The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20072029 Ver 1_Application_20071205t r STATE of NORTH CAROLINA ~ ~"•~~.~;~ DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT GOVERNOR SECRETARY November 30, 2007 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Regulatory Field Office 6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27615-6814 ~ ~. ~~' `~' FC 0 s 20 Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer NCDOT Coordinator Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 76 over Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek on SR 1600 in Franklin County. WBS Element No. MA05002B The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 76 over Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek on SR 1600 in Franklin County (Figures 1 and 2). Note that Sycamore Creek and the UT to Sycamore Creek converge underneath the bridge deck. The existing two span bridge (total length of 80 feet) is functionally obsolete and structurally deficient. The Department proposes to install a two-span bridge (2 @ 61 feet) with a drilled pier (Bent 1) that is located in Sycamore Creek (Figure 3). Impacts to Waters of the United States The removal of the existing structure and construction of the new bridge will result in impacts to Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek (NCDENR-DWQ Index No. 28- 26, Best Usage Classification C NSW, HUC 03020101) in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Beaver dams were previously located at or near the existing bridge and impounded water was observed numerous times to the north of the bridge. These beaver dams are not currently present and the water level upstream of the bridge has dropped significantly. Bottomland hardwood forest wetlands (NCWAM assessment) are located in each quadrant of the bridge location. Temporary Impacts The existing bridge structure will be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris will not fall into the water. The Department proposes to provide access for removal of the in-stream wooden piles and installation of the drilled pier (Bent 1) by installing temporary causeways in Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek resulting in 0.02 acre temporary fill in surface waters. Note that the west causeway will only Division 5, 2612 N. Duke Street, Durham, NC 27704 Phone: (919) 560-6081 Fax: (919) 560-3371 2 impact Sycamore Creek while the east causeway will impact both Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek. All in-stream material utilized during construction of the causeways will be removed prior to completion of the project. Permanent Impacts The Department proposes to install 40 linear feet of Class II rip rap to permanently stabilize the banks of Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek. Construction associated with the bridge will result in impacts to a bottomland hardwood forest wetland. The placement of fill associated with widening of the fill slopes will impact a total of 0.03 of wetlands at the site. Mechanized clearing and installation of erosion control devices will impact a total of 0.11 acres of this wetland. Personnel from Sungate Design Group, PA conducted the wetland delineation on January 13, 2004 (see data forms and site plan in Appendix A). Riparian Buffer The proposed project is located in the Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Sycamore Creek is depicted on the most recent version of the Louisburg (USGS 1978, 1984) topographic quadrangle (Figure 1) and the Soil Survey of Franklin County (USDA-NRCS, 2004) (Figure 2). However, the UT to Sycamore Creek is not located on either map and is therefore not subject to the riparian buffer rule. Riparian buffer impacts at the site have been separated into two activities: bridge structure improvements and roadway improvements. Brid,.ge structure improvements Impacts to buffers adjacent to Sycamore Creek associated with bridge improvements total 1,897 ft2 in Zone 1 and 378 ft2 in Zone 2 (TOTAL BRIDGE IMPACTS: 2,275 ft2). All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones associated with construction of the bridge were followed. Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include utilizing the current alignment and construction within the existing transportation facility. According to the buffer rules, bridges impacts are ALLOWABLE. Temporary erosion control measures will be placed within the permitted footprint of this project. Roadway improvements Impacts to buffers adjacent to Sycamore Creek associated with roadway improvements total 301 ft2 in Zone 1 and 769 ft2 in Zone 2 (TOTAL ROADWAY IMPACTS: 1,070 ft2). All practicable measures to minimize impacts within buffer zones associated with construction of the minor roadway improvements associated with construction of this project were followed. Measures used to minimize impacts to the buffer zone include utilizing the current alignment and construction within the existing transportation facility. According to the buffer rules, these roadway improvements are EXEMPT. Temporary erosion control measures will be placed within the permitted footprint of this project. 3 t Wetlands in buffers According to 15A NCAC 2B .0242, Section (3)(b)(iii), impacts to wetlands within Zones 1 and 2 of the riparian buffer that are subject to mitigation under 15A NCAC 2H .0506 shall comply with the mitigation ratios in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 only. Therefore, any wetland impacts that occur within either/both buffer zones will be subtracted from the buffer impacts and mitigated for as wetland only impacts. Zone 1 Impacts Site Zone 1 impact Minus wetlands in Zone 1 =Zone 1 buffers (not wetlands) Zone 1 buffer mitigation required (usin 3:1 ratio Bride 1,897 966 931 None Roadwa 301 238 63 None Total 2,198 1,204 994 None Zone 2 Impacts Site Zone 2 impact Minus wetlands in Zone 2 =Zone 2 buffers (not wetlands Zone 2 buffer mitigation required usin 1.5:1 ratio Bride 378 175 203 None Roadwa 769 643 126 None Total 1,147 818 329 None Construction of the project will not trigger mitigation for riparian buffer impacts as bridge impacts are classified as allowable and roadwa.~pacts are classified as exempt. The Department does propose to offer wetland mitigation due to fill and mechanized clearing/installation of erosion control devices impacts. Waters of the U.S. Mitigation Avoidance: Permanent and temporary impacts to Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek and wetlands from the proposed construction cannot be avoided. Minimization: The construction of this project has minimized additional jurisdictional impacts by using the existing alignment for new construction: Most of the roadway construction will occur within the existing transportation facility (i.e. fill slope). Compensatory Mitigation: Compensatory mitigation is proposed for wetland impacts at a 2:1 ratio. Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the SSA. As of November 26, 2007 there are three federally protected species listed for Franklin County. They include dwarf wedgemus el (Alasmidonta heterodon), Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), and Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii). The roadway shoulders along SR 1600 are heavily maintained, eliminating 4 the possibility for Michaux's sumac to exist in this area. Additionally, a review of the Natural Heritage Program database (last updated September 2006) revealed no occurrences of Michaux's sumac within the project area. Therefore, based on lack of suitable habitat observed during the June 4, 2007 and November 8, 2007 site visit and the NHP database review, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for this species. NCDOT personnel conducted a mussel survey at the site on June 14, 2007 and found no specimens. Neither dwarf wedge mussel or Tar River spinymussel has been found in this creek or receiving waters (Tar River) for at least 10 miles below the crossing. Department personnel rendered a Biological Conclusion of No Effect for both species. Summary Application is hereby made for a Department of the Army Section 404 Nationwide Permit (NWP) 3, 13 and 33 and NCDENR-DWQ Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC) No. 3687, 3689 and 3688 and riparian buffer authorization for above-described activities. An automated payment procedure has been implemented between the NCDOT and NCDENR-DWQ which enables NCDOT Division 5 to apply for the 401 WQC without submitting a check for this permit application. This procedure will provide payment to the NCDWQ by charging the permit application fee directly to the appropriate NCDOT WBS Element No. MA05002B. Apre-construction notification, photograph and and permit drawings are attached with this request. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Chris Murray at (919) 220-4633. Sincerely, ~~~ J. Wally Bowman, P.E. Division Engineer cc: Rob Ridings, NCDENR-DWQ Mike Summers, NCDOT - _. ,~ ;' t,,, t ~~ ~~ ~ ~~ -- Lent! f~ f ~ ' } ,.. 1 t 3 1A 1 .. Li_ ~ n S ~" f ,lands g _ ~ ~ ~; . >` ~ . ~, ~ / ~ t ~~ t ,~ trip ~~..., i/ ~~~ 237 ~ .- ?_ `, ~-a _ _ T r ~~ ~ i 1~ _ ,, - f ."~- .f _ t ~~ _..~ ~ _:, .. t • .. ~ ., ,~ ~ ~. a r, ... ~ +/," ".. _ _ . t ~'lhgi~ ~"~~ - '~" ~ •.229 " ~.0 ,.~ ` ~ ~ C_. ., ~ , ~~~ : } Replacement of Bridge No. 76 over Sycamore Creek and ~ ~' Ltnx,b~u~ ~` _f._~ - : UT to Sycamore Creek on SR 1600 in Franklin County f`° ' --~F'>b~` ~ ;~~ ~,,,... ~:: '. `~ Louisburg USGS Topo Map (1978, 1984) ~~ NCMA Project MA05002B ~' " ,:. ,~~,,; 1:24,000 Figure 1 .. fy,•,~ . .,, ., .. .a • . ~~•~,~ s! t ~ ~ ~ /~ l~ ~ ..,~. ~ ~ .3 ~ 1 I,~ a r ~~~ r ~ ~ 11 ~~., ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~ ?... ( ~ I ~ i r , r,,.....- t ~ ~ t„~ ! tit ~ ~{ ;~ ~ .:,,,,,~ ~~ ~ ~~ / ~~ ~ ;,' y '..,.. k ... -iF I! V~ I ~ ~~ ._,.:, /' . ;, _.. ~ ~:-~---- a.~ f ses~gez_ Site ~ ~ _ , , 4} _ ; ; .~' L..r~" a ti.."-~--~ ~," " i ~~ '/~ ~, tom' ~ `~~ ~ ~# s Got ~ # _ A. ``. .. t _ .. ., s t ~;~ ~.,....,, ~J ''`', ~ ~ s 'p .. h ~, •1 ~ ti ~ ~ ' ~ ~' .- ~ - . _, - ~ t '_-- . . ~ n ,,~ ~ .. .. I 1 ~;, ~t -.~.- ._ t t ;~ -~. f~ ti. _. - ~ iY ~` ~ _ ~,~ ~, t ~ ~ 761 ~, ~ i . 1 _ i / " n~ .~ ..~~.~ _` 1 \ ~ ~~ ~ _~ ~~ w •'% ". -, ~ __ ' Sand Pit ` i. 7 .- , . y. .~ _ -~ j ~ ` } Copyright (C) 1998. Maotech. Inc. ~`~`"~~~ :~ - , i ~ 4 ~ p ,",.? ~- ~~. ~. ~, ,,$~. i . ~,,. 1. Photo 1. View of bridge over Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek. ` ."` ~ k r ~, /4 >; , x'f^ f~~;e`A~ar`•~,, ,YB - f WeB'` 1 ;He `* ~r '~ '~• M. ~ `;s~ w _,f ,,~ ~, -WeB t s19~~: ~ !i~ ~ •+~• WeB xlX- } ~ ' ~^~ ~ J F , .. 'i.. ,r ~%,~ • h y pe~ t La t 1 ` ,f ~ r `~ ~` , ~ ~' 7 ~ ~ 4~ ~g ~998aoa^N ~Y~ c 1 }. ~1:7t~ ~ J~ _ aK i' ~ r ~ '. 1N _ ~ t' ~ 1 x'Irl. ? [ ~ - ~f <i.~ S ~~ ~ ~.T~, l 9, .."[', ^•, 66 - 1421 } 1600 ''; ~ Y h._ ~ t~ a~ 'fr Y; `` ` ~r ~a;K,,•„r'; ~' R ~~:~ SITE r~` ,R t,3p , s ~'• *.a,~ , ~~ Ce~ E,~ r Vii, i .~` ,~::"• ~, • » ~ ~" ~ ; s -i. i • d r; ~ .a•. j' ~1~ ~ ~~ ~r ~ ~ y ~ 4, , ..j r~ ` ,~, ' v e ae97 ~„ .: _ ~ * • :,' ~ -,'„ • .' , VaBI~ = ,Wee , '~'" 36° 05' 00" J ., ~., ,. _ _ . r -' ~ r~V v WeB ~. N1 \~^~^~ - ..~ ~ ~_~% X996 ' ~r a 11 y~~ r ~ ~ r. _ _9';~ 1i t~' y Y ~, HeB 3 :*J, f~ s.i N .4 / +~ UQ !'r~ 3 ., , • ._ ~ .,y ,~ .Web . ~ ~ /}°' r ,.:` ~, ~ ~' ~. ~ ,, ~"~ ~~ T.r ^~:E~~ r 601 ~~ -' >ssa .~ .~• ~~ Office Use Only: Form Version March OS USACE Action ID No. DWQ No. 2 ~ 0 7 ~ ~ 2 9 (If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".) I. Processing Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project: ^ Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules ^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ ® 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification 2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 3, 13 and 33 3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is not required, check here: ^ 4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII, and check here: ^ 5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page 4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^ II. Applicant Information Owner/Applicant Information Name:NCDOT Division 5.3. W. Bowman, P.E. (Division En Mailing Address: 2612 N. Duke St. Durham NC 27704 Telephone Number: (,919) 560-6851 Fax Number: (919) 560-3371 E-mail Address: wbowman(a,dot.state.nc.us 2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.) Name: Company Affiliation: Mailing Address:_ Telephone Number: E-mail Address: Fax. Number: Page 1 of 9 III. Project Information Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings, impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion, so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format; however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided. 1. Name of project: Proposed replacement of Bridge 76 on SR 1600 in Franklin County. 2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): NCDOT WBS Element No. MA05002B. 3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A 4. Location County: Franklin Nearest Town: Louisburg Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From Louisburg, travel east on NC 56, turn right and travel southeast on SR 1600 to project site. 5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.) Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): Site 1 36.0884 °N 78.2696 °W 6. Property size (acres): approx. 0.88 acres 7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek 8. River Basin: Tar-Pamlico (Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.) 9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this application: Existing .land uses along SR 1600 are primarily rural and forested with occasional residences. Page 2 of 9 10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 76 with a new two-span bridge. Equipment may include excavator backhoe, bulldozer, grader, and crane. 11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the project is to replace the structurally deficient bride. IV. Prior Project History V. If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits, certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project, list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with construction schedules. None available. VI. Future Project Plans Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application. VII. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts, permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Construction of the project will result in the following impacts: Temporary impacts: The Department proposes to provide access for removal of the in-stream wooden piles and installation of the drilled pier (Bent 1) by installing temporary causeways in Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek resulting in 0.02 acre temporary fill in surface waters. Permanent Impacts: The Department proposes to install 40 linear feet of Class II rip rap to permanently stabilize the banks of Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek. Constriction associated with the bridge will result in impacts to a bottomland hardwood forest wetland. The placement of fill associated with_ widening of the fill slopes will impact a total of 0.03 of wetlands at the Page 3 of 9 site. Mechanized clearing and installation of erosion control devices will impact a total of 0.11 acres of this wetland. 1. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding. Wetland Impact Type of Wetland Located within Distance to Area of Site Number Type of Impact (e.g., forested, marsh, 100-year Nearest Impact (indicate on map) herbaceous, bog, etc.) Floodplain Stream (acres) es/no (linear feet 1 Fill Bottomland HW forest Yes Abutting 0.03 1 Mech. clearing and Bottomland HW forest Yes Abutting 0.11 installation of EC devices Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.14 2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0.14 ac 3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included. To calculate acreage. multiply leneth X width_ then divide by 43.560. Stream Perennial Average Impact or Stream Width Impact Length Area of Number Stream Name Type of Impact Intermittent Before Impact (linear feet) Impact (indicate ~ (acres) on ma ) 1 Sycamre Ck. and UT Sycamore Ck. Streambank stabilization Perennial 70 ft (at confluence) 40 ft (each bank) <0.01 1 Sycamre Ck. and UT Sycamore Ck. Temp. causeway Perennial 70 ft (at confluence) 40 ft (west bank) 0.02 Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 0.02 4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to fill. excavation. dredttin~_ floodintt_ drainage. buIkheads_ etc_ Open Water Impact Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody Area of Site Number (if applicable) Type of Impact (lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay, Impact (indicate on ma) ocean, etc. acres Total Open, Water Impact (acres) Page 4 of 9 5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resultingfrom the project: Stream Im act (acres): 0.02 ac Wetland Irri act (acres): 0.14 ac O en Water Im act (acres): NONE Total Irri act to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.16 ac Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 401inear feet (permanent) for streambank stabilization on each bank 6. Isolated Waters Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE. 7. Pond Creation If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application. Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond, local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A Current land use in the vicinity of the pond: N/A Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A VIII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization) Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. Avoidance• Construction of the proiect cannot avoid impacts to waters of the United States. The existing bridge structure must be replaced. Rip rap is necessary on streambank for long-term stability. Minimization• The proposed riR rap on the banks has been minimized as much as possible while providing the reauired long-term stability. The proposed protect occurs on the existing alignment with minimal additional impacts. IX. Mitigation DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to Page 5 of 9 freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial ~~ streams. USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include, but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar functions and values, preferable in the same watershed. If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at http •//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmg~ide.html. 1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet) of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view, preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach a separate sheet if more space is needed. Mitigation for wetland impacts is proposed at a 2:1 ratio. 1. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at (919) 715-0476 to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP website at http•//h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information: Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): Wetland impacts of 0.14 ac at a 2.1 ratio would require mitigation of 0.28 acres. Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N!A Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A X. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ) Page 6 of 9 1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^ 2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)? Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA coordinator at (919) 733-5083 to review current thresholds for environmental documentation. Yes ^ No 3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ^ No ^ XI. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ) It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the applicant's discretion. 1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233 (Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )? Yes ® No ^ 2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer multipliers. Site 1 Zone* Impact (s uare feet) Multiplier Required Miti ation 1 2,198 3 None 2 1,147 1.5 None Total 3,345 None * Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1. 3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the Riparian Buffer- Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified withir. 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A Page 7 of 9 XII. Stormwater (required by DWQ) Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss Stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations demonstrating total proposed impervious level. There is approximately 0.15 acre existing impervious surface within the 0.88 acres project site. A total of 1,201 square feet of additional impervious surface is proposed with this project Stormwater runoff will be discharged to a rip ra~pad located in a wetland near 9+30 Rt. XIII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ) Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility. This protect will not generate wastewater. XIV. Violations (required by DWQ) Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules? Yes ^ No Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No XV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ} Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description: This NCMA project will not result in additional development. XVI. Other Circumstances (Optional): It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired construction dates to allow processing time for these pet nits. However, an applicant may choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control). ,~13oa~ Applicant/Agent's Signature Date (Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.) Page 8 of 9 APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM U.S. Army Corps of Engineers This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook. SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD): B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: State:NC County/parish/borough: Franklin City: Louisburg Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. 36.0884° N, Long. 78.2696° W. Universal Transverse Mercator: Name of nearest waterbody: Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Tar River Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03020101 Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request. Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a different JD form. D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY): Office (Desk) Determination. Date: Field Determination. Date(s): SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Pick List "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the review area. [Required] Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide. Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce. Explain: B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION. There Are "waters of the U.S." within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. (Required] 1. Waters of the U.S. a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): t ^ TNWs, including territorial seas ^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs ® Relatively permanent watersZ (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into T'NWs ^ Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs ^ Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs Impoundments of jurisdictional waters Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area: Non-wetland waters: 80 long linear feet: 70 width (ft) and/or acres. Wetlands: 0.14 acres. c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: 19&7 Delineation Manual Elevation of established OHWM (if known):Not Known. 2. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3 ]' Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional. Explain: ~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below. Z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally" (e.g., typically 3 months). Supporting documentation is presented in Section III.F. SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2 and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below. 1. TNW Identify TNW: Summarize rationale supporting determination: 2. Wetland adjacent to TNW Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent": B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY): This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met. The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3 months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. If the aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round (perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow, skip to Section III.D.4. A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law. If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below. 1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) General Area Conditions: Watershed size: Pick List Drainage area: Pick List Average annuat rainfall: inches Average annual snowfall: inches (ii) Physical Characteristics: (a) Relationship with TNW: ^ Tributary flows directly into TNW. ^ Tributary flows through Pick List tributaries before entering TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List river miles from RPW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from RPW. Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: Identify flow route to TNWS: Tributary stream order, if known ° Note that +he Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regarding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid West. 5 Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW. (b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that annlv): Tributary is: ^ Natural •• ^ Artificial (man-made). Explain: ^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain: Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate): Average width: feet Average depth: feet Average side slopes: Pick; List. Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply): ^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete ^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck ^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover: ^ Other. Explain: Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain: Presence of run/riffle/pool complexes. Explain: Tributary geometry: Pick List Tributary gradient (approximate average slope): (c) Flow: Tributary provides for: Pick List Estimate average number of flow events in review area/year: Pick List Describe flow regime: Other information on duration and volume: Surface flow is: Pick List. Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: Tributary has (check all that apply): ^ Bed and banks ^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply): ^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^ the presence of litter and debris ^ changes in the character of soil ^ destruction of terrestrial vegetation ^ shelving ^ the presence of wrack line ^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^ sediment sorting ^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^ scour ^ sediment deposition ^ multiple observed or predicted flow events ^ water staining ^ abrupt change in plant community ^ other (list): ^ Discontinuous OHWM.~ Explain: If factors other than the OHWM were used to determine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ High Tide Line indicated by: ^ Mean High Water Mark indicated by: ^ oil or scum line along shore objects ^ survey to available datum; ^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore) ^ physical markings; ^ physical markings/characteristics ^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types. ^ tidal gauges ^ other (list): (iii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored , oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: 6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdictior. (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where the OHWM has been removed by development or agricuitural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is tinrelated to the waterbody's flow regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a cuivert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break. 'Ibid. (iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian corridor. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW (i) Physical Characteristics: (a) General Wetland Characteristics: Properties: Wetland size: acres Wetland type. Explain: Wetland quality. Explain: Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain: (b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW: Flow is: Pick List. Explain: Surface flow is: Pick List Characteristics: Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings: ^ Dye (or other) test performed: (c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW: ^ Directly abutting ^ Not directly abutting ^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain: ^ Ecological connection. Explain: ^ Separated by berm barrier. Explain: (d) ProximityjRelationship) to TNW Project wetlands are Pick List river miles from TNW. Project waters are Pick List aerial (straight) miles from TNW. Flow is from: Pick List. Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Pick List floodplain. (ii) Chemical Characteristics: Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed characteristics; etc.). Explain: Identify specific pollutants, if known: (iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply): ^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width): ^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain: ^ Habitat for: ^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings: ^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings: ^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain. findings: ^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings: 3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any) All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: Pick List Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis. For each wetland, specify the following: Directly abuts? (Y/Nj Size (in acres) Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size (in acresl Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed: C. SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW. Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus. Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example: • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that support downstream foodwebs? • Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or biological integrity of the TNW? Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented below: 1. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D: 2. Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D: 3. Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III. D: D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDSRRE (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl~: I. TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area: TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres. Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres. RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial: Sycamore Creek and UT to Sycamore Creek classified as perennial, flow observed on 6/4/07. ^' Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows seasonally: Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): ® Tributary waters: 80 feet long linear feet70width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Non-RPWsa that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply): ^ Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. ®' Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Streams are perennial and wetlands directly abut Sycamore Ck. and UT Sycamore Ck. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly abutting an RPW: Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: 0.14 acres. 5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs. Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section III.C. Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres. 7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9 As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional. [] Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or ^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below). E. ISOLATED (INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE, DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):i0 which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes. from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce. which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce. Interstate isolated waters. Explain: Other factors. Explain: Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination: aSee Footnote # 3. 9 To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IILD.6 of the Instructional Guidebook. 10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA FiQ for review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos. Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply): Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft). Other non-wetland waters: acres. Identify type(s) of waters: Wetlands: acres. F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLl7: If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements. Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce. ^ Prior to the Jan 2001 Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the "Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR). ^ Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain: ^ Other: (explain, if not covered above): Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis of jurisdiction is the MBR factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional judgment (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet width (ft). ^ Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply): ^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft). Lakes/ponds: acres. ^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource: ^ Wetlands: acres. SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES. A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked and requested, appropriately reference sources below): ~( Maps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant: Data sheets prepared/submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant. ^ Office concurs with date sheets/delineation report. ^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report. ^ Data sheets prepared by the Corps: ^ Corps navigable waters' study: U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas: ^ USGS NHD data. ^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps. ^ U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name: ® USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:Franklin County Soil Survey. National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name: ^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s): FEMA/FIRM maps: 100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929) ^ Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date): or ®Other (Name & Date): See permit application. Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter: Applicable~supporting case law: Applicable/supporting scientific literature: Other information (please specifyj: B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: APPENDIX A l ~/~3/by ~~ ~ Z P I' GQr'! ~`r W$ N ~Q~o~~ ~ ~~ ~n~ ~ s~a~ 8 ~ - ~>z~-~~.~...,,~ ~a. ° . I I U ~~~~ - ~ ^~~ ~ ~ r ~ p, p PT~1 ~~lvv~D~ ~^~ _ i..' ~ D 4 ~ - 5Y 5 1 Sc -}- 2. SY y 5 5 c ~ I ~ to I ~ o ~ ~ 2 ~,~ -~- 2~ _ ~ ~ , ~~ ~ - ` A~ m ~• ~+e.~C25 _ O :, ' ~ ` ~ I ~ 1 ~~ ~~v4 u_L~utY..Pat~--/ ~ 1~ ~ I ~ G,a,~r,,c, ppu ~ -}~ 1 a Y~ 5J9 ~ 5@ t s ~ o~ ~ -- ~- yG V 8 ~ ~ ' _ ``- _ __ ~ _~_ , SSc..,4,Jij' ~ SUS .4-~1 ~~ - ~ O ----- ~' --~- ,r (~~_~ __.~ F r , r i i i ~ -C~"~Z.iS Sjy 5~ \ \. s J ~ ~! _`_ I ' ~ ''Ct ~ (,, IDZL ', ~ / ~P.rG i -- - ', WET `' oti ~ ~ ;~ _ ---- , Pa ~, ~ ~,~ v~d0¢S Patk~ ~-' lat~ ~ ..T ~ nS ~ ~.~ ~ ~ae2 ~ 5 ~ f~ v G L'~ p~{'i~ I ' ~ D ~a~ ~~~' i.5 - ~~ 3 i ~ ~ ~,..~ £Y ~ ; i ~"lo`rt~ G¢ Y ~~( s~ 1 e ( ~b3~ GtzE~ac' ~ ~, .. Nv.~ ~'~~L ~` ~ +o ~ 3d' ~aS~~ , l ~ Z: ` ~ U~U~~ ~ ~_3 ~ ~~~ f __. ... I ~1- v 1 S~ y~ ~~ j ~..~ W :~.~ ~ ~ ~~. L ~rRs~.I7R1-c ~~n ~! LCSc.A~~ 1'~ ~c.A DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION ..(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Moving Ahead/Bridge #76 (MA05002B) Date: 1/13/04 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Franklin Investigator: Charlie Musser, RLA/Bill Hamilton, RLA State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ^Yes ®No Transit ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: Point-1 (Non- wetland) (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 9. Rubus betulifolius " - 20% FAC 20 /o 2. Liquidambar styraciflua " - 30% FAC+ 10. Smilax rotundifolia " - 20% FAC 3. Pinus taeda " - 20% FAC 11. 4. Platanus occidentalis " - 10% FACW- 12. 5. Quercus albs ' - 10% FACU 13. 6. Ahius serrulata Sapling - FACW 14 70% . 7. Quercus alba " - 10% FACU 15. 8. Lonicera japonica Vin e/herb FAC 16. ° -20 /o Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 50%+ Remarks: Hydrophytic vegetation present. HYDROLOGY ^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ^ Aerial Photographs ^ Inundated ^ Other ^ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® Ne recorded Data Available ^ Water Marks ^ Drift Lines Field Observations: ~ ^ Sediment Deposits ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: NA (in.) Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required) ^ Oxidized Root Charnels in Upper 12 Inches Depth of Free Water in Pit: 20+ (in.} ^ WaterStained Leaves ^ Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 20+ (in.) ^FAC Neutral Test ^ Other (explain in remarks) Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators not present. L:\Documents\Forms\Wetland Determination Form SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Chewacla loam variant Drainage Class: SPD Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Fluvaquentic Dystrochrepts Confirm Mapped Type? ®Yes ^ No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Colors (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) Mottle Colors (Munsell Moist) Mottle AbundancelContrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, ets. 2 - 0 O NA NA NA Litter 0 - 4 A 2.SY 4/2 NA NA L 4 - 10 B1 2.SY 5/3 2.SY 4/2 common/distinct SCL 10 - 20+ B2 2.SY 4/3 2.5 Y 5/3 common faint SL Hydric Soil Indicators: ^ Histoso] ^ Concretions ^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil ^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ^ Aquic Moisture Regime ^ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ^ Reducing Conditions ^ Listed on National Hydric Soils List ^ Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Hydric soil indicators not present. WF,TT.AN>) nF,TF.RMiNATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ^Yes ®No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? ^Yes ®No ^Yes ~j No Remarks: The center of this data point sample is located approximately 180 feet NNW of the centerline intersect of SR 1600 and Sycamore Creek. L:\Documents\Forms\Wetland Determination Form Y DATA FORM ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual) Project/Site: Moving Ahead/Bridge #76 (MA05002B) Date: 1/13/04 Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Franklin ~ Investigator: Charlie Musser, RLA/Bil] Hamilton, RLA State: NC Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? ®Yes ^ No Community ID: Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? ®Yes ^ No Transit ID: Is the area a potential Problem Area? ^Yes ®No Plot ID: Point-2 (Wetland) (If needed, explain on reverse.) VEGETATION Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator 1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 9. Rubus betulifolius " - 20% FAC 20 /° 2. Liquidambar styraciflua " - 30% FAC+ 10. Smilax rotundifolia " - 20% FAC 3. Pinus taeda " - 20% FAC 11. 4. Platanus occidentalis " - 10% FACW- 12. 5. Quercus alba " - 10% FACU 13. 6. Alnus serrulata Sapling - FACW 14 80% . 7. Quercus alba " - 10% FACU 15. 8. Lonicera japonica Vine/herb FAC 16. - 15 /o Percent of dominant species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-). 50%+ Remarks: Hydroplrytic vegetation present. HYDROLOGY ^ Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks) Wetland Hydrology Indicators: ^ Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge Primary Indicators: ^ Aerial Photographs ^ Inundated ^ Other ®Saturated in Upper 12 Inches ® No recorded Data Available ^ Water Marks ^ Drift Lines Field Observations: ^ Sediment Deposits i ^ Drainage Patterns in Wetlands Depth of Surface Water: NA* (in.) Secondary Indicators: (2 or more required) ® Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 inches Depth of Free Water in Pit: 15± ** (in.) I ~jC PJater-Stained Leaves ^ Local Soil Survey Data Depth to Saturated Soil: 8 (in.) ^FAC Neutral Test ^ Other (explain in remarks) Remarks: Wetland hydrology indicators are present. * Depth of surface water at different locations within this wetland cell varied due to ponding associated with beaver activity. L:\Dncumerts~FOrms\Wetland Determination Form SOILS Map Unit Name (Series and Phase): Wehadkee loam Variant Drainage Class: PD Field Observations Taxonomy (Subgroup): Typic Fluvaquents Confirm Mapped Type? ®Yes ^ No Profile Description: Depth Matrix Colors Mottle Colors Mottle (inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Texture, Concretions, Structure, ets. 1 - 0 0 NA NA NA Litter 0- 4 A 1 OYR 4/2 NA NA L 4 - 8 Bgl SY 5/2 2.SY 5/6 common/distinct SCL, many redox concentrations 8 - 15+ Bg2 SY 5/1 SCL Hydric Soi] Indicators: ^ Histosol ^ Concretions ^ Histic Epipedon ^ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil ^ Sulfidic Odor ^ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils ^ Aquic Moisture Regime ®Listed on Local Hydric Soils List ® Reducing Conditions ^Listed on National Hydric Soils List ® Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors ^ Other (Explain in Remarks) Remarks: Hydric soil indicators aret present. WETLAND DETERMINATION Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? ®Yes ^ No Wetland Hydrology Present? ®Yes ^ No Is this Sampling Point within a Wetland? Hydric Soils Present? ®Yes ^ No ®Yes ^ No Remarks: The center of this data point sample is located approximately 170 feet NNE of the centerline intersect of SR 1600 and Sycamore Creek. Wetland conditions appear to have been affected at this location by past beaver activity. L.\Documents~Fe:._.s\Wetland Determination Form - _ __ _. _ EXISTING BRIDGE 'T6 ~ 2 SPAN BRIDGE OF TOTAL LENGTH = 80'-0" ti CLEAR ROADWAY = 20'WITH TIMBER ON /eti STEEL I BEAMS. TREATED WOOD ABUTMENTS. TREATED WOOD BENTS. EXISTING BRIDGE TO BE REMOVED. N eZi O NN/ O O 4V ~ ~ O ~ ~ ~ ~~ ~'. / ~~ ~o r P ty~ ~~ TEMP ARY CAUSEWAY CL " 'RIP RAP W/ EOTEXTILE FAB C M 2' THICKNESS TAIN AS PERM ENT FOR TABILITY ON BANKS ONLYIy ~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ \iF3~s ~ i ~~ ~ - - w0' _ ~`_ --- ~- ~ ~ 4 I - - - -- - _ - ---F=_--=- - ,,,, ~ m" ~ /~ ?~` go,~ P ~~ ~" ~L Q ~ ~ iWE TOB HYDRAULIC DATA M DESIGN DISCHARGE = 1950 CFS FREQUENCY OF DESIGN FLOOD = 25 YR. DESIGN HIGH WATER ELEVATION = 100.4D DRAINAGE AREA =8.79 SO. MI. BASIC DISCHARGE (01001 =2900 CFS BASIC HIGH WATER ELEVATION =101.80 OVERTOPPING FLOOD DATA OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE =+4300 CFS FREQUENCY OF OVERTOPPING FLOOD =500 YR,+ OVERTOPPING FL000 ELEVATIGN =103.20 r"' \ 5~., 1 ry c9y ~ A o,R ~C~ Ei~VIRONMENTAL NOTESo F f-.~~_ ~ _ ~~ NOTES t. PILES A7 ENO BENTS 1 ANO 2 SHALL 8E DRIVEN TO A MINIMUM BEARING CAPACITY CF 45 TONS EACH. ~. WHEN DRIVING PILES. THE MAXIMUM BLOW COUNT SHALL NOT BE EXCEECED. 3, FOR DRILLED PIERS, SEE SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 4, DRILLED PIERS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR AN APPLIED LOAD OF 450 RIPS EACH AT THE TIP nF THE PIER, ~. uRI'_LED PIERS HAVE BEEN DESIGNED FOR BOTH SKIN FRICTION AND TIP BEARING. THE REOUIREC TIP BEARING CAPACITY IS 18 TSP. THE TIP BEARING CAPACITY SHALL 6E VERIFIED. 6. DP1LLEp PIERS AT BENT 1 SHALL EXTEND TO AN ELEVATION NO HIGHER THAN 65.0 FEET a;JD SATISFY THE REQUIRED TIP BEARING :APACITY WITH A MINIMUM PENETRATION nF 4 FEET INTO ROCK AS DEFINED BY THE DRILLED PIERS SPECIAL PROVISIONS. 'r. THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATION (SCEIFOR BENT 1 IS 69.5 FEET. THE SCOUR CRITICAL ELEVATIONS ARE FOR USE BY MAINTENANCE FORCES TO MONITOR POSSIBLE SCOUR PROBLEMS ~- DURING THE LIFE OF STRUCTURE. ilQ ~3 8, SPT TESTING MAY BE REQUIRED AT BENT 1 > IF ROCK, AS DEFINED BY THE DRILLED PIERS ~° SPECIAL PROVISION,IS NOT ENCOUNTERED = AT THE TIP BUT THE MINIMUM PENETRATION INTO ROCK HAS BEEN ~ ACHIEVED PRIOR TO THE TIP ELEVATION. THE REQUIRED SPT N-VALUE IS 100 BLOWS PER FOOT. 9, CSL TUBES ARE REQUIRED AND CSL TESTING MAY BE REQUIRED FOR DRILLED PIERS. SEE SPECIAL PROVISION FOR CROSSHOLE SONIC LOGGING. 10. SLURRY CONSTRUCTION SHALL NOT 8E USED FOR THIS PROJECT. Il. SID INSPECTIONS ARE NOT REQUIRED TO DETERMINE THE BOTTOM CLEANLINESS OF THE DRILLED PIERS. 12. THE QUANTITY OF RIP RAP TO BE PAID FOR WILL BE THE ACTUAL NUMBER OF TONS OF EACH CLASS OF RIP RAP WHICH HAS BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE COMPLETED AND ACCEPTED WORK. THE RIP RAP WILL BE MEASURED BY BEING WEIGHED IN TRUCKS CERTIFIED WEIGHING DEVICES. THE QUANTITY OF RIP RAP WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE CONTRACT UNIT PRICE PER TON.. PLAIN RIP RAP CLASS II 12'-C"THICK) WITH FILTER FABRIC E"JD BENT N0. l = 170 TONS END BENT N0.2 = 170 TONS TOTAL = 340 TONS 13, THIS STRUCTURE HAS BEEN DESIGNED IN ACCORDANCE WITH FHWA'S ?ECHNICAL ADVISORY T514Q.20 (SCOUR AT BRIDGES). I4. THE EXISTING BRIDGE SHALL BE REMOVED BY SAWING AND/OR NON SHATTERING METHODS SUCH THAT DEBRIS WILL NOT FALL INTO THE WATER. 15. ADT 3200 FOR YEAR 2010 was No. 37o1a FRANKLIN COUNTY. STATIGN_ 10+35.000 REPLACES BRIDGE N0. 76 -®Mechan. clearing and EC devices in wetland PLAN SGALEI"=2°" -®Fii in wetland ~ wETI_ANOs -Temporary causeway -Buffer impacts calculated from ETF to ROW limits 140 130 120 110 100 90 8G !~ io 60 BEGIN GRADE ~~~ STA 10+35 -L- -L- STA.6+5Q 2 (J 60' 21"CORED SLAB BRIDGE EL = 103.23 WORK POINT °1 -.~ WORK POINT °2 -'i WORK POINT '3 FILL FACE CJ END BENT I ~ BENT I FILL FACE ~ ENO BENT 2 Sta. 9+73.91 i ~ I STA. 10+96.087 BEGIN APPROACH SLAB ~ ~ END APPROACH SLAB STA.9+62.917 ~ ~STA.11+07,083 CLASS II RTP RAP--/ HP 12x53 - STEEL PILES ~~ ~ NWS ~~ ~ ~ i 1 NORMAi 1.5:1 NORMAL -HP 12X53 STEEL PILES rORILLED PIER sDArE$ srr4lEs SFIIfS DRAWN Br ~ ~• PENDERGRAFT OaTE : IC/06 CHECAEO BY : J. DILWORTH DaiE : 10/06 CLASS 'B'J y RIPRAP/ PROFILE ALONG ~ SURVEY SCALE 1"= 2D' 1 ~NG ~ ~-- 'i PRf1GAESS DRAIYING ~ NOr USE FOR ' ~ CONSTRUCTION L3-uu - 559 boas Fmnldin Rd. Suiro 164 ~ P~lsigh, N.C. 27606 ' ~ ETHERILL Bus: 919 8518077 ENGINEERING Fax 919 85181m TRANSPORTATION Pf.AA'NlNG,'OESIGN -BRIDGE/STRUCTURE DESIGN CMVSRE DESIGN - GIS/GPS - CONS(RUCTION OBSER!~ATION St4 iE OA NORiX C4AOLINd DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATiuN A4lE:GH GEiJERAL DRAWING BRG.# 76 OiJ SR 1600 OVER SYCAMORE CK. and UT TO SYCAMORE CK, REv L`.CnS SHEET N0. Na.~ ei: o4iE: Noi er: '... n4iE: 3