0

'
/
tI

OPa,

- i
J
/ /
COQ o? <

i
r
Y ?
Q W
? 0.
?r
i Ay g a F-u LAI F S 4
W
4 ? ? C o 0?
Y- N ? Z ? 'z c
W Q c A f
i a v .?
N > z y
w kN>
> ? W ?u
..3 N

MAR.31'2000 16:31
Cfl
ti
i

O

1

I I ?? ? -' e
II
\' H
I I
? ` ? G C
L p ?
I I
II tn ?-
u
LI---_----
I I -~ -
? u
?
II
II ? •

?O
II
II
I I -----_--? D'
I I ?N I 1
I I• ? /
I I OL
rl----------- ----1---
I
I I ?ooo
II ?
q '
U ' ' Z
V
f
h_N Ir! I
41 1
N -
NJ N I NI
41279 P.043/044
t?
fr
J

{A
~
< Z
U
F O
O
>

o c

d

r
M
r-

o b
?

YAA.31'2000 16:31
#1279 P.044/044
ROCK CAUSEWAY
TYPICAL SECTION
ROCK CAUSEWAY
N.W.S... 1 2'
??'
O OO 0
STREAM BED

QUANTITY:
TEMPORARY FILL
IN SURFACE WATERS = 300 CY (VOLUME)
0.028-AC (AREA)
?',I°
llA

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
? n
x
MAR 2 9 ZOtuI
WETLANDS GROUP-
"'ATER?UALITY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
March 3, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Vance/Franklin County. Replacement of bridge No
Tar River. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1101(4).
8.2390501. TIP Project No. B-3052.
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
0,0,0413S
9 on SR 1101 over the
State Project No.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 9 over the Tar River (DWQ Index # 28-5.7) a Division of Water Quality "Class WS-
V NSW" Waters of the State. The project consists of replacing the current bridge with a
300 ft long and 28 ft wide bridge at the existing location and approximately the same
elevation. Approach construction will include resurfacing and widening the existing
roadway to two 11 ft. lanes with 9 ft. grass shoulders installing guardrails where
appropriate. Shoulders will be tapered to 6 ft. where guardrails are not required. All
traffic will be detoured along NC 56, US 1, and SR 1100 during construction.
STREAM IMPACTS
Stream impacts associated with the bridge replacement will occur from the construction
of a temporary causeway. Construction of the causeway will consist of plain Class I
riprap topped with a layer of smaller washed stone and require a total of 300 yd3 (0.028
ac) of temporary fill in the Tar River. Bridge No. 9 is composed completely of timber
and steel. Therefore, there will be no discharge from the demolition into Waters of the
United States. Additional impacts include a total of 0.26 acres of Tar/Pamlico stream
buffer impacts resulting from mechanical disturbance or fill. Disturbed areas will be
revegetated upon completion of the project.

RESTORATION PLAN
1. Restoration Plait: The materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the
causeway will be removed. The temporary fill areas will be graded back to the
original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed causeway
are available from the field survey notes.
2. Restoration Schedule: The project schedule currently calls for a September 19, 2000
letting date with an availability date of October 30, 2000. It is expected that the
contractor will begin the construction of the causeway at that time. Following the
completion of the bridge substructure, the contractor will remove the temporary
causeway. The estimated construction times indicate that the causeway will need to
remain in place for approximately five months.
3. Disposal Plan: The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the rip rap
used for the temporary causeway. After the causeway is no longer required, all
material placed in the creek will be removed and become the property of the
contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal
of and the disposal of all unused materials off-site.
THREATENED AND / OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
There are four species that are listed as Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) for Vance and
Franklin County, North Carolina. Relevant information for those species listed for Vance
and Franklin Counties are included in Table 1.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species Listed for Franklin and Vance Counties.
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion Survey Date
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E No effect July 10, 1997*
Elliptio steinstansana Tar spiney mussel E Not likely to adversely
effect July 10, 1997*
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T No effect **
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E No effect July 10, 1997
* Resurveyed on December 3, 1999.
**Suitable habitat not present.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
Action Classification Form (PCE), Preconstruction Notification (PCN), Permit drawings,
and Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) 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 23 and Nationwide 33 in
accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Vol. 61, No. 241.
Other approvals required for the project includes the issuance of a North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(NCDENR DWQ) 401 General Certification. We anticipate a 401 General Certification
will apply to this project and are providing one copy of the PCE, PCN, Permit drawings,
and NRTR to the Division of Water Quality, for their review.
'If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric
Black at [phone].
Sincerely,
,?- C'. b?i.,
/ William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
D Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Design
Mr. Len Hill, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Jon Nance, P. E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P. E., Project Development and Environmental Analysis
000433
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):NWP 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
I
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT; Project Development and Environmental Analysis.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC
ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Vance/Franklin NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Franklinton, NC
Y
1

v
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Bridge
No. 9 is located over the Tar River on SR 1101 (Grissom Road).
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Tar River (Class WS-V NSW)
RIVER BASIN:
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/A
2
A
I
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
EXCAVATION:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: N/A
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours)
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
N/A
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Temporary placement of rock into channel for construction of
causeway (0.028 ac).
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Replacement of existing bridge and approach ways. Existing bridge
will be replaced with a 300' x 28' bridge. Approach work will consist
of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 11' lanes w/ 9' shoulders
and installing guardrails where appropriate. Traffic will be detoured
along NC 56, US 1, and SR 1100 during construction. Mechanical
equipment will include heavy duty excavation equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge Replacement (Public
Transportation)
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO (I (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO []
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Residential and
Forested property.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
/l// C -4e IX, ?) -'?' /A0W-
OWNER'S/AGEN 'S SIGNATURE
,?1-34,00
DATE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
N
H?-z?h
pw m C? C
Cc ;5 ., z >
(, o -1
Q i? G1 Q z CF
CLI
o z V?
F-r ' L IT
o
GRAML Y
r N
• J_
? yQ
v o
C\
V)
? w
r--
--WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY 4-6
L
WETLAND
?-W L
4-6
DENOTES FILL IN 2
® WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN 2
SURFACE WATER
DENOTES FILL IN 2
® SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY 2
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION 2
® IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
®
FILL IN SURFACE 2
WATER.
• •••
`
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
2
•
•
• CLEARING
2
?- ?- FLOW DIRECTION
TB 2-4
TOP OF BANK
wE
-
EDGE OF WATER 2
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT 2

- -F -
PROP. LIMIT OF FILL 2
--?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY 2
2
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE 2
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE 2
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - . EXIST. ENDANGERED 2
PLANT BOUNDARY
0
WATER SURFACE 2
XXX XX LIVE STAKES 2
C2D BOULDER 6
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48-
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
C. ? SINGLE TREE
_ WOODS LINE
@ DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAO
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
SAMPLE
WT f r
6
6
15
6
2
2
2
2
2
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VANCE FRANKLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2390501 (B-3052)
BRIDGE NO.9 SR1101 & SR1203
OVER TAR RIVER
.loo
SHEET 2 OF 6
I
O
Q
0
as
r? r
a
J
•? ti
d
\
.r

1
V)
Z

> i
J
J
Q
0 C_
C \
a ?
w
i

-
c i
?

` ? Z c? c
n

/ Q O M yy
c{J w

?
LLJ
ZJ
wE
o z
M
`n
C
o
.0
o
?
U
csl ,
U
n
C
O
U _
o Z
u L`, o E"
?

o6 >
z
n
J
N
PQ'
OF 0 ? ?
SOP / , ?
/ U
i
i
r
O
• roe / ? J
clQ
? Q
>1 115
44
a
e 0
w
N U LL
VI L"
V- a z
o pC1
Q
w F < w
V) J F?.. Z)
w C c
a
> J
Lij
wwa_
> :2 w
c ?-
-, n
J
o? 1
a 1
?I
N I \ Iz
II `?
I I ` ?1
II ?
'O
v J
1

II 1
LI---------r
II 1
II i
II
II
O
?LU
aw
? a
w
? U
Y Vl
0 ?
? V
II ?
? o
I I D ?
_ _
I I ?N
I I' /
I I OW I /
I-I----------- ---/---
II ?
II
II ?
? I
? I
a? r
Z
U '
vl I
? I
x
W '
O O
?' M
N N
0 ?-
?V
I?

tL
J
W Q
J
U U
`n
Ln J

a
U
c Q
~

N
0
> O
r 2
a o
to
o °

r
M

o b
r
I
ROCK CAUSEWAY
TYPICAL SECTION
ROCK CAUSEWAY
N.W.S. * 2'
0 0
STREAM BED
QUANTITY:
TEMPORARY FILL
IN SURFACE WATERS = 300 CY (VOLUME)
0.028-AC (AREA)
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VANCE/FRANKLIN COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2390501, B-3052
BRIDGE NO.9 ON SRIIOI & SR1203
OVER (TAR RIVER)
/co
SHEET 5 OF 6
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES AND ADDRESSES
1 H.E. & OMA P. STALLINGS
4730 OLD US 64 HIGHWAY
ZEBULON, NC 27597
2 STEPHEN C. GOULD
813-A WAKE FOREST BUSINESS PARK
WAKE FOREST, NC 27587
3 LARRY HOWARD
P.O. BOX 3642
CHAPEL HILL, NC 27515
4 CHARLES L. FULLER
5385 CHARLIE GRISSOM RD.
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2390501, B-3052
BRIDGE NO. 9 ON SR 1101 & SR 1203
OVER TAR RIVER

SHEET OF (a
r -
If
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3052
State Project No. 8.2390501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1101(4)
A. Proiect Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 9 on SR 1101 over the
Tar River on the Vance-Franklin County line. The bridge will be replaced
with a 91-meter (300-foot) long bridge at the existing location and
approximately the same elevation. Traffic will be detoured along NC 56,
US 1, and SR 1100 during construction (See Figure 1).
The new bridge will have a 8.6-meter (28-foot) clear deck width which will
provide two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. The
approaches to the bridge will be widened and resurfaced to include two
3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 2.7-meter (9-foot) grass shoulders tapering to
1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required. Approaches to both the
north and the south will extend 46 meters (150 feet) from the bridge.
B. Pumose and Need:
Bridge No. 9 has a sufficiency rating of 25.7 out of 100. The structure is a
two lane bridge with 7.4 meters (24.3 feet) of bridge roadway width which is
below the standard for modern bridges. For these reasons, Bridge No. 9
needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II 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)
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

N
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
g. 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
O 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
O 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.
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
2

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.
D. Svecial Proiect Information
Environmental Commitments:
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a
permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
High Quality Waters (HQW) - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed and
properly maintained throughout project construction. Where HQW measures do not
supersede, all standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
Every effort will be made during design to minimize drainage from the bridge deck directly
into the stream channel under normal flow conditions.
The existing bridge will be dismantled from the top down.
3
Pilings from the existing bridge will be cut off at the streambed or natural ground elevation.
Turbidity curtains or other appropriate means will be used to restrict the movement of any
sediment disturbed during this process.
A final survey for the Tar spiny mussel will be conducted before construction begins. The
NCWRC & USFWS will be notified of the survey results. If the surveyor discovers
endangered mussels, the Federal Highway Administration will initiate formal consultation
proceedings.
Ms. Candice Martino of USFWS (919-8564520), Mr. Tim Savidge of NCDOT Planning &
Environmental (919-733-3141), Mr. David Cox of NCWRC (919-528-9886), and Mr. John
Alderman of NCWRC (919-542-5331) will be invited by the Resident Engineer to attend a
preconstruction meeting.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 1,100,000
Right of Way $ 15,000
Total $ 1,115,000
Estimated Traffic: Current - 600 vpd,
Design Speed: 100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification: Rural Local
Division Office Comments:
The division supports the proposed action.
Year 2020 - 1100 vpd
4

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? XX
(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 x
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?
? x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 17 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? El x
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 1-1 X
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? ? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
X
changes?
7
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? 1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or ?
business? X
(17) Will the project have disproportionately high and adverse ?
human health and environmental effect on any minority X
or low income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
6
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? F-1 X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 0 X
(22) 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)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic -
volumes? 7 X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge X
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility)
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing
facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 0 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local a
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? El X
7
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which x
are important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl 17 X
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilites to non-recreation uses, as defined 17 X
by Section 6(f) of the Lnad and Water Conservation Act of
1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question 2 on page 4 - Endangered Species
Tar River, in the project area, is suitable habitat for the Tar spiny mussel. Special
project commitments and coordination with the USFWS have resulted in a determination that
this project is not likely to adversely affect the Tar spiny mussel. [See attached memo from
USFWS.]
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3052
State Project No. 8.2390501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1101(4)
Proiect Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 9 on SR 1101 over the
Tar River on the Vance-Franklin County line. The bridge will be replaced
with a 91-meter (300-foot) long bridge at the existing location and
approximately the same elevation. Traffic will be detoured along NC 56,
US 1, and SR 1100 during construction (See Figure 1).
The new bridge will have a 8.6-meter (28-foot) clear deck width which will
provide two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 1.0-meter (3-foot) offsets. The
approaches to the bridge will be widened and resurfaced to include two
3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and 2.7-meter (9-foot) grass shoulders tapering to
1.8 meters (6 feet) where guardrail is not required. Approaches to both the
north and the south will extend 46 meters (150 feet) from the bridge.
Categorical
Approved:
-Z 5-,n
Date
Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
8'- 2 S-9 7
714
IN C .n e- L?/ c

??,..OCAR pZ? ,
as's

Date
Project "Planning Unit Head :
?•.?pFESS?.•9
. c 1 ` VnD = 4 SEAL •. -

-
022552
Date Proj ct Planning Engineer ?'stiF ?Z,f
WCV
For Type II (B) projects only:
® 41
7 7
Date vision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

,.000
'icy 000,
'
iii -
0000
J
0000
0000.
1 r-N.

Y C
e ? ?
? ? N

Y
o z
a rOl":il ?

e °e W Z ci =
z H __
B
'
y ?G
?n
; ?
•
3

U na 9 w

Z !-+ a U J

I 1-
01
NI CI NI 1.'1 ,/
\ NI v
rNI ? 1 ? I
? 111 1 l
111 1 \ ? ?' \ ? .'1 I
YY 2!
/IL
j? E f nl-
660
I r (?J
I ?p
?'nm ? , 4 e N
\.4? / .???}?,? ILy •? lVl ?.
CI l
my
oW'PtMENT OF
9
N
a
?,RCH , ??6s
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE /CZ-
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
August 19, 1997
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: John L. Williams, Planning Engineer
BUG 2 1 ??9i
?C 141
RE: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 9 on SR1101 over Tar River, Vance-
Franklin County Line; TIP Project #B-3052
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife (Service) has reviewed your July 25, 1997
letter regarding the above-referenced project in Vance and Franklin
County in North Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with
Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
Based on the North Carolina Department of Transportation's agreement to
implement the environmental commitments stated in your letter, the
Service concurs that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
federally-endangered Tar spiny mussel and any other federally-listed
species.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been
satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation
must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this
identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently
modified in a manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be affected by
the identified action.
Thank you for your cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
ActY?isuxrvisor
Tom Augspurger
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:8-19-97/919-856-4520:WP51:NCDOT:Brg9-tar.NE
/ . • Ihffis
l I .. AA(( v
fast +' Z '?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 10, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #9 on SR
River, Vance and Franklin
96-9021
Dear Mr. Graf:
110 1 /1203 over Tar
Counties, B-3052, ER
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Q?? C E 1
JUL 1 21996
DIVISION-OF
HIOHWAyS
On July 9, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National 'Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. ,
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
r

109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-250', g?3
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
k - . ?< ?Q4
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: 4-A F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
4N
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GovERNoR
3 April 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Project Planning
5
FROM: Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAND B. GAR.RETT J R.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 9 on SR 1101 over Tar River.
Franklin/Vance Counties; TIP No. B-3052, State Project
No. 8.2390501; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1 101(4).
ATTENTION: John Williams, P.E., Project Manager
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses
of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally-protected species is also provided, with
respect to regulatory concerns which must be considered. Please contact me if you have
any questions, or need this report copied onto disk format.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3052

REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 9 ON SRI] 02
OVER TAR RIVER
FRANKLIN/VANCE COUNTIES
TIP NO. B-3052
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2390501
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1101(4)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-3052
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
MATT K. SMITH, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
4 APRIL 1997
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 1
1. 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................... 1
1.2 Mr•.TIIODOI.OGI .....................................................................................................................................2
1.3 TERMINOLO ;Y AND DEFINITIONS ........................................................................................................... 3
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAI.INVEST-IGATOR ....................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ................................................................................................................ 3
2.1 RF.GIONALCHARACTERISTICS ................................................................................................................3
2.2 Sows .................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.3 WATER RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................................4
1.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ................................................................................. 4
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................................................................................. 5
2.3.3 Water Qualityy ............................................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics .................................................................................................... 5
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network ...................................................................................6
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers .................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ..................................................................................................... 6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................... 7
3.1 TERRrsTRIAL. COMMLrN[TIES ................................................................................................................ . 7
3.I.1 Disturbed Community ................................................................................................................. . 7
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Harwood Forest ..................................................................................................... . 8
3.1.2 Alluvial F7oodplain Forest ........................................................................................................... . 9
3.2 AQUATIC COMMLTNIT1ES ....................................................................................................................... . 9
3.3 SUMIv1ARY OI' ANTICIPATED IMPACTS .................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ........................................................................................... 10
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ................................................................................................ 11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ......................... »..... ................ ................... ........................................ 11
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .......................................................................................................... 11
41.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ........................................................................ 12
4.1.2 Summaq of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................................ 12
4.1.3 Permits ........................................................................................................................................ 13
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ......................................................................................... 14
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ............................................................................................................ 15
4 .2.1 Federally-Proteded Species ........................................................................................................ 15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ................................................................. 18
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................. 20
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Water Resources and Physiography of the Region
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area ................................................................................................ 4
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities .......................................................................10
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to wetlands and surface waters ....................................................................12
Table 4. Federally Protected Species for Franklin and Vance Counties .....................................................15
Table 5. Federal candidate species for Franklin and Vance County ...........................................................19
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this
document is to inventory and describe the natural resources which occur within the
proposed right-of-way boundaries and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to these natural
resources are provided, along with recommendations for measures which will minimize
resource impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental concern which may affect the
selection of a preferred alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the preliminary planning stages of the
proposed project in order to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and
effective manner. The analyses contained in this document are relevant only in the context
of the existing preliminary project boundaries and design. If design parameters and criteria
change, additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project crosses the Tar River where it forms the boundary between
Franklin and Vance Counties (Figure 1). The project calls for the replacement of Bridge
No. 9 on SR 1101 over the Tar River. The existing structure is 7.3 m (24 ft) wide and 84 m
(275 ft) long. The current right-of-way for this project is ditchline to ditchline and the
proposed right-of-way is 24 m (80 ft). Three alternatives are being considered for the
project.
• Alternative 1: Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge at existing location. Traffic
would be maintained on secondary roads during construction. Project length is
approximately 152 m (500 ft).
• Alternative Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on the existing location.
Traffic could be maintained on a temporary alignment to the west of the existing bridge
during construction. The temporary structure would be approximately 67 m (220 ft)
long, placed 1 m (3 ft) below the elevation of the existing bridge. The length of the
temporary alignment is approximately 366 m (1200 ft).
• Alternative Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on new location to the west
of the existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during
construction. The project length for this alternate is 488 m (1600 ft).
2
1.2 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Published resource
information pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed. Resources utilized in
this preliminary investigation of the project area include:
• Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Kittrell).
NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200).
• Soil Conservation Service (SCS), currently known as Natural Resource Conservation
Service (NRCS), Soil Survey of Vance County, North Carolina (1980).
• NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base
Maps of Franklin and Vance Counties (1995).
National Wetland Inventory Maps (Kittrell).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from the
FWS list of protected and candidate species (23 August 1996) and from the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files
were reviewed for documented occurences of state or federally listed species and locations
of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
Environmental Biologists Matt Smith and Tim Savidge on 03 March 1997. Water
resources were identified and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also identified and described. Terrestrial
community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible,
and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, e1 al.
(1980), Menhenick (1991), . Potter, e1 al. (1980), and Webster, e1 al. (1985). Vegetative
communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Predictions
regarding wildlife community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment
based on existing vegetative communities. Wildlife identification involved using a variety of
observation techniques: qualitative habitat assessment based on vegetative communities,
active searching, identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic organisms were conducted using a hand held dip net;
tactile searches for benthic organisms were administered as well. Organisms captured
during these searches were identified and then released.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and evaluated based on criteria
established in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina"
(Division of Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the
classification scheme of Cowardin, el al. (1979).
3
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the
proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the project alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area,
and "project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map, i.e. 163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. mi).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Investigator Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Education: BS Marine Biology, University of North Carolina at Wilmington,
12/94.
Certification: N.C. Certified Wastewater Treatment Plant Operator.
Experience: Laboratory Technician, Takeda Chemical Products.
Lepidoptera researcher, USDA Forest Service.
Expertise: Native Lepidoptera collection, field biological inventories,
water quality testing.
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area are discussed below with
respect to possible environmental concerns. Soil properties and site topography
significantly influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction, along with other
possible construction limitations or management concerns. Water resources within the
project area present important management limitations due to the need to regulate water
movement and the increased potential for water quality degradation. Excessive soil
disturbance resulting from construction activities can potentially alter both the flow and
j quality of water resources, limiting downstream uses. In addition, soil characteristics and
the availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in biotic communities, thus affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Vance and Franklin Counties lie in the Piedmont Physiographic Province of North
Carolina (Figure 2). The topography of the Counties is characterized by gently sloping and
sloping wide, nearly level floodplains along streams. Topography in the vicinity of the study
area is composed of steep slopes and wide floodplains along streams. Project elevations
i average 69 m (225 ft) above mean sea level. Parent material for soils in the project region
are residual materials derived from acid and base igneous rocks and alluvium. Alluvial
material is composed both recent and old deposits.
4
2.2 SOILS
Soils located in the project area are of the Wedowee-Louisburg-Pacolet
Association. An inventory of the specific soil types which occur in the project area can be
found in Table 1. A brief description of each soil type is also provided.
Table 1. Soils occurring in the project area
map, Unit specific Mapping Unit % Slope Site Index` Erosion
Sy pb9l hazard'
Cw Chewacla silt loam nearly level 96 slight
HeB Helena sandy loam 2-8% slopes 2-8 80 slight
Note: ' describes the potential for future erosion, inherent in the soil itself, in inadequately
protected areas. Based on tons of soil lost/acre/year.
2 the expected average height (ft) of dominant trees in an even aged stand at 50
years of age (loblolly pine).
• Chewacla silt loam consists of nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil on long,
narrow flood plains. This soil has low organic content and is commonly flooded for
brief periods. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high.
• Helena sandy loam 2 to 8 percent slopes is a moderately well drained soil on smooth
ridges. This soil has slow permeability and medium water capacity.
Both of the specific map units found in the project area are known to have
inclusions of hydric soils. The hydric inclusions are of Wehadkee and Worsham soils.
2.3 WATER RESOURCES
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be
impacted by the proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources,
along with their relationship to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
Water resources within the study area are located in the Upper Tar River subbasin
(03-03-01) of the Tar-Pamlico River Drainage Basin. SR 1101 crosses one perennial
stream the Tar River (Figure 2). Construction of alternates 2 and 3 will necessitate the
construction of new crossings of the Tar River.
5
The Tar River at SR 1101 is approximately 30 m (100 ft) wide and ranges in depth
from 0.5-2 m (2-6 ft). The substrate at the existing crossing was undetectable at depth due
to high turbidity. Shallows had a substrate composed of sand and gravel, silt was observed
to have settled out on rocks and debris in shallow eddies. The stream banks are steep and
show evidence of heavy erosion, still, a well developed riparian canopy is present. In the
stream channel woody debris form drift piles, in bends and shallows, that slow water now
and aid in the formation of sandbars.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which reflects
water quality conditions and potential resource usage. The Tar River [DEM Index No. 28-
(5.7), 8/3/92] is classified as "WS-V NSW". WS-V (Water Supplies V) refers to those
waters protected as water supplies which are generally upstream and draining to Class-IV
waters and suitable for all Class C uses. Class C waters are defined as suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs. No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-Ii) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km
(1.0 mi) of project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water resources within the project
area. Potential sediment loads and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality assessments are made based on
published resource information and existing general watershed characteristics. These data
provide insight into the value of water resources within the project area to meet human
needs and to provide habitat for aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
Sedimentation and stormwater runoff from land clearing activities are likely to be
the primary sources of water quality degradation to the Tar River in the project vicinity.
Runoff from pasture land is also likely to be an important factor. Runoff from pastures is
tT r known to contain oxygen depleting organic compounds and potentially harmful bacteria (E.
coh, fecal coliforms). Runoff from land clearing activities is primarily composed of
sediment but is also likely to include pesticide residue, fertilizer, and petroleum products.
These types of runoff are classified as nonpoint source and are difficult to quantify and
determine an exact source.
6
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DEM,
is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term
trends in water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed
sites for selected benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality
conditions. Samples are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups
[Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, Trichoptera (EPT)] and assigned a taxa richness value.
Samples are also assigned a bioclassification that summarizes tolerance data for all species
in each collection. The bioclassification and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects
of chemical pollution and are a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as
sediment. BMAN data is currently unavailable for the project vicinity.
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report
lists no permitted dischargers into the Tar River within 8 km (5 mi) of SR 1101.
2.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Impacts to water resources in the project area are likely to result from activities
associated with project construction. Activities likely to result in impacts are clearing and
grubbing on streambanks, riparian canopy removal, instream construction, fertilizers and
pesticides used in Revegetation, and pavement installation. The following impacts'to
surface water resources are likely to result from the above mentioned construction
activities.
• Increased sedimentation and siltation downstream of the crossing and increased erosion
in the project area.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in and destabilization of water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentrations of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, and
toxic spills.
• Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
• Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface and
groundwater drainage patterns.
7
In order to minimize potential impacts to water resources in the project area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the construction phase of the project. Impacts can be further reduced by
limiting instream activities and revegetating stream banks immediately following the
completion of grading.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes
the biotic communities encountered in the project area, as well as the relationships between
fauna and flora within these communities. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, soils, hydrology, and
past and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications. These classifications follow Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Representative animal species which are likely to occur in
these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer to
the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted in the text with an
asterisk (*).
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified within the project area:
Disturbed Community, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and Floodplain Alluvial Forest.
Community boundaries are frequently ill-defined due to disturbance; contiguous
communities often merge without distinct boundaries between them. Thus, some areas may
contain characteristics of two communities.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
The disturbed community occurs on the roadside shoulders, waste areas, and
pastures in the study area. Homesites and roadside shoulders are maintained in an early
successional state through frequent mowing and herbicide application. These areas typically
are dominated by cultivated grasses and invasive herbaceous species. Common species
observed include: Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fescue (Festuc:a sp.), bahai grass
(Paspalum nvlatun?), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), white clover (Trifolium repens), and
dandelion (Taraxacun? (?rficinale). Pasture land located within the project right-of-way
appeared to be used infrequently and is dominated by tall grasses and perennial forbs.
Typical species observed in pastures are fescue, goldenrod (Solidagv spp.), wild carrot
8
(Daucus carota), dog fennel (Lupatoriwn sp.), broom sedge (Andropogou Orgitica), and
foxtail grass (Alol;ecurus carohniatuts).
The fauna found in this community are generally highly adaptive and extremely
hardy. The greatest potential for diversity is found among the insects, many of which meet
the previously mentioned requirements. Grasses and flowering herbs are an excellent food
source for grasshoppers (Orthoptera), bees (Hymenoptera), and butterflies and moths
(Lepidoptera). Specifically the pearl crescent (Phycoides tharos), silver-spotted skipper
(LparKyreus clarus), golden northern bumble bee (Bomhtts ferridus), and striped blister
beetle (hl)icawa vittata) are common in this community. Other animals that utilize this
community include those that are residents of old fields such as, eastern garter snake
(Thanmophis sirialis), six-lined racerunner (Cttentidophorus sexlineattts), Fowler's toad
(Bt fo iroodhousei), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), southern short-tailed shrew
(Rhirina carolinensis), and eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys hunntlis). Larger
vertebrates will also forage in disturbed communities, often times seeking shelter in the
adjacent forested communities. Typical species include: raccoon (Procyon ltor)*, turkey
vulture (Catharses aura), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virgit iatms), white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginiaiuts)*, and song sparrow (Melospiza melixha).
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Harwood Forest
The Mesic Slope Forest Community is found on rocky slopes along the Tar River
floodplain that do not experience periodic flooding. This community has a mature canopy
,ptidamhar styracij%a), loblolly pine (Phis laeda), and American beech
of sweet gum (I.i(
(Fagrts grandifolia). The dense understory includes saplings of canopy species as well as,
yellow buckeye (Aesculus sylnatica), sugar maple (Ater saccharum), and red cedar
(Jimiperus Wrginiana). Groundcover in this community is dominated by chickweed
(Stellaria sp.), but also includes putty root (Aplectrum hyemale), cranefly orchid (Dpularia
discolor), heartleaf (Hexastylis arifolia), violet (Viola sp.), buttercup (Ratnntcuhts sp.), and
Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Forested communities generally offer a wider range of opportunities for animals than
do disturbed communities. The wide range of opportunities translates into a diverse
assemblage of species. Species such as wood thrush (Hylocichla musteli»a), southeastern
shrew (Sorex Iongirossri.s), ground skink (Scirtcella lateralis), and eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina) can be seen foraging on the forest floor for insect larvae and worms.
Canopy trees provide shelter for upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata)*, gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), Carolina chickadee (Pares caroli»ensis), yellow warbler (Dendroica
pesechia), and Carolina wren (Thryothorus htdoviciamts). Burrows for larger mammals
such as bobcat (Felis rufus), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargentetts), and long-tailed weasel
(Mustela fre»ata) are often observed in slope forests.
9
3.1.2 Alluvial Floodplain Forest
The Alluvial Floodplain Forest Community is located on the banks of the Tar River
in the study area and throughout the alluvial floodplain of the Tar River. The canopy in this
community is dominated by sweet gum, sycamore (Plamanus occidenialis), and river birch
(Betnla nigra). A sparse understory composed entirely of privet (Ligu.str1an .sinense) and
saplings of canopy species is present at the forest edges and along the river banks. A
variety of herbaceous species are present in this community, species include violets (P old
sp.), wild onion (Allium canadenses), chickweed, avens (Genet sp.), greenbrier (smilax
spp.), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
The faunal component of this community is anticipated to be highly diverse and
includes a large number of semiaquatic organisms. Ephemeral pools are extremely
important in amphibian reproduction. Eastern newt (Notophthalmus riridescens)*, and
southern cricket frog (Acris gryllus)* lay eggs in these pools during the first warm rains of
spring. Larvel salamanders and egg cases were observed in ephemeral pools, these most
likely belong to the genus Ambystoma. Red shouldered hawk (Buteo linealus) and barred
owl (Sirix varia) are commonly seen perching in canopy trees along the river bank. Song
birds are also common in this community feeding on insects and seeds. Common species
include: prothonotary warbler (Protonoiaria citrea), tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor),
Louisiana waterthrush (Seiuras motacilla), and ovenbird (S. aurocapilhis).
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition of the water resource. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community
composition and structure.
The Tar River is a large piedmont perennial stream. Large rivers generally offer a
wide variety of habitats. Habitats found in the Tar River include: eddies formed around
sandbars, drift piles, and undercut banks; shallow riffle zones; and deep moderately flowing
channels. These areas provide habitat for a variety of piscine species including: American
eel (Aguilla rostrata), redfin pickerel (Esox americana), chain pickerel (E. niger), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), creek chub (Semotihis atromaculatus), Carolina madtom
(Nolur cv lewisi), margined madtom (Notrmis insignis), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus),
bluegill (L. macrochirus), pumpkin seed (L. gibbomis), large mouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), and several species of shiners (Notropis spp.). Freshwater mussels are known
to occur in the Tar River. The yellow lance (Elliptio lanceolata)*, yellow lampmussel
(Lampsilis cariosa), Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconia masoni), eastern elliptio (Elliptio
complanata)*, and Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)* are known to occur in the study
area. Nonpiscine species likely to occur in the Tar River at SR 1101 are the Neuse River
waterdog (Necturus lewisi), two-toed amphiuma (Amphiuma means), yellow bellied slider
(Chrysenrys scripta), and northern watersnake (Nerodia sipedon).
10
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential
impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and
the organisms affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well,
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area.
Table 2 summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the
project lengths described in section 1. 1, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m
(80 ft). However, project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Disturbed Community 0.06 (0.15) 0.12 (0.29) 0.07 (0.17)
Mesic Slope Forest 0.04 (0.10) 0.14 (0.34) 0.33 (0.82)
Alluvial Floodplain Forest 0.16 (0.39) 0.28 (0.68) 0.31 (0.77)
Total Impacts 0.26 (0.64) 0.54(l.31) 0.71 (1.76)
Alternative 1 is the preferred alternative in order to minimize impacts to natural
communities (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, Alluvial Floodplain Forest). The projected
loss of habitat resulting from construction of alternate 1 will have a minimal impact on
populations of native fauna and flora. Although the impacted natural communities are
valuable as wildlife habitat, only a small area of the forested community will be disturbed.
Construction will primarily impact the disturbed community which is already highly altered
from its natural state. Plants and animals found in this community are generally common
throughout North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed areas. Animals
temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable habitat
following project completion. Narrow zones along the edge of the forested community will
be impacted by project construction. This reduces the amount of suitable habitat available
for interior species and increasing opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become
to small in area interior species will not repopulate.
11
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Impacts to the aquatic community of the Tar River will result from the replacement
of Bridge No. 9. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of aquatic
habitats (i.e. substrate, water quality, stream banks). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the
overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities.
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Clogging of feeding structures of filter-feeding organisms, gills of fish, and the burial of
benthic organisms.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Mortality among sensitive organisms resulting from introduction of toxic substances and
decreases in dissolved oxygen.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by minimizing riparian canopy
removal, limiting instream construction, Revegetation immediately following the completion
of grading activities, and strict adherence to BMP's.
4.0 Jurisdictional Tonics
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These issues
retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which regulate their
protection. This section deals specifically with the construction. impact analyses required to
satisfy regulatory authority prior to project
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the Unit
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3. Any
action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls
under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters
which have commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on
the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions
during all or part of the growing season.
12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. Two wetland sites were identified in the study area
(Figure 2).
Wetland 1 is located on the west side of SR 1101, south of the existing bridge. The
site is a small depression in the alluvial floodplain forest community. The flora at this site is
similar to that described for the alluvial floodplain forest. Additionally the exotic aquatic
herb alligator weed (Ahernanthera philoxoides) is found in the wetland. Hydrology was
indicated at the site by the presence of soils saturated in the upper 30 cm (12 in). Soils at
the site exhibited low chroma values (1 OYR 7/2)and mottling was present.
Wetland 2 is located on the west side of SR 1101, north of the existing bridge. The
site is a series of ephemeral pools that eventually flow out into the floodplain of the Tar
River. The canopy is composed of loblolly pine, sycamore, and river birch. A thick
understory of privet, sugar maple, and blackberry (Rubes augustus) is also present. The
herbaceous layer is dominated by soft rush (.hinc??.v effus?is), Japanese honeysuckle, panic
grass (Panicum sp.), and other grasses. Hydrology at this site is indicated by inundation,
the presence of drainage patterns, and drift lines. Soils at the site exhibited low chroma
values (1 OYR 7/2) and mottling was observed.
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are calculated based on the linear feet of the
stream that is located within the proposed right-of-way. Physical aspects of surface waters
are described in section 2.3.1. The Tar river is the only jurisdictional surface water located
in the study area.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Highway construction impacts can severely affect the functions that wetlands
perform in an ecosystem. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting
and storing storm water runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding and erosion
in surrounding and downstream areas. Wetlands have been documented to remove organic
and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials from water that flows across them. The
presence of wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and toxins.
Approximate areas of jurisdictional wetlands and impacts to jurisdictional surface waters in
each alignment are tabulated in Table 3.
13
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to wetlands and surface waters
Wetland Site Alternate .:1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3

Site I None <0.010 (<O.010) 0.080 (0.20)
Site 2 None 0.11 (0.28) 0.26 (0.64)
Total: None 0.12 (0.29) 0.34 (0.84)
Linear feet of Tar River 8 m (25 ft) 30 m (100 ft) 24 m (80 ft)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres)
Anticipated wetland impacts are derived based on the project lengths described in
section 1. 1, and the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft). However, project
construction often does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual wetland
impacts may be considerably less. These impact estimates include only those areas of
wetlands located within the proposed right-of-way, additional wetland areas might be
indirectly affected due to changes in water levels and siltation from construction activities.
In order to avoid impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and minimize impacts to jurisdictional
surface waters Alternate 1 is the preferred alternative.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated from the
proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications
from various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public water
resources
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts
to Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part,
by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
the pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DEM prior
to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that
the state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to Waters of the United States. Section 401 Certification allows
14
surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land
manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a
Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in
terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction to median
widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically wetlands.
Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
15
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human development. Federal
law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires
that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be
subject to review by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
As of 23 August 1996, the FWS lists three federally protected species for Franklin County
and two for Vance County. A brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential project impacts
follows Table 4.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species for Franklin and Vance Counties.
dwarf wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E Vance/ Franklin
Tar spinymussel Elliptio steinstansana E Franklin
bald eagle Haliaeetus lencocephalus T Vance
Michaux's sumac Rlnm michauxii E Franklin
Note:
• "E" denotes Endangered (a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
• "T" denotes Threatened (a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
?` . Alasmidonta heterodon formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to the
Neuse River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in Middle Creek and
the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked,
and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm in
length. It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left
16
half. The periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval mussels to a host
fish. It is not known what the host fish is but evidence suggests that it is either an
anadromous or catadromous species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and
industrial pollutants and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to
survive.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
The Tar River provides suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. A search of the
NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no records of this species in the
vicinity of the proposed project. Surveys for this species will need to be conducted in order
to determine if this species is present in the study area.
El/iplio sleinslansana (Tar river spiny mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 29 July 1985
The Tar river spiny mussel has always been endemic to the Tar River drainage basin,
from Falkland in Pitt County to Spring Hope in Nash County. Now it is limited to
populations in Swift Creek and the Tar River in Edgecombe and Nash counties.
This mussel requires a stream with fast flowing, well oxygenated, circumneutral pH
water. The bottom is composed of uncompacted gravel and coarse sand. The water needs
to be relatively silt-free. It is known to rely on a species of freshwater fish to act as an
intermediate host for its larvae.
The Tar river spiny mussel grows to an average length of 60 millimeters. Short
spines are arranged in a radial row anterior to the posterior ridge on one valve and
symmetrical to the other valve, others have two rows of spines on each valve. The nacre is
pinkish (anterior) and bluish-white (posterior). Young specimens have an orange-brown
peristracum with greenish rays and adults are darker with inconspicuous rays. The shell is
generally smooth in texture with as many as 12 spines that project perpendicularly from the
surface and curve slightly ventrally.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
The Tar River provides suitable habitat for the Tar spinymussel and the proposed
project is located within the WRC Proposed Critical Habitat (PCH) for the species. A
search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no records of this
species in the vicinity of the proposed project. Surveys for this species will need to be
conducted in order to determine if this species is present in the study area.
17
Hahaeeliis leucvicel)liahts
Family: Accipitridae
(bald eagle) Endangered
Date Listed: 1 I March 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major
nesting population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of
Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur
elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail. The
body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack the white
head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with blotchy
white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar. Adults range is length from 69-94 cm and have a wingspan ranging
from 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle nests
are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land
Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests
are approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the
major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of large lakes and rivers is. not found in the study area.
A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats shows no records of this
species nesting along the Tar River in the vicinity of the proposed project. Construction of
the proposed project will not affect the bald eagle.
Rhos michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
•:; .`': Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species is believed to be
extirpated in South Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North
Carolina and Georgia. In North Carolina populations of Michaux's sumac still exist in
Hoke, Richmond, Scotland, Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
18
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0
meters in height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong
to oblong- lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute and
acuminate. The bases of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly
serrate. It bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish
to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a
red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to G mm across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with
basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can
get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle that it is often associated with.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for Michaux's sumac is found along the existing approaches to
Bridge No. 9, roadsides, and pastures. A search of the NHP database of rare species and
unique habitats shows no populations of this species occuring in the vicinity of the proposed
project. A survey for this species will need to be conducted of all suitable habitat during the
appropriate season.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are four federal species of concern listed by the FWS for Franklin County and
two federal species of concern for Vance County (Table 5). Federal species of concern are
not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and
so should be included for consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a
species which is under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing. In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State Endangered Species
Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 5 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded
state protection), and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the protection status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
19
r
v

Table 5. Federal candidate species for Franklin and Vance County
Common Name Scientific Name - NC Status Habitat
Franklin County
yellow lance EllilWo lanceolata T Yes
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni T Yes
yellow lampmussel Lamlasilis cariosa T Yes
wayyleaf wild quinine Partheninm radfordii -- Yes
Vance County
yellow lance Elliptio lanceolala T Yes
yellow lampmussel Lamhsili.s cariosa T Yes
NOTE: NC Status
• "T" (Threatened) any native or once-native species which is likely to become an
endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered
Species Act.
A review of the NCNHP data base of rare species and unique habitats shows
occurrences of the yellow lance and the yellow lampmussel in the study area. The yellow
lance was observed in the study area during cursory field surveys. Two additional state
protected species are known to occur in the study area, the Carolina madtom (Nolurns
fiiriomis) and the Neuse River waterdog (Necturus lem,isi). Surveys for FSC species were
not conducted during the site visit.
20
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1993. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A distributional survey of North
Carolina mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The freshwater fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North Carolina
streams: benthic macroinvertebrate data base and long term changes in water
quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards for North Carolina
river basins. Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered wildlife of North Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. List of North Carolina's endangered, threatened and
candidate plant species. Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
21
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the natural communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
USDA. 1980. Soil survey of Vance County, North Carolina. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
U.S.Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia
and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Irv
?, • ? ? rte..
v
Toy/ars
r r1 ? C / _' a
%
yf/?f I ' 5 2 8 RR y? I. I XS _
I I V
• t ?
? Z N ??
.`• - INC
I '- > r
1 ,
? t
C.. P - 0100 •
?.
\ r . Z ' .' 1 ?? E r
000 0000 60
000
.-,%
is ,? ?,.?? ? . _I - _ .l--?,_ (` ? Jrl ._ ?• _ ? ? ,
,. \ .., ??'• ;:_`_`?? Williuro Hill
-Ch
l /h oar •? - ?\.?--? / i i
T Alt
:M.
v ! r vj . o •? ?.. -,! _ te=a 1 ,t, ` Wetland 2 ?z t.
< k' I IN
(7- v
Wetland 1
HM
.?`. __ `? . •?, -' ?,\ ,x;11 \,,,-?,,
' it
YIN
No. 9

,'.a 'cam •`? _ -_ ; - . - Y ? ' j j .,' / 'y?if1
,? mow, ?4? ,%?. .`>. .,?•.71 •?- ? ,'..i ', .??•.
0

U
orit?
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIoHwAYS
PLANNINo AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRA
Franklin/Vance County
Replace Bridge No. 9 on SR 1101
Over Tar River
B-3062
SCALE 1:24000 FIGURE
e.. S1AM
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF T P ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
ATTENTION:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
REFERENCE:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
July 25, 1997
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
John Williams, Project Manager
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Tim Savidge, Protected Species Coordinator
Environmental Unit
Protected Species Survey Results Pertaining to TIP
No. B-3052.
1) Natural Resources Technical Report for B-3052
by Matt Smith, April 03, 1997
2) July 25, 1997 letter from John Williams to John
Hefner (US Fish and Wildlife Service)
The referenced Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) gave Biological
Conclusions of Unresolved for three species: dwarf-wedge mussel (dwm), Tar
spinymussel (TSM) and Michaux's sumac, until surveys at the appropriate seasons could
be conducted. The subject project was visited by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge on July
10, 1997 to investigate the presence of these three species in the potential impact zones.
Mussel surveys were conducted using a view bucket by wading in the Tar River
for a distance of approximately 300 yards downstream and 50 yards upstream of the
bridge crossing. An excessive amount of sediment was observed in the river in the
vicinity of the bridge, and the habitat was generally unsuitable for both mussel species.
Only one living mussel of the Elliptio complex was found.
Biological Conclusion (Tar spinymussel): Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The survey indicates that the Tar spiny mussel is not present in the immediate
vicinity of the bridge. However, this species is known from the Tar River downstream of
the project area. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) has
identified this portion of the Tar River and its tributaries, as one of 25 areas in North
Carolina that have formally been proposed as aquatic Critical Habitats (PCH). These

habitats are considered essential for the continued survival of endangered or threatened
aquatic wildlife species. Certain conservation procedures, such as high quality waters
designation and protection, are then established by the state regulatory agencies
(Alderman et al. 1993). Presently the WRC is not allowed to designate areas as Critical
Habitat; however NCDOT uses the PCHs for guidance in determining if a project will
impact a federally listed aquatic species. NCDOT implements HQW standards in the
former PCHs that contain federally listed species.
A list of Environmental Commitments proposed by NCDOT for the construction of
this project is given in the referenced letter from John Williams (Ref. 2). If these
provisions are strictly adhered to, it can be concluded that project construction is Not
Likely to Adversely Affect the Tar spinymussel.
Biological Conclusion (dwarf-wedge mussel): No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that the dwm does not occur in the Tar River
in the vicinity of the project. This species has not been documented in the Tar River
downstream of the subject project. The dwm is known from the headwater areas of the
Tar River, approximately 20 miles upstream of the project crossing. It can be concluded
that construction of this project will not impact the dwarf-wedge mussel.
Biological Conclusion (Michaux's sumac): No Effect
Surveys for Michaux's sumac were conducted in roadside and woodland edge
habitats described in the NRTR. These areas were visually examined to provide 100%
coverage. Given the survey results it is apparent that Michaux's sumac is not present
within the project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact
Michaux's sumac.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: Section 7 Issues

dw?5-Mo?
STATE' or Nown-1 CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT Or TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, 1tALFAGi1, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GovIANOR
December 8, 1999
SIU(II-AKY
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replaccment
FROM: Eric Black, Natural Systems Specialist pa
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Water Resources/Protected Species Update: Replacement
of Bridge No. 9 on SR 1 101 over the Tar River on the
Vance-Franklin County line, Vance-Franklin Counties; TIP
No. B-3052; State Project No. 8.2390501; Federal Aid
project No. BRZ-1101(4).
REFERENCE: (1) Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 9 on SR 1 101 over Tar River,
April 3, 1997.
(2) Protected Species Survey Results Pertaining to TIP No.
B-3052, July 25, 1997.
ATTENTION: John Williams, P.E., Bridge Unit
' The following memorandum provides an update of the water resources and
federally protected species potentially impacted by project B-3052 and serves to update
the April 3, 1997 Natural Resources Technical Report, and July 25, 1997 Protected
Species Survey Results with respect to these two issues.
WAFER RESOURCES
The best usage classification for the'Tar River has not changed since the Natural
Resources Technical Report (Reference 1). Therefore, the DEM stream classification for
the Tar River of "WS-V NSW" remains valid.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E) and Threatened
(T) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species
Act of' 1973, has amended. As of September 15, 1999, the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS) lists four federally protected species for Franklin and Vance Counties ("fable 1).
'T'able 1. Federally Protected Species for Franklin and Vance Counties
Scientific Name Common Name Status Biological Conclusion
Alasmidonta helei-oclon dwarf wedge mussel Endangered No Effect
Llliptio steinstanscma Tar spiny mussel Endangered Not Likely to Adversely Effect
Hciliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened No Effect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered No Effect
The species listed have not changed since the submittal of the Natural Resources
Technical Report. Previous project area surveys indicated suitable habitat for the Tar
spiny mussel, dwarf-wedge mussel, and Michaux's sumac, however, no populations were
found during the surveys, or identified on the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NUIP) database (Reference 1, Reference 2). Based on these results, each species was
assigned the biological conclusion listed in 't'able 1. Suitable habitat for the Bald Eagle
was not identified in the project area. (Reference 1). Therefore, a biological conclusion
of "No Effect" was assigned.
An environmental commitment listed in the Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form required a final survey for the 'T'ar spiny mussel before construction
of the bridge. To fulfill this commitment, a survey for the Tar spiny mussel was
conducted on December 3, 1999 by Eric Black and 'T'im Savidge of the NCDOT Natural
Systems Unit. No mussels were observed in the project area. Additionally, an excessive
amount of sediment was observed in the river in the bridge vicinity, and the habitat was
generally unsuitable for the mussel species. A December 7, 1999 reevaluation of the
NFIP's database for all four species also revealed no new populations in the project area.
Based on the field survey for the Tar spiny mussel and NFIP review, the referenced
Biological Conclusions for all four species remain valid.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at 733-1176.
cc: Bruce Ellis, Acting Natural System Unit Supervisor
David Cox, WRC
Tom Augspurger, Acting Field Supervisor USFWS
?RileB-3052