20090298 Ver 1_Application_20090323

.RAIIo,? i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARDAF.NT OF IRANSPORI'AUON
BEVERLY EAVES PERDUE
GOVERNOR
March 17, 2009
EUGENE A. CONT1, JR.
ff SECRETARY
iiw
a D 041? o e? 2p "q y q ?i)
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1000
Washington, NC 27889-1000
ATTN: Mr. William Wescott
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir,
990298
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 13 and 23 for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 24 over Quankey Creek on SR 1434
in Halifax County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1434(3), VMS Element
33756.1.1, TIP No. B-4541.
Please find enclosed the PCN form, permit drawings, and half-size plan sheets for the
above referenced project. A Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was completed
for this project on August 8, 2008, and distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies
are available upon request. The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
proposes to replace existing Bridge No. 24 over Quankey Creek on SR 1434, in Halifax
County. The project involves replacement of the existing 52-foot structure with a 60-f6ot
bridge at approximately the same location. The proposed bridge will be a single span box
beam structure. There will be 74 feet (0.01 acre) of permanent bank stabilization to
Quankey Creek and 0.05 acre of permanent impacts to its adjacent wetlands. Traffic will
be detoured off-site, on surrounding roads, during construction.
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The
NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 CFR;
11092-11198, March 12, 2007). We are also requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
13 for the bank stabilization of Quankey Creek (72 CFR; 11092-11198, March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers
3701 and 3689 will apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] ATLANTIC AVENUE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUITE 116
1596 MA11 SF .FCPNTFR WcuciTC MAM.V unmT nor RN FIC.H NC 27604
Certifications will be met. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a), we are
providing two copies of this application to the NCDWQ for their review.
A copy of this application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/l)e/neu/permit.html
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Veronica Barnes
at [e-mail] or [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
Sincere y,
C.'
kell Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
W/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
W/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Richard E. Greene, P.E. Div. 4 Engineer
Mr. Chad Coggins, Div. 4 Environmental Officer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Ron Sechler, NMFS
Ms. Anne Deaton, NCDMF
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Pam Williams, PDEA
2
O?pF WAT?c?OG
O ';;ii? T
Office Use Only:
Corps action ID no.
DWO project no.
Form Version 1.3 Dec 10 2008
Pre-Construction Notification (PCN) Form
A. Applicant Information
1. Processing
1a. Type(s) of approval sought from the
Corps:
®Section 404 Permit ? Section 10 Permit
1 b. Specify Nationwide Permit (NW P) number: 13 23 or General Permit (GP) number:
1c. Has the NW P or GP number been verified by the Corps? ® Yes ? No
1d. Type(s) of approval sought from the DWQ (check all that apply):
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Regular ? Non-404 Jurisdictional General Permit
? 401 Water Quality Certification - Express ? Riparian Buffer Authorization
le. Is this notification solely for the record
because written approval is not required? For the record only for DWQ 401
Certification:
® Yes ? No For the record only for Corps Permit:

? Yes ® No
1f. Is payment into a mitigation bank or in-lieu fee program proposed for mitigation
of impacts? If so, attach the acceptance letter from mitigation bank or in-lieu
fee program. ? Yes ® No
1g. Is the project located in any of NC's twenty coastal counties. If yes, answer 1h
below. ? Yes ® No
1h. Is the project located within a NC DCM Area of Environmental Concern (AEC)? ? Yes ® No
2. Project Information
2a. Name of project: Bridge No. 24 over Quankey Creek on SR 1434 (Sam Powell Dairy Rd.)
2b. County: Halifax
2c. Nearest municipality / town: Roanoke Rapids
2d. Subdivision name: not applicable
2e. NCDOT only, T.I.P. or state
project no: B-4541
3. Owner Information
3a. Name(s) on Recorded Deed: North Carolina Department of Transportation
3b. Deed Book and Page No.
3c. Responsible Party (for LLC if
applicable): not applicable
3d. Street address: PDEA-NEU, 4701-116 Atlantic Avenue
3e. City, state, zip: Raleigh, NC 27604
3f. Telephone no.: [phone]
3g. Fax no.: [phone]
3h. Email address: [e-mail]
Page 1 of 10
4. Applicant Information (if different from owner)
4a. Applicant is: ? Agent ? Other, specify:
4b. Name: not applicable
4c. Business name
(if applicable):
4d. Street address:
4e. City, state, zip:
4f. Telephone no.:
4g. Fax no.:
4h. Email address:
5. Agent/Consultant Information (if applicable)
5a. Name: not applicable
5b. Business name
(if applicable):
5c. Street address:
5d. City, state, zip:
5e. Telephone no.:
5f. Fax no.:
5g. Email address:
Page 2 of 10
B. Project Information and Prior Project History
1. Property Identification
1a. Property identification no. (tax PIN or parcel ID):
1 b. Site coordinates (in decimal degrees): Latitude: 36.428833 Longitude: - 77.727166
(DD.DDDDDD) (-DD.DDDDDD)
1c. Property size: 1.9 acres
2. Surface Waters
2a. Name of nearest body of water (stream, river, etc.) to Quankey Creek
proposed project:
2b. Water Quality Classification of nearest receiving water: C
2c. River basin: Roanoke
3. Project Description
3a. Describe the existing conditions on the site and the general land use in the vicinity of the project at the time of this
application:
General land use in the area is agriculture and forested land.
3b. List the total estimated acreage of all existing wetlands on the property:
0.47ac
3c. List the total estimated linear feet of all existing streams (intermittent and perennial) on the property:
110 ft
3d. Explain the purpose of the proposed project:
To replace a structurally deficient and functionally obsolete bridge.
3e. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
The project involves replacing a structurally deficient bridge with a single-span box beam bridge on pile end bents with
embedded sheet piles for abutments. The existing structure is a three-span bridge with a reinforeced concrete floor on
timber joists with timber piles and caps. Standard road building equipment will be used.
4. Jurisdictional Determinations
4a. Have jurisdictional wetland or stream determinations by the
Corps or State been requested or obtained for this property /
®Yes ? No ? Unknown
project (including all prior phases) in the past?
Comments: Action ID SAW-2008-00562
4b. If the Corps made the jurisdictional determination, what type
? Preliminary ®Final
of determination was made?
4c. If yes, who delineated the jurisdictional areas? Agency/Consultant Company: STV/Ralph Whitehead

Name (if known): Steven Busbee, PWS and Rhett Baggett Assoc.
Other:
4d. If yes, list the dates of the Corps jurisdictional determinations or State determinations and attach documentation.
October 21, 2008
5. Project History
5a. Have permits or certifications been requested or obtained for ? yes ®No ? Unknown
this project (including all prior phases) in the past?
5b. If yes, explain in detail according to "help file" instructions.
6. Future Project Plans
6a. Is this a phased project? . ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, explain.
Page 3 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
C. Proposed Impacts Inventory
1. Impacts Summary
la. Which sections were completed below for your project (check all that apply):
® Wetlands ® Streams - tributaries ? Buffers
? Open Waters ? Pond Construction
2. Wetland Impacts
If there are wetland impacts proposed on the site, then complete this question for each wetland area impacted.
-
2a. - 2b. 2
c 2d. 2e. 2f.
Wetland impact Type of jurisdiction
number - Type of impact Type of wetland Forested (Corps - 404, 10 Area of impact
Permanent (P) or (if known) DWQ - non-404, other) (acres)
Temporary T

W1 ®P ? T Mechanized
Riparian ® Yes ® Corps
<0
01
Clearing ? No ? DWQ .

W2 ® P ? T Permanent fill and
mechanized
Riparian ? Yes ®Corps
04
0
clearing ® No ? DWQ .
W3 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W4 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W5 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
W6 ? P ? T ? Yes ? Corps
? No ? DWQ
2g. Total wetland impacts 0.05
2h. Comments:
3. Stream Impacts
If there are perennial or intermittent stream impacts (including temporary impacts) proposed on the site, then complete this
question for all stream sites impacted.
3a. 3b. 3c. 3d. 3e. 3f. 3g.
Stream impact Type of impact Stream name Perennial Type of jurisdiction Average Impact
number - (PER) or (Corps - 404, 10 stream length
Permanent (P) or intermittent DWQ - non-404, width (linear
Temporary (T) (INT)? other) (feet) feet)
S1 ®P ? T Bank Stbilizalion Quankey Creek ® PER
? INT ® Corps
? DWQ 30 74
S2 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S3 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S4 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S5 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
S6 ? P ? T ? PER ? Corps
? INT ? DWQ
3h. Total stream and tributary impacts 74
3i. Comments:
Page 4 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
4. Open Water Impacts
If there are proposed impacts to lakes, ponds, estuaries, tributaries, sounds, the Atlantic Ocean, or any other open water of
the U.S. then individual) list all open water impacts below.
4a. 4b. 4c. 4d. 4e.
Open water Name of waterbody
impact number- (if applicable) Type of impact Waterbody type Area of impact (acres)
Permanent (P) or
Temporary T
01 ?P?T
02 ?P?T
03 ?P?T
04 ?P?T
4f. Total open water impacts
4g. Comments:
5. Pond or Lake Construction
If and or lake construction proposed, then complete the chart below.
5a. 5b. 5c. 5d. 5e.

Po
d ID Wetland Impacts (acres) Stream Impacts (feet) Upland
n
b Proposed use or purpose (acres)
num
er of pond
Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded Filled Excavated Flooded
P1
P2
5f. Total
5g. Comments:
51h. Is a dam high hazard permit required?
? Yes ®No If yes, permit ID no:
5i. Expected pond surface area (acres):
5j. Size of pond watershed (acres):
5k. Method of construction:
6. Buffer Impacts (for DWO)
If project will impact a protected riparian buffer, then complete the chart below. If yes, then individually list all buffer impacts
below. If an impacts require miti ation, then you MUST fill out Section D of this form.
6a.
? Neuse ?Tar-Pamlico ? Other:
Project is in which protected basin? ? Catawba ? Randleman
6b. 6c. 6d. 6e. 6f. 6g.
Buffer impact
number- Reason Buffer Zone 1 impact Zone 2 impact
Permanent (P) or for Stream name mitigation (square feet) (square feet)
Temporary T impact required?
B1 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B2 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
B3 ?P?T ?Yes
? No
6h. Total buffer impacts
6i. Comments:
Page 5 of 10
D. Impact Justification and Mitigation
1. Avoidance and Minimization
la. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts in designing project.
The proposed bridge is longer than the existing bridge, the number of bents in the water has been reduced from 2 to
zero, rip-rap stabilization is limited to stream banks, there will be no fill in the stream bed, and minimum widths were used
for structures and approaches.
11b. Specifically describe measures taken to avoid or minimize the proposed impacts through construction techniques.
NCDOT Best Management Practices will be implemented during concstruction. Additionally, an offsite detour will be
utilized and 3:1 fill slopes will be used where practicable.
2. Compensatory Mitigation for Impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State
2a. Does the project require Compensatory Mitigation for
impacts to Waters of the U.S. or Waters of the State? ? Yes ® No
2b. If yes, mitigation is required by (check all that apply): ? DWQ ? Corps

2c.
If yes, which mitigation option will be used for this
project? ? Mitigation bank

? Payment to in-lieu fee program
? Permittee Responsible Mitigation
3. Complete if Using a Mitigation Bank
3a. Name of Mitigation Bank: not applicable
3b. Credits Purchased (attach receipt and letter) Type Quantity
3c. Comments:
4. Complete if Making a Payment to In-lieu Fee Program
4a. Approval letter from in-lieu fee program is attached. ? Yes
4b. Stream mitigation requested: linear feet
4c. If using stream mitigation, stream temperature: ? warm ? cool ?cold
4d. Buffer mitigation requested (DWQ only): square feet
4e. Riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4f. Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested: acres
4g. Coastal (tidal) wetland mitigation requested: acres
4h. Comments:
5. Complete if Using a Permittee Responsible Mitigation Plan
5a. If using a permittee responsible mitigation plan, provide a description of the proposed mitigation plan.
Page 6 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
6. Buffer Mitigation (State Regulated Riparian Buffer Rules) - required by DWQ
6a. Will the project result in an impact within a protected riparian buffer that requires
buffer mitigation? ? Yes ® No
6b. If yes, then identify the square feet of impact to each zone of the riparian buffer that requires mitigation. Calculate the
amount of mitigation required.

Zone 6c.
Reason for impact 6d.
Total impact
(square feet)
Multiplier 6e.
Required mitigation
(square feet)
Zone 1 3 (2 for Catawba)
Zone 2 1.5
6f. Total buffer mitigation required:
6g. If buffer mitigation is required, discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (e.g., payment to private mitigation bank,
permittee responsible riparian buffer restoration, payment into an approved in-lieu fee fund).
6h. Comments:
Page 7 of 10
E. Stormwater Management and Diffuse Flow Plan (required by DWQ)
1. Diffuse Flow Plan
1 a . Does the project include or is it adjacent to protected riparian buffers identified ? yes No
within one of the NC Riparian Buffer Protection Rules?
1b . If yes, then is a diffuse flow plan included? If no, explain why.

Comments: N/A Yes No

? ?
2. Stormwater Management Plan
2a . What is the overall percent imperviousness of this project? %
21b . Does this project require a Stormwater Management Plan? ? Yes ? No
2c . If this project DOES NOT require a Stormwater Management Plan, explain why:
2d . If this project DOES require a Stormwater Management Plan, then provide a brief, na rrative description of the plan:
? Certified Local Government
2e . Who will be responsible for the review of the Stormwater Management Plan? ? DWQ Stormwater Program
' ? DWQ 401 Unit
3. Certified Local Government Stormwater Review
3a. In which local government's jurisdiction is this project? not applicable
? Phase II
3b. Which of the following locally-implemented stormwater management programs ? NSW
apply (check all that apply): ? USMP
? Water Supply Watershed
? Other:
3c. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been ? Yes ? No
attached?
4. DWQ Stormwater Program Review
? Coastal counties

4a.
Which of the following state-implemented stormwater management programs apply ? HQW
? ORW
(check all that apply): ? Session Law 2006-246
? Other:
4b. Has the approved Stormwater Management Plan with proof of approval been
attached? ? Yes ? No
5. DWQ 401 Unit Stormwater Review
5a. Does the Stormwater Management Plan meet the appropriate requirements? ? Yes ? No
5b. Have all of the 401 Unit submittal requirements been met? ? Yes ? No
Page 8 of 10
PCN Form -Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
F. Supplementary Information
1. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Requirement)
la. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the ® Yes ? No
use of public (federal/state) land?
1b. If you answered "yes" to the above, does the project require preparation of an
environmental document pursuant to the requirements of the National or State ® Yes ? No
(North Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
1c. If you answered "yes" to the above, has the document review been finalized by the
State Clearing House? (If so, attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval
letter.) N Yes ? No
Comments:
2. Violations (DWQ Requirement)
2a. Is the site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500), Isolated
Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .1300), DWQ Surface Water or Wetland Standards, ? Yes ® No
or Riparian Buffer Rules (15A NCAC 2B.0200)?
2b. Is this an after-the-fact permit application? ? Yes N No
2c. If you answered "yes" to one or both of the above questions, provide an explanation of the violation(s): N/A
3. Cumulative Impacts (DWQ Requirement)
3a. Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in ? Yes S No
additional development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality?
3b. If you answered "yes" to the above, submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with the
most recent DWQ policy. If you answered "no," provide a short narrative description.
N/A
4. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Requirement)
4a. 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.
not applicable
Page 9 of 10
PCN Form - Version 1.3 December 10, 2008 Version
5. Endangered Species and Designated Critical Habitat (Corps Requirement)
5a . Will this project occur in or near an area with federally protected species or
? Yes ® No
habitat?
5b . Have you checked with the USFWS concerning Endangered Species Act ® Yes ? No
impacts?

5c
. If yes, indicate the USFWS Field Office you have contacted.
Raleigh
®
? Asheville
5d . What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Endangered Species or Designated Critical
Habitat?
The USFW S list of Threatened and Endangered Species of Halifax County (updated January 31, 2008) was consulted to
determine which specie may occur in the area. The most up-to-date Natural Heritage Program databases were searched
for known occurences of species and habitat. Surveys for species with potential habitat in the area were conducted on
October 26, 2006. It was determined that the project are did not have suitable habitat and therefore would have NO
EFFECT on any of the species listed for Halifax County.
6. Essential Fish Habitat (Corps Requirement)
6a. Will this project occur in or near an area designated as essential fish habitat? ? Yes ® No
6b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact Essential Fish Habitat?
Index of Counties in which EFH Waterbodies are found.
7. Historic or Prehistoric Cultural Resources (Corps Requirement)
7a. Will this project occur in or near an area that the state, federal or tribal
governments have designated as having historic or cultural preservation ? Yes ® No
status (e.g., National Historic Trust designation or properties significant in
North Carolina history and archaeology)?
7b. What data sources did you use to determine whether your site would impact historic or archeological resources?
Physical surveys were conducted by the Human Environment Unit of NCDOT.
8. Flood Zone Designation (Corps Requirement)
8a. Will this project occur in a FEMA-designated 100-year floodplain? ? Yes ? No
8b. If yes, explain how project meets FEMA requirements:
8c. What source(s) did you use to make the floodplain determination?
Usk
Applicant/Agent's Printed Name pplica Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant
is provided.)
Page 10 of 10

NP-DBPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HALIFAX COUNTY
WETLAND IMPACTS PROJECT:33756.1.1 (6-4541)
BRIDGE NO.24 OVER
OUANKEY CREEK ON SR 1434
(SAM POWELL ROAD)
SHEET_ OF _ 1-T-09
hoot :,'' I (,'
, of
i

z o°
O
r
a
C N N
a
m
S
3
Z
F =
_
?
F
Z
z
V ; N
N =
F 5 u
a C O
o a
U
Z
F
z

N

U)

0 0

2

z
? E c
.. .
Zy ?
N
C
M C U d_
f-
U N A 6 y
'x r E ?
¢ wc?-
a
N
?
K C
C U C
r
? w U E
a

W
U N
Q
LL d U
E ? m
y E v
F
? U
a
V
p
Cj N

v a _

Q ? N

U
?
W d ma

p ? ?--
? o o O
Z U N j ?% O p
U >>
U ?
c

W a co N
>
c = m

J w
F
W N
9
E- ? t
F LL d
3
C N
N ?
C
C
C
N - lV ? .-
O
O
E LL y? o 0
a ?

m n w
a

J J
O
C N O
O ?
O M
?
O
y LL
M
?
LL
J
M R
y
J
? O ¢

fn Z r N F
-
O
Z
OU
F
Permit Drawing
Sheet q of 10
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B4541
State Project No. 8.2302101
W.B.S. No. 33756.1.1
Federal Project No. BRZ-1434(3)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Halifax County Bridge No. 24 on
SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) over Quankey Creek. Bridge No. 24 is 52 feet in
length and has a clear roadway width of 24 feet. The existing approach roadway
consists of two 10-foot lanes and 6-foot grass shoulders. The replacement
structure will be a bridge approximately 75 feet long, providing a minimum 26
feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two I 1-foot travel lanes and 2-foot
offsets. The bridge length is based on preliminary design information and is set
by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade of the new structure will be
approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 200 feet from the west end of
the new bridge and 200 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches
will include a 22-foot pavement width providing two 11-foot travel lanes and
6-foot shoulders. The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route using
NCDOT's Sub Regional Tier Design Guidelines for Bridge Projects with a 50
mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Management Unit records indicate Bridge No. 24 has a
sufficiency rating of 26 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The bridge is considered structurally deficient due to substructure condition rating
of 3 out of 9, according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards
and therefore was deemed eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Program. It also
met the requirement for being functionally obsolete due to a structural evaluation
appraisal of 3 out 9. The bridge has continued to deteriorate over the years,
including areas of notable decay. In 1999, decayed sections of the timber
substructure required prompt attention and had to be immediately replaced.
The superstructure and substructure of Bridge No. 24 have remaining timber
elements that are fifty-four years old. Timber components have a typical life
expectancy between 40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate of wood.
Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when a few
elements are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain
degree of deterioration, most timber elements become impractical to maintain and
upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Timber components of bridge
No. 24 are experiencing an increasing degree of deterioration that can no longer
be addressed by reasonable maintenance activities. The bridge is approaching the
end of its useful life. The posted weight limit on the bridge is down to 18 tons
for single vehicles and 25 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge No. 24 currently carries 1,400 vehicles per day with 2,200 vehicles per day
projected for 2030. The bridge does not meet current acceptable safety standards
for the bridge width, railing, and approach guardrail. Replacement of the bridge
will result in safer traffic operations.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
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
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
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
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to 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.
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.
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 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 UNIT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the 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.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.
D. Special Project Information:
The estimated costs, based on 2008 prices, are as follows:
Structure $ 260,000
Roadway Approaches $ 224,000
Structure Removal $ 26,000
Misc. & Mob. $ 92,000
Eng. & Contingencies $ 98,000
Total Construction Cost $ 700,000
Right-of-way Costs
Utility Costs $
$ 10,000
34,000
Total Project Cost $ 744,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current (2008) - 1400 vpd
Year 2030 - 2200 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Posted Speed: 45 mph (posted)
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found two accidents occurring in the vicinity of the project. None were associated
with the geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: There are no anticipated design exceptions for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 24 is constructed of reinforced concrete flooring
on timber joists with a substructure of timber caps on timber piles. The concrete
flooring, bridge railings, and the timber piles will be removed without dropping
their components into waters of the U.S.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - The no build alternative would result in eventually closing the
road which is unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1434.
Rehabilitation - The bridge was constructed in 1954 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour - Bridge No. 24 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite Detours
for Bridge Replacement Proiects considers multiple project variables
beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road user
resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project would
include SR 1433 and NC 48. The majority of traffic on the road is through
traffic. The detour for the average road user would result in approximately
3 minutes additional travel time (2.0 miles additional travel). Up to 9-
month duration of construction is expected on this project.
Based on the Guidelines, the criteria above indicate that on the basis of the
delay alone the detour alone is acceptable. Halifax County Emergency
Services along with Halifax County Schools Transportation have also
indicated that the detour is acceptable. NCDOT Division 4 has indicated
that the condition of all roads, bridges, and intersections on the offsite
detour are acceptable without improvement and concurs with the use of
the detour.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was evaluated but eliminated due to the
presence of an acceptable offsite detour.
Staged Construction - Staged construction was not considered because
of the availability of an acceptable offsite detour.
New Alignment - A new alignment was evaluated but was eliminated
because the existing alignment for SR 1434 is acceptable.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Division of Water Quality, N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission and
U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service had no special concerns for the project.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
(5)
(6)
(?)
Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
YES
X
71,
Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
NO
X
X
17
X
X
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X

PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act

resources? ?
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
?
X
6
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned

growth or land use for the area? ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or

low-income population? ?
X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ?
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic

volumes? ?
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
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? ?
X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended? ?
X
important to history orpre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation ]ands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to Question 2: Habitat for dwarf wedgemussel does occur in Halifax County.
A survey was conducted on October 26, 2006 and no fresh
water mussels of any species were encountered. Habitat at the
site was marginal for the mussels in question, and there is
currently no indication that the species has even been collected
in the Roanoke River Basin. The biological conclusion is "no
effect".
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
ect
The purpose of this project is to replace Halifax County Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434
(Sam Powell Road) over Quankey Creek. Bridge No. 24 is 52 feet in length and has a clear
roadway width of 24 feet. The existing approach roadway consists of two 10-foot lanes and
6-foot grass shoulders. The replacement structure will be a bridge approximately 75 feet
long, providing a minimum 26 feet clear deck width. The bridge will include two I I-foot
travel lanes and 2-foot offsets. The bridge length is based on preliminary designs
information and is set by hydraulic requirements. The roadway grade of the new structure
will be approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 200 feet from the west end of the new
bridge and 200 feet from the east end of the new bridge. The approaches will include a 22-
foot pavement width providing two 1 I -foot travel lanes and 6-foot shoulders. The
roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route using NCDOT's Sub Regional Tier
Design Guidelines for Bridge Projects with a 50 mile per hour design speed.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
% TYPE II(B)
Approved:
ff b
Y &e 9r, ge
`'/ Project
Date PPrgiebt
Jf
?S D S Perms
D•te rolect
Project
?/3)/ ?4L
Consul]
B-4541
8.2302101
33756.1.1
BKZ-1434(3)
Environmental Analysis Branch
Development & Environmental _Analysis Branch
Environmental Analysis Branch
STV/Ralph
For Type II(B) projects
Date ;`t holm
Federal Highway
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Halifax County
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434
Over Quankey Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1434(3)
State Project No. 8.2302101
W.B.S. No. 33756.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-4541
Division Four Construction, Resident Engineer's Office - Offsite Detour
In order to have time to adequately reroute school busses, Halifax County Schools should
be contacted at [phone] at least one month prior to road closure.
Halifax County Emergency Services needs to be contacted at [phone] at least one
month prior to road closure to make the necessary temporary reassignments to primary
response units.
Roadway Design
The Sub Regional Tier Design Guidelines for Bridge Projects will be applicable to this
project and will be incorporated into the development of the fmal design reducing the
width, environmental impacts and overall cost of the project.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
July 2008
I Studied Offsite Detour
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
HALIFAX COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 24 ON SR 1434
OVER QUANKEY CREEK
B-4541
Figure I

Q
?B
W
,Z
V
W
m

po
+
F +O
W F
Q N
d 0
G
W J
00/0
r
2 '
i
E
1
ows/
I
'\ I
1
I
1
1 /
T
Fy( ?
S I.
I
sYf ,"i
l
f
I
I?
it
?E
I,
i'
.1

W .?
y ICI' I
Ili. J !

I ?.
I
t l l
11
If I
y I.
.11

W ?
a N
m r
W
m
I
f
't
Q
J
O "
V
i
R
I/?iff?? ? ?la
? J o
II
ti
h
+.... cu.. a..v tiv. a+ -- ?a ?. ?1 ..F nnu ? ? m u ? u vn? rr-1VC uG
rro ions nits
?Saso
(.7m
7 `` J
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resource@
State NLtorie Preservation Office
Mmm a. s,oirah ,
ktchm 1 P. Rmkv, t1e =r nrAr<of AOM6i %"J 3TW"
lisbeth C. L•"m emnolry n;rv;wnn 6f Nisan" asr'wa<m
J-%C? J. Gov, Dguty & --ty Da?iJ R,r.nk, Diemear
October 10, 2006
.MEMORANDUM
TO: Matt Wilkerson
NCDOT - Office of Human Environment
FROM: Peter Sandbeck V fCky JL-
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey for the Replacommt of Bridge No.24 on SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road)
over Quankey Creels, B-4541, Halifax County, ER OS-1196
Thank you for your letter of September 22, 2006, transmitting die archaeological survey report for the above
project.
The report author nomd that no significant cultural resources were discovered within @3c Area of potential
Effect (APE) during the archaeological swvry and that no further cultural resoutrcee iaveatigntions are
necessary and/ot.varranted. We concur wit1 this recommendation.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advteory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CF'R
Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and.considerstions. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledh&-Farley, envi•^^Tental review coordinator, at 919.733.4763. In all
future commumcation concerting this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number,
mr "na A66vx < ee/P4a
ADMN6lMTLom W N. Dk.< Mme, R.40 NC 4617 N,D S.wie Cam, UL'to NC r/6 WI I (919)73"763mWS1
aSr 01ATION 311 M. alums Ann, R<hi?b NC 4617 f" "im CWW. N4ig, wt: a16WiJI (M)711.43.7/713+W1
n74NnY t PLAkN 46 rr3 N. Pw 3"®. XW.* l He 4617 WA Sawa rrur, L k!#, NC VOP94617 ' MM33.3545/71s-4601
TOTFL P.02
EIVEO
>y SfA7£o?
y?
.? MUG 8 [005
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources State Historic Preservation Office Peter B. Sandbeek, Admiaosha, Michael F. Easley, Governor Office of Arehiva and History
Nn
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Division of Historical Resources
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary David Brook, Director
July 29, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: Peter Sandbeck&V ft' r%Acjwle-
a
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek, State Project No. 8.2302101, WBS
Element 33756.1.1, F.A. No. BRZ 1434(3), TIP No. B-4541, Halifax County, ER 05-1196
Thank you for your letter of May 20, 2005, concerning the above project. Before our office can adequately
e review and address your request(s), we will require a detailed and legible United States Geological Survey
Quadrangle(s) showing the location and boundaries of the proposed undertaking. In addition, we will also
require specific bridge construction information detailing the location of the proposed bridge and any on-site
detours.
We have determined that the project as proposed will not affect any historic structures.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR
Pan 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and considerations. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919.733.4763. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Colista Freeman, NCDOT/PDEA
Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Isoatioa Mailing Addreaa Telephone/Fu
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.4 Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Centet. Rilngh NC 276"-4617 [phone]/733-6653
RESTORA'110N 515 N. Blount Sttem Raleigh NC 4617 Mad Service Cmter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/71546D1
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount Snre4 Raleigh, NC 4617 Mal Service Cmter, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone]/715-46D1
BRIDGE NO. 24, ON SR 1434 (SAM POWELL ROAD)
OVER QUANKEY CREEK
T.I.P. No. B-4541
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
HALIFAX COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
December 2007
Prepared For:
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
BRIDGE NO. 24 ON SR 1434 (SAM POWELL ROAD)
OVER QUANKEY CREEK
T.I.P. No. B-4541
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT
HALIFAX COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
December 2007
Prepared By:
X
STV/ Ralph Whitehead Associates
STV/RALPH WHITEHEAD ASSOCIATES, INC.
Contact: Michael Iagnocco, P.W.S.
[phone]
December 2007
Page 1

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................. ................ 3
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ....................................................................................... ................3
1.2 PURPOSE .............................................................................................................. ...............3
1.3 METHODS ............................................................................................................ ...............4
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS ................................................................................................. ...............4
1.5 DEFINE(IONS ................................. 5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................... ...............5
2.1 SOILS ................................................................................................................... ...............6
2.2 WATER RESOURCE'S ............................................................................................ ............... 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ........................................................................................... .............:.9
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .............................................................................. ...............9
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................... ............. 12
3.3 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ....................................................................................... ............. 13
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................................. .............15
4.1 WATERS OF THE U.S ........................................................................................... ............. 15
4.2 PERMIT ISSUES .................................................................................................... ............. 16
4.3 PROTECTED SPECIES ........................................................................................... ............. 18
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................ .............23
APPENDIX A - FIGURES
APPENDIX B - PHOTOGRAPHS
APPENDIX C - PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
APPENDIX D - CORRESPONDENCE
APPENDIX E - WETLAND DATA FORMS
December 2007
Page 2
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 I Halifax County
I
1.0 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Project Description
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes replacement of Bridge No.
24 on SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) over Quankey Creek in Halifax County, NC (Appendix A,
Figure 1 and Figure 2). The proposed project is included in the 2006-2012 North Carolina
Transportation Improvement Program (T.I.P.) and is scheduled for right-of-way acquisition in
fiscal year 2007 and construction in fiscal year 2008. The project is identified as T.I.P. No. B-
4541.
Bridge No. 24 was originally constructed in 1954 and has an overall length of 52 feet (ft.) with a
sufficiency rating of 26 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road)
currently has a posted speed limit of 45 miles per hour (MPH) at the bridge location. The bridge
currently has a superstructure with reinforced concrete flooring on timber joists and a
substructure with timber caps and timber piles (Appendix B, Photograph 1). At the Bridge No.
24 crossing, Quankey Creek is approximately 30 feet wide. The waterway is bordered by dense
mixed hardwood and mixed pine/hardwood forest.
Possible alternatives currently being evaluated include:
• Alternative 1- Replace Bridge No. 24 in place with off-site detour;
• No-build.
STV/Ralph Whitehead Associates, Inc. (STV/RWA) has been contracted to provide a natural
resources assessment for the replacement of Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) over
Quankey Creek. For purposes of this assessment, the project study area reviewed was comprised
of a corridor approximately 1,875 feet long along SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road), and includes the
intersection with SR 1429 (Stack Powell Road) and approximately 340 feet of SR 1429 (Stack
Powell Road). Corridor widths range from approximately 375 feet wide at the west end of the
project, 220 feet wide at Bridge No. 24, and tapers to 125 feet at the eastern end of the project.
This Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) summarizes the results of the natural resources
assessment.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this NRTR is to provide an evaluation of natural resources within the Bridge No.
24 Bridge Replacement project study area. In addition to summarizing pre-field and field survey
efforts, other principal tasks performed for this study include:
• An assessment of biological features within the project study area including
descriptions of wildlife, vegetation, protected species, water quality and
wetlands;
December 2007
Page 3

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
• An evaluation of probable impacts resulting from the proposed bridge
replacement alternatives including temporary impacts associated with
construction;
• A preliminary determination of permit requirements.
1.3 Methods
Prior to beginning fieldwork, available literature was reviewed to gain an understanding of the
project vicinity. National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps (Roanoke Rapids Quadrangle), U.S.
Geological Survey (USGS) topographic maps (Roanoke Rapids 7.5 Minute Quadrangle), infrared
aerial photographs, the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS) Soil Survey of Halifax, and NCDOT aerial photography were reviewed to
determine the potential presence and likelihood of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, within
the project study area. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) records and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and habitats were also reviewed to
determine protected species known to occur within Halifax County. The Roanoke River
Basinwide Assessment Report (NCNENR, DWQ, 2005), Roanoke River Basinwide Water
Quality Plans (NCNENR, DWQ, 1996, 2001), and preliminary plans for the proposed bridge
construction were reviewed for water quality information and potential impacts to Quankey Creek
and the surrounding aquatic and terrestrial communities.
The site was visited on September 29, 2005. The project study area was walked and visually
surveyed for significant features, including but not limited to, potential habitat for protected
species, wetlands/waters of the U.S., terrestrial communities, and water quality in Quankey
Creek. The boundaries of potentially jurisdictional waters of the U.S. were delineated and
flagged in the field at that time. Wetlands in the project study area were determined using the
Routine On-Site Determination Method as defined in the Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Flagged waters of the U.S. were geo-referenced in
the field using a Trimble GeoXT GPS handheld unit capable of sub-meter accuracy. The GeoXT
was used to collect point features, using a five-second logging interval. The GeoXT settings used
included an HDOP of 5.0, an elevation mask of 15-degrees and a minimum SNR of 38.0. A
minimum of four positions per point was gathered unless satellite coverage was poor. GPS
coordinates were validated using GPS Analyst and ArcV iew 9.0 software. The size of the project
study area was determined by anticipated construction corridors provided by NCDOT and by
preliminary bridge design efforts.
1.4 Qualifications
STV/RWA Environmental Scientists Steven Busbee, PWS, and Rhett Baggett reviewed the
project study area for the presence of wetlands and other jurisdictional waters of the U.S.,
community types, and protected species habitat.
Mr. Busbee, PWS, has six years of experience in ecological studies and environmental
assessment throughout the southeastern United States. Mr. Busbee has a Master's Degree in
Forest Resources and a Bachelor's Degree in Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Wildlife Biology from
Clemson University. His experience includes stream and wetland determinations, delineations,
functional assessments, natural resource and feasibility studies, preparation of Clean Water Act
December 2007
Page 4
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
Section 404 permit documents, compensatory wetland mitigation design, planning and
monitoring, protected plant and animal species surveys, invasive plant species management,
water quality monitoring, and regulatory agency reporting and coordination.
Mr. Baggett has over four years of experience in surface- and groundwater hydrological studies
and environmental assessments. Mr. Baggett has a Master's Degree in Earth Science (Hydrology
concentration) from the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a Bachelors Degree in
Biology (Ecology concentration) from the University of Tennessee. His experience includes
environmental assessments (Phase I and 11), jurisdictional stream and wetland determinations,
delineations, and functional assessments, Section 404/401 permitting, watershed modeling,
hydrological and sediment transport analysis, and water quality monitoring.
Further information regarding the qualifications of personnel involved in the NRTR can be found
in Appendix C.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used throughout this NRTR are as follows:
Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by the proposed construction limits
and is the area identified for detailed assessment;
Project Vicinity denotes an area extending 1.0 mile on all sides of the project
study area;
Project Region denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5
minutes USGS quadrangle map (about 61.8 square miles) with the project study
area occupying the center of the project region.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project region for T.I.P. No. B-4541 is located in the Piedmont Physiographic Province that
consists of gently rolling topography. Halifax County, located in eastern North Carolina, is
approximately 84 miles northeast of Raleigh, the state's capital. Halifax Countys surface
generally consists of level to gently rolling uplands with broad bottoms along the rivers and some
creeks. The largest waterway, the Roanoke River, bounds the northeastern portion of the county
as it flows in a southeastward direction. The county consists of eight municipalities including
Halifax, the county seat. Roanoke Rapids is the largest municipality in the county and is located
four and one-half miles northeast of the project study area. Sixty-five percent of the county
contains forested lands and twenty-eight percent is cultivated cropland.
Based on the review of the USGS Roanoke Rapids, NC quadrangle elevations within the project
study area are approximately 150 to 200 feet above National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD).
Drainage in the project vicinity is generally towards Quankey Creek/Roanoke River.
Surrounding properties include undeveloped wooded areas bordering the northeast portion of the
project study area, with agricultural, residential, and vacant fields comprising the remainder of the
project study area. Approximately one mile east of the project study area but within the project
vicinity is Halifax County Airport. Interstate 95 is located approximately six miles to the east of
December 2007
.Page 5
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
the project study area, within the project region. The town of Roanoke Rapids is located
approximately four and one-half miles northeast of the project study area, within the project
region.
2.1 Soils
The project study area consists of Piedmont soils, which are dominantly clayey soils. According
to the USDA Soil Survey of Halifax County, North Carolina (USDA, 2001), four different soil
types are found within the project study area (Appendix A, Figure 3):
• Emporia-Wedowee Complex (EwB) 2 to 6 percent slopes
• Pacolet coarse sandy loam (PaB), 2 to 6 percent slopes
• Wedowee coarse sandy loam (WeB), 2 to 6 percent slopes
• Wedowee coarse sandy loam (WeC), 6 to 10 percent slopes
EwB, PaB, and WeB soils are gently sloping, very deep, and well-drained. WeC soils are
moderately sloping, very deep, and well-drained. EwB soils are found on upland ridges and side
slopes in the Fall Line region of the upper Coastal Plain. PaB, WeB, and WeC soils are found on
upland ridges and. side slopes of the Piedmont. EwB soils have a moderately low to moderate
permeability in the upper part of the subsoil and a moderately low permeability in the lower part.
There is a relatively high water table (3- 4.5 feet from November through April, more than 6 feet
from April through October) and medium level of surface runoff exhibited by EwB soils. PaB
and WeB soils have a moderate permeability and moderate available water capacity. Each has a
mean high water table of more than 6 feet and a medium level of surface runoff. WeC soils have
a moderate permeability and moderate available water capacity. There is a mean high water table
of more than 6 feet and medium level of surface runoff exhibited by WeC soils. None of these
soil types are considered hydric (USDA, 2007).
According to the USDA Soil Survey of Halifax County, North Carolina, the map units for
Emporia-Wedowee Complex soils and Pacolet soils are mostly used for cropland. Wedowee soils
are mostly used for woodland. As per Table 6, Woodland Management and Productivity, of the
Halifax County Soil Survey, all of the aforementioned soils were found to have a slight erosion
hazard' and seedling mortality rate. None of these soils were noted as having any significant
restrictions or limitations affecting forest use and management (USDA, 2001).
The potential productivity of common trees is also found in the aforementioned Table 6 in the
order of their observed occurrence along with their respective site index number. The site index
is a designation of the quality of a forest site based on the height of the dominant stand (species)
of an arbitrarily chosen age. "The first tree listed for each soil is the indicator species for that
soil. An indicator species is a tree that is common in the area and is generally the most
productive on a given soil" (USDA, 2001). Potential productivity is the volume or yield to be
produced by the most important trees, expressed in cubic meters per hectare per year (m'/ha/yr).
Potential productivity found within Emporia-Wedowee Complex soils is between 7 and 9
m'/ha/yr and includes loblolly pine (Pints taeda) and southern red oak (Quercus falcata). The
' Ratings of erosion hazard indicate the probability that damage may occur if site preparation or harvesting
activities expose the soil (USDA Soil Survey of Halifax County, North Carolina (USDA, 2001). This
rating should not be mistaken for the hazard of water erosion, which is a "natural" erosion rating.
December 2007
Page 6
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
site index for loblolly pine found within Emporia-Wedowee Complex soils is 75 feet. Suggested
trees to plant include loblolly pine and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua). Potential
productivity found within Pacolet soils was approximately 8 m'/ha/yr and includes loblolly pine,
yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), northern red oak (Q.
rubra), hickory (Carya sp.), and white oak (Q. alba). The site index for loblolly pine found
within Pacolet soils is 85 feet. Suggested trees to plant include loblolly pine. Potential
productivity found within Wedowee soils was approximately 9 m'/ha/yr and includes loblolly
pine, southern red oak, northern red oak, and white oak. The site index for loblolly pine found
within Wedowee soils is 87 feet. Suggested plantings include loblolly pine USDA, 2001).
Based on preliminary designs,, replacing Bridge No. 24 via Alternative 1 would have minimal
impacts to the abovementioned soils.
2.2 Water Resources
The primary surface water feature in the project study area is Quankey Creek, which drains into
the Roanoke River east of Halifax, NC, approximately 13 miles downstream of the project study
area. At the Bridge No. 24 site, Quankey Creek is approximately 30 feet wide with bank heights
varying between 3 and 6 feet. Streamflow, is generally toward the southeast; however, at the
time of the site visit, no visible stream flow was observed. The lack of water negated
observations of clarity and relative water depths. At Bridge No. 24, stream banks were comprised
mostly of loams and fine sands. The streambed was comprised of a comparable mixture of fine
and coarse sands, and also contained gravel and cobble within occasional riffles. Quankey Creek
is surrounded by dense mature forest on the north (upstream) and south (downstream) side of the
bridge (Appendix B, Photographs 2 and 3). A natural levee is located on the north side of the east
bank, and the west bank on the north side is comprised of steep banks. Adjacent land consists of
undeveloped wooded areas and agricultural fields (Appendix B, Photograph 4). In general,
Quankey Creek possesses some qualities of both a coastal stream as well as a swamp (NCDENR,
2005).
The project study area is located in sub-basin 03-02-08 of the Roanoke River Basin (not in the
Neuse River Basin, as indicated in correspondence from NC Division of Water Quality, dated
June 17, 2005) and is within USGS Hydrologic Unit 03010107 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Region
(NCDENR, 2005). Note: The hydrologic unit is used by USGS to relate bodies of water in the
U.S. to each other and watershed. The headwaters of the Roanoke River are located in the Blue
Ridge Mountains of Virginia and flow southeasterly for 400 miles before emptying into
Albemarle Sound. The 03-02-08 sub-basin drains from Deep Creek/Roanoke River (Warren
County, NC) to the end of the Roanoke River in Bertie County, NC (NCDENR, 2001).
According to the Final 2004 303(d) list, Quankey Creek in the project study area is not an
impaired water. No waters listed on the 303(d) list occur within one mile of the project study
area. A portion of Quankey Creek located approximately ten miles downstream of Bridge No. 24
is listed as impaired from its confluence with Little Quankey Creek to the Roanoke River, a total
distance of 3.4 miles. This lower section of Quankey Creek has impaired aquatic life uses due to
biological integrity impairment, with potential sources that include hydromodification and minor
municipal point source discharges (NCDENR, 2004).
December 2007
Page 7
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
Currently there are fourteen wastewater National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit discharges within this Roanoke River sub-basin; with the largest discharges,
going into the Roanoke River. Seven of the fourteen facilities are also required to monitor their
discharge's toxicity (NCDENR, 2005). None of the facilities with wastewater NPDES permits
are located within the project vicinity. The closest discharge, Halifax Town Waste Water
Treatment Plant (W WTP) is located approximately eleven miles downstream of the project study
vicinity.
In addition to NPDES permit discharges found within this Roanoke River sub-basin, non-point
source (NPS) pollution is an equally important water quality concern. Sedimentation, a NPS
pollutant, is the major contributing cause of water quality impairment in the Roanoke River
Basin. It is estimated that 38 miles of major streams within the basin are impaired by
sedimentation. The major sources include construction, urban development, agriculture, forestry,
and mining (NCDENR, 1996). According to the 2001 Basinwide Assessment Report for the
Roanoke River Basin, most of the land is forested (65%) or in agriculture (30%). Most of the
agricultural land is cultivated cropland, but many animal operations were identified in the report
as well. Except for a few pastures and crop fields within the project vicinity, no NPS pollutants
of concern were identified within the project study area.
Water quality for the project study area is summarized in the Roanoke River Basinwide Water
Quality Plan (NCDENR, 2001). Quantitative water quality sampling was not conducted as part
of this project. The North Carolina Department of Water Quality (NCDWQ) currently monitors
two sites referred to as B-5 (located approximately five miles downstream at NC 903) and B-6
(located approximately twelve miles downstream at NC 561). Benthic macroinvertebrates
sampling data from a 2004 sample indicates a rating of "Natural" at the NC 903 location. The
site at NC 561 was not sampled for benthic macroinvertebrates due to unnecessary redundancy
with two sites above the town of Halifax WWTP. Sampling data indicates that the "Fair'
bioclassification is a result of habitat degradation as opposed to organic or nutrient loading
(NCDENR, 2001).
The State of North Carolina currently assigns all water classifications, which are based on the
existing or contemplated best usage of these waters within the basin. The North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR) classifies Quankey Creek, stream
index number 23-30, as Class C water from its source to the Roanoke River (NCDENR, 2005).
The 'best usage' of these waters, for which they must be protected, includes secondary recreation,
fishing, wildlife, fish and aquatic life propagation and survival, agriculture and other suitable
uses. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body
contact with water where such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental
manner (NCDENR, 2005).
In addition to this primary classification, the NCDWQ in cooperation with the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis developed a GIS data set to identify Supplemental
Classifications. High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Water (ORW) Management
Zones, Trout Waters (Tr), Swamp Waters (Sw), and Nutrient Sensitive Waters, (NSW) were
identified to provide special protection to sensitive or highly valued resource waters. Currently,
no portion of Quankey Creek or tributaries to Quankey Creek is listed as a HQW, ORW, Tr, Sw,
or NSW water by the NCDWQ (2001) within one mile of the project study area. In addition,
review of the NCDWQ Surface Water Classifications revealed that no Water Supply (WS) I or
December 2007
Page 8
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
WS 11 waters or Critical Areas (CA) are located within one mile of the project study area
(NCDENR, 2007).
Given the nature of the project and the location of surface waters, impacts to surface waters
(Quankey Creek) are unavoidable. The goal of preliminary design efforts would be to maintain the
current hydrologic regime and stream integrity and minimize long-term impacts to the aquatic
environment. As such, it is anticipated that the proposed bridge will largely span the creek and that
direct impacts to surface waters will be minimal. Additionally, stormwater discharge from the
bridge deck into Quankey Creek will also be avoided per NCDOT policy. However, short-term
impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from
construction-related activities. These temporary impacts can be minimized by using best
management practices (BMPs) during construction and through adherence to NCDOT's bridge
demolition policies. BMPs are activities, practices and procedures undertaken to prevent or
reduce water pollution. The proposed project will be subject to applicable BMPs contained in
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (NCDOT, 1997).
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
According to the Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina Map, the project study area is
located within the Piedmont (Level 111) Ecoregion of North Carolina (Griffith, et al., 2002). The
Piedmont Ecoregion consists of the area between the mountainous ecoregion to the west and the
flat coastal ecoregion to the east. Specifically, the project study area is part of a smaller
ecoregion subdivision (Level IV) referred to as the Northern Outer Piedmont. The Northern
Outer Piedmont is described as the area where Piedmont rocks occur on the same landscape with
Coastal Plain sediments.
Vegetative terrestrial communities in the project study area were distinguished by plant species,
location in the landscape, past disturbances, and hydrologic characteristics. For the purpose of
this report, only habitats directly within the project study area are summarized.
Based on the field review, eight terrestrial habitat community types, namely mixed hardwood
forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, pine plantation, maintained and disturbed roadside,
maintained field, residential, palustrine forested wetland, and linear wetland were identified
within the proposed bridge replacement project study area. In accordance with the "Classification
of the Natural Communities of North Carolina" by M.P. Schafale and A.S. Weakley (Schafale,
1990), a natural community is defined as a community `whose characteristics and functioning are
shaped by the process of evolution and ecological interactions of long periods of time, without the
overriding influence of modern human activities.' Based on this `naturalness' definition, and for
purposes of this discussion, areas that are roadsides, actively managed/planted, or disturbed areas
are not applicable for natural community classification. All of the community types are depicted
in Appendix A - Figure 4. Reference Table 2 below for a summary of terrestrial community
habitat types, including wetlands, by area and percent coverage within the project study area. A
brief summary of the terrestrial habitat communities found within the project study area follows:
December 2007
Page 9
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Mixed Hardwood Forest - This community type includes two areas located within the project
study area. One area is located north of SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) and is adjacent to the east
bank of Quankey Creek. Included within this community type is a natural levee area, which
separates a palustrine forested wetland (see Section 4.1) from Quankey Creek. The other area
includes a small portion of the project study area located south of SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road)
and adjacent to the west bank of Quankey Creek. Both of these areas include riparian forests
associated with Quankey Creek. Elements of Low Elevation Mesic Forest and Coastal Plain
Levee Forest habitats, as defined by Schafale and Weakley, were observed within this community
type. Dominant vegetation observed within the mixed hardwood forest community included river
birch (Betula nigra), red maple (Ater rubrum), swamp chestnut oak (Q. michauxii), ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), sweetgum, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), giant cane (Armrdinaria
gigantea), and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia). Representative photographs of the mixed
hardwood forest are included in Appendix B, Photograph 4 and Photograph 5.
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest - This community type includes two areas located within the
project study area. One area is located north of SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) and SR 1429 (Stack
Powell Road) and includes a large portion of the project study area adjacent to the west bank of
Quankey Creek and the maintained and disturbed roadside associated with SR 1434 (Sam Powell
Road) and SR 1429 (Stack Powell Road). The other area is located south of SR 1434 (Sam
Powell Road) and is adjacent to the east bank of Quankey Creek. Both of these areas include
riparian forests associated with Quankey Creek. Elements of Basic Mesic Forest, as defined by
Schafale and Weakley, were observed within these areas. Dominant vegetation observed within
the mixed pine/hardwood forest community included loblolly pine, willow oak (Q. phellos), red
maple, sweetgum, poison ivy, and greenbrier. Representative photographs of the mixed
pine/hardwood forest are included in Appendix B, Photograph 6 and Photograph 7.
Pine Plantation - This community type includes an area located south of the SR 1434 (Sam
Powell Road)/SR 1429 (Stack Powell Road) intersection and is adjacent to mixed hardwood
forest to the east and residential properties to the south. Dominant vegetation within this
community type included planted loblolly pine. Other species observed within the pine plantation
included sweetgum and eastern false willow (Baccharis halimifolia). A representative
photograph of the pine plantation is included in Appendix B, Photograph 8.
Maintained and Disturbed Roadside - This community type consists of areas along the
roadside, including grassed shoulders and utility line rights-of-way (R/W). This community type
is located throughout the entire project study area alongside SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) and SR
1429 (Stack Powell Road). Dominant vegetation observed within the grassed shoulders included
Bahia grass (Paspalum notatum), Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), and poison ivy. Dominant
vegetation observed within the utility line R/Ws included sweetgum, blackberry (Rebus sp.),
poison ivy, deer tongue witch-grass (Dicanthelium clandestiqum), fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), and goldenrod (Solidago sp.). Representative photographs of the maintained and
disturbed roadside are included in Appendix B, Photographs 5, 6, and 7.
Maintained Field - This community type includes two small areas located north of the SR 1434
(Sam Powell Road)/SR 1429 (Stack Powell Road) intersection and adjacent to mixed
pine/hardwood forest in the northwest quadrant of the project study area. Dominant vegetation
December 2007
Page 10
4?a
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
as defined by Schafale and Weakley, were observed within this community type. A
representative photograph of Wetland A is included in Appendix B, Photograph 9.
Linear Wetland - The linear wetland, identified herein as Wetland B. encompasses
approximately 0.07 acre, and is located south of SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) in the southeast
quadrant of the project study area adjacent to maintained and disturbed roadside and mixed
pine/hardwood forest. Wetland B appears to be a man-made channelized feature with an
ephemeral connection to Quankey Creek. Wetland B contains all three components (hvdric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and wetland hydrology) of a wetland, thus is included as a potential
jurisdictional wetland. Dominant vegetation observed in Wetland B included arrowleaf
tearthumb (Polygonum sagittatum), swamp rose (Rosa palusiris), soft rush (Juucus effusus),
sweetgum, red maple, and jewelweed (Impatiens capensis). A representative photograph of
Wetland B is included in Appendix B, Photograph 10.
A summary of the size and percent coverage of each of the terrestrial community types within the
8.3-acre project study area is included in Table 2.
Table 2
Terrestrial Communitv Tvnes Within the Proiect Studv Area
Terrestrial Communities Area Percent Covera e
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.61 acre 7%
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 2.12 acres 25%
Pine Plantation 0.96 acre 12%
Maintained and Disturbed Roadside 2.10 acres 25%
Maintained Field 0.10 acre 1%
Residential 0.80 acre 10%
Palustrine Forested Wetland 0.40 acre 5%
Linear Wetland 0.07 acre l%
TOTAL 7.16 acres 86%*
' Note: Kemammg 14-/o cover (1.14 acres) comprised of roadway (12%) and Quankey Creek (2%).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Aquatic communities located within the project study area include Quankey Creek (Appendix B,
Photographs 2 and 3). At the time of the site visit, the creek bed of Quankey Creek was dry with
only a few scattered pools, possibly due to the drought conditions experienced during the latter
half of the summer of 2005. According to the NWI map, Quankey Creek and the surrounding
wetland communities within the project study area are identified as a freshwater palustrine
emergent, persistent, seasonally flooded wetlands (PEMIC) (USFWS, 2005). Quankey Creek
extends for a distance of approximately 350 linear feet (0.14 acre) within the project study area.
A summary of aquatic community types within the project study area is included in Table 3.
Wetland communities delineated in the project study area were previously presented in Section
3.1. As previously stated in Section 2.3, Quankey Creek is currently listed as "impaired" from its
confluence with Little Quankey Creek, approximately ten miles downstream of Bridge No. 24, to
the Roanoke River, a total distance of 3.4 miles. This section of Quankey Creek has impaired
biological integrity. Quankey Creek possesses qualities of both a coastal stream as well as a
December 2007.
Page 12
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
swamp (NCDENR, 2005). Correspondence from the NCWRC does not indicate the presence of
anadromous species in this portion of Quankey Creek (Appendix D).
Aquatic biota were not observed in the vicinity of Bridge No. 24 at the time of the September 29,
2005 site visit, and no efforts to sample for fish or other aquatic biota were undertaken. Based on
a study conducted by the NCDENR DWQ Environmental Science Branch, fish species that could
be expected to frequent the project study area include rosyside dace (Clinostonius funduloides),
golden shiner (Notenigonus crysoleucas), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), eastern
mudminnow (Umbra pvgmaea), bluespotted sunfish (Enneacanthus gloriosus), swallowtail
shiner (Notropis procne), spottail shiner (N hudsonius), mosquito fish (Gambusia holbrooki),
redbreasted sunfish (Lepon is auritus), bluegill (L. macrochirus), sea lamprey (Petromyzon
ntarinus), pirate perch (Aphredoderus sayanus), satinfin shiner (Cyprinella anolostana),
tessellated darter (Etheostonaa olnastedi), crescent shiner (Luxilus cerasinus), eel (Anguilla
rostrata), bluehead chub (Nocontis leptocephalus), eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius),
and brown bullhead (Anteriurus nebulosus) (NCDENR, 2000).
No aquatic species, including fish, amphibian, or reptile, were observed during the field
assessment primarily due to lack of persistent water and sufficient habitat. Potential impacts to
aquatic resources are summarized in Section 3.3.
Reference Table 3 below for a summary of the aquatic community habitat types, specifically
Quankey Creek, by area and percent coverage within the project study area.
Table 3
Aquatic Community Tvpes Within the Proiect Studv Area
Jurisdictional Stream -Hydrology . Area
acres Length
linear feet Percent
Covera e
Quanke Creek Perennial* 0.14 350 2%
* The stream lacked water at the time of the site visit.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts
One build alternative has been considered for the proposed project. Alternative 1 proposes
replacing Bridge No. 24 in place with an off-site detour. Terrestrial and aquatic community
impacts for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 24 were calculated via integration of
MicrostationTm design files, including anticipated construction limits, into ArcViewTM 9.2
software. A summary of potential community impacts is presented below.
December 2007
Page 13
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quan key Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Table 4
Pronoged imnacts (in Arresl Within the Prniert Stndv Area
Communities Alternative 1
aistin Location
Terrestrial Communities Permanent Temporary
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.046 0
Mixed Pine/Hardwood
Forest 0.011 0
Pine Plantation 0.008 0
Maintained and Disturbed
Roadside 0.418 0
Maintained Field 0 0
Residential 0 0
Total 0.492 0
Wetland Communities
Palustrine Forested
Wetland 0 0
Linear Wetland 0.013 0
Total 0.013 0
Jurisdictional Stream 0
Quanke Creek 0 0
Total 0 0
Total Pro'ect Impacts 0.505 0
Two types of impacts can generally be expected for terrestrial and aquatic communities within a
roadway project corridor: 1) permanent disturbances due to proposed limits of cut and fill and 2)
temporary disturbance during construction. Based on preliminary designs, replacing Bridge No.
24 would result in permanent impacts to mixed hardwood forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest,
pine plantation, and maintained and disturbed roadside, as well as linear wetland. No temporary
construction-related disturbances would occur to terrestrial or aquatic communities. Wildlife may
be temporarily impacted by noise and other construction-related activities during the construction
of the proposed bridge.
From an ecological perspective, the terrestrial impacts of Alternative 1 which would replace
Bridge No. 24 in place with an off site detour would be minimal. Permanent impacts to terrestrial
communities as a result of the proposed bridge replacement are generally restricted to narrow
strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. The total potential
permanent impact to terrestrial communities within the cut-and-fill boundaries utilizing
Alternative I is 0.505 acre, including 0.013 acre of linear wetland. Most of this area, 0.418 acre,
is maintained and disturbed roadside.
Additional right-of-way (R/W) and construction easements may be required on both sides of SR
1434 (Sam Powell Road) within the project limits. Potential impacts to terrestrial vegetative
communities associated with Alternative I will depend on final cut/fill lines and construction
limits. Potential project impacts to jurisdictional waters of the U.S., including Quankey Creek,
are discussed below.
December 2007
Page 14
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
It is anticipated that the proposed bridge will largely span Quankey Creek. The goal of
preliminary design efforts, currently underway, would be to locate end bents outside Quankey
Creek and place interior bents, as needed, outside the main channel. This will maintain the
current hydrologic regime and stream integrity and minimize long-term impacts to the aquatic
environment. In addition, stormwater discharge from the bridge deck into Quankey Creek will
also be avoided per NCDOT policy. However, short-term impacts to water quality, such as
sedimentation and turbidity, can be anticipated from construction-related activities. These
temporary impacts can be minimized by using best management practices (BMPs) during
construction and through adherence to NCDOT's bridge demolition policies. BMPs are
activities, practices and procedures undertaken to prevent or reduce water pollution. The
proposed project will be subject to applicable BMPs contained in NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (March, 1997). The contractor will also be required to
follow contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in 23 CFR 650
Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion, Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT,
Specifications for Roads and Structures). These measures include but are not limited to 1) the use
of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff; 2) elimination of
construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; 3) re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; 4) management of chemicals; and 5) avoidance of direct discharges into
streams through the use of catch basins and roadside vegetation. In addition, all state highway
projects are subject to the rules and regulations established by the N.C. Sedimentation Control
Commission, which is responsible for implementation of the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act
of 1973.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the U.S.
Jurisdictional waters of the U.S. are defined by 33 CFR 328.3(b) and are protected by Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), which is administered and enforced in North Carolina
by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Wilmington District. The term "waters of the
U.S., is defined in 33 CFR Part 328, and includes waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, streams
(including intermittent streams) and wetlands.
Jurisdictional wetlands are defined in the field as areas that exhibit positive evidence of three
environmental parameters: hydrophytic vegetation, wetland hydrology, and hydric soils. The
results of the on-site field review indicate that there is one jurisdictional stream channel (Quankey
Creek) and two potential jurisdictional wetland areas (Wetlands A and B) within the project study
area (See Appendix A - Figure 5). Potential jurisdictional boundaries were delineated and
flagged in the field. Flagged locations were collected with a GPS unit and mapped using GIS
software. Waters of the U.S. are depicted on Figure 5 in Appendix A.
Jurisdictional streams within the project study area include Quankey Creek, which is
approximately 30 feet wide at the SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) Bridge No. 24 crossing (Appendix
B, Photographs 2 and 3). Approximately 350 linear feet (0.14 acre) of stream channel is
contained within the project study area. The two potential wetland areas located within the
December 2007
Page 15
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
project study area were classified as palustrine forested wetland community and linear wetland
community types. Reference Section 3.1 for detailed descriptions of these wetland features.
Wetlands were assessed utilizing the DWQ's current guidance document for assessing wetland
values (NCDEHNR, 1995). The parameters assessed included water storage capacity, bank and
shoreline stabilization, pollutant/sediment removal, wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and
recreation and education. Reference Table 5 below for a summary of the findings of the
assessments. Reference Attachment E for Wetland Rating Worksheets.
Table 5
Wetland Functions/Values Assessment Rating
Rated Value
- Wetland Water Bank - Pollutant Wildlife.. Aquatic Life Recreation/ Total
Type* Storage Stabilization .
Removal Habitat Value Education Score
Palustrine
Wetland A Forested 16 8 25 8 20 3 80
Wetland
Linear

Wetland B
Wetland 8 0 5 2 8 1 24
Max.
Score - 20 20 30 10 20 5 105
Possible
weuano type touows tnat aetined to Cowardut (1979)
The project study area is located within the Roanoke River Watershed Basin. The Roanoke
Watershed Basin does not have buffer rules therefore the B-4541 project is not subject to buffer
regulations (Note: Correspondence from NCDWQ, dated June 17, 2005 [Appendix D], indicates
that this project is located in the Neuse River Basin. However, this project is located within the
Roanoke River Basin, per Surface Water Classification data and various Basinwide Assessment
Reports.).
Project alignments are being developed to avoid as much of the wetlands as practicable. Given
the nature of the project and the location of Quankey Creek and associated wetlands, impacts to
these waters are unavoidable. The goal of preliminary design efforts would be to maintain the
current hydrologic regime and stream integrity and minimize long-term impacts to the aquatic
environment. As such, it is anticipated that the proposed bridge will largely span the creek and
that direct impacts to surface waters will be minimal.
4.2 Permit Issues
Depending on the impact to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, Section 404 permitting
requirements can range from activities that are considered exempt or preauthorized, to those
requiring pre-construction notification (PCN) for a Nationwide Permit (NWP), a Regional General
Permit (RGP), or requiring a Section 404 Individual Permit (IP) from the USACE.
As previously described, based on preliminary design, minor impact to linear wetland (Wetland B)
would be expected as a result of Bridge Replacement Alternative 1. Direct impacts to Quankey
Creek, as a result of Alternative I are not anticipated.
December 2007
Page 16
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
Impacts to waters of the U.S., including wetlands, resulting from the proposed bridge replacement
project would likely be permitted pursuant to RGP No. 198200031. This RGP authorizes the
discharge of dredged or fill material in waters of the U.S. associated with the construction of bridges,
particularly as it relates to work conducted by NCDOT. Written confirmation that the proposed
work complies with this RGP must be received from the Wilmington District Engineer prior to the
commencement of any work. NCDWQ has promulgated Section 401 General Water Quality
Certification (WQC) No. 3704 to correspond with RGP 198200031. This WQC requires a PCN to
NCDWQ for any impacts to perennial stream channel. Since this project is being processed as a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) pursuant to Federal Highway Administration guidelines, NWP No. 23,
"Approved Categorical Exclusions" may also be applicable to permit this project. NCDWQ has
promulgated WQC No. 3701 for NWP No. 23. This General WQC also requires a PCN to the
NCDWQ. Although temporary impacts are not anticipated, should construction easements be
required and result in temporary impacts, NWP No. 33 "Temporary Construction, Access and
Dewatering" may be applicable. NWP No. 33 requires a PCN to the USAGE, as well as a PCN to
the NCDWQ for WQC No. 3688. The PCN must include a delineation of affected waters of the
U.S., as well as a description of impact avoidance and minimization strategies, compensatory
mitigation, and an alternatives analysis.
The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) has defined mitigation in 40 CFR Part 1508.20 to
include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time,
and compensating for impacts. Three general types of mitigation include avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation consists usually of the
restoration of existing degraded wetlands or waters, or the creation of waters of the U.S. of equal
or greater value than the waters to be impacted. This type of mitigation is only undertaken after
avoidance and minimization actions are exhausted and should be undertaken, when practicable, in
areas near the impact site (i.e., on-site compensatory mitigation).
Given the location of the jurisdictional waters of the U.S., and the need to replace the existing bridge,
project impacts associated with the proposed bridge replacement (Alternative 1) are unavoidable.
The build alternative being designed involves replacement of the existing bridge in place while
utilizing an off-site detour during construction. This alternative will largely minimize impacts to
wetlands and waters of the U.S. located in the project study area. As previously described in Section
33, the goal of preliminary design efforts would be to locate end bents outside Quankey Creek and
place interior bents outside the main channel. In a further effort to minimize impacts to waters of the
U.S., approach work has been limited to only those adjustments necessary to facilitate bridge
replacement. This overall design approach will minimize long-term impacts to jurisdictional waters
of the U.S.
Following the implementation of impact avoidance and minimization design strategies,
compensatory mitigation would be required for all remaining permanent impacts to streams and
wetlands on the project site. On-site mitigation potential will be investigated by NCDOT's On-
Site Mitigation Group.. In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of
Transportation, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District" (MOA), July 22, 2003,
the NCDENR Ecosystem Enhancement Program (EEP) will be requested to provide off-site
mitigation to satisfy the federal Clean Water Act compensatory mitigation requirements in the event
that mitigation is required for this project and on-site mitigation opportunities' are not available. A
December 2007
Page 17

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
final determination regarding mitigation to the waters of the U.S. rests with the USACE and
DWQ, and compensatory mitigation for impacts will be resolved during the permitting phase.
NCDOT recognizes that dropping debris into waters of the U.S. is an undesirable activity. It is
anticipated that work scheduled to be performed in Quankey Creek would not require special
restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters. Estimated impacts to Quankey Creek will be minimal. The bridge is 52 fl in length. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete flooring on timber joists with asphalt wearing
surface and concrete bridge railings. The substructure consists of timber caps and timber piles.
The asphalt wearing surface, bridge railings, and the timber piles will be removed without
dropping their components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of
the concrete flooring to be dropped into the Waters of the United States during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with flooring is approximately 22.6 cubic yards. Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed during construction.
It is anticipated that the demolition/removal of this bridge will occur with minimal debris being
dropped into the creek. The utilization of BMPs and adherence to NCDOT bridge demolition
policies will largely mitigate potential impacts to the stream channel. Although not available at
the time of this writing, data concerning proposed bridge materials and temporary fills will be
included in the pending CE document. Temporary impacts to Quankey Creek and adjacent lands
associated with the construction activities would be mitigated by removal of temporary fill
material and replanting disturbed areas with native riparian plant species upon project
completion.
4.3 Protected Species
The Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended, is the federal regulatory tool
that serves to administer permits, implement recovery plans, and monitor listed endangered and
threatened species. The USFWS and the National Marine Fisheries Service administer the ESA.
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed (P) for
such listing, or Threatened due to Similarity of Appearance (T [S/A]) are protected under the
ESA, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term "Endangered species" is defined as "any
species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and
the term "Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). The term "Proposed" is defined as "any species proposed for official
listing as Endangered or Threatened." "Federal species of concern" (FSC) is defined as "a
species that may or may not be listed in the future; or a species under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing." "Candidate" (C) species are taxons
under consideration for which there is insufficient information to support a listing. The FSC and
C designation are afforded no federal protection under the ESA.
A search of the USFWS and North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) databases
provided existing information concerning the potential occurrence of federally threatened or
endangered species within Halifax County. This database indicates that there are four federally
endangered or threatened species known to exist in Halifax County as listed in Table 6 below.
December 2007
Page 18

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankev Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Table 6
Federallv Endangered/Threatened Sneeiea - Halifax County
'4 Federal Fist _ Potenttal ' n Btol cal
Common
r
to „?
?ScmntificN
z
St
te
County
b
at ;
u
lus
„
Name ame a
s
Occurrence tt
Hit
ti Co
c
ton
s
_
Dwarf Alasmidonta
Wed emussel heterodon E 1990 Current No No Effect
Tar River Elliptio
S i
l E 1985 Current No No Effect
n musse steinstansana
Haltaeetus
Bald Eagle De-listed* 1995 Current No No Effect
leucoce halus
Red-Cockaded
picoides borealis E 1970 Current No No Effect
Woodpecker
- gala tagte was ae-ustea, ejjective on August 6, 2O07
T = Threatened. E = Endangered. PI) = Proposed De-Listed
Reference: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database, Accessed May 2007.
The list of federally endangered and threatened species known to occur in Halifax County was
reviewed, and evaluations were performed to determine the likelihood of the presence of each
species within the project study area. Field review's were conducted on September 29, 2005, and
areas in the project study area that matched descriptions of preferred habitat for the federally
protected species listed in the above table were classified as potential protected species habitat.
On-site field reviews, encompassing approximately ten man hours, revealed that the majority of
the project study area consists of mixed hardwood forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, young
pine plantation, and maintained and disturbed roadside. The protected species habitat field
review revealed that none of the above-listed species is likely to occur in the project study area.
A summary of habitat preferences and findings for the above-listed species is as follows:
Dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) - The dwarf wedgemussel is a federally and state
listed endangered species. The mussel rarely exceeds 45 mm in length. Young shells are typically
greenish-brown in color with greenish rays, while older shells usually appear black or brown
(NCWRC, 2005). The shell is relatively thin, but tends to thicken with age toward the anterior
end (NCWRC, 2005). The preferred habitat of this species includes clay banks along root
systems of trees, mixed substrates of cobble, gravel, and sand, and occasionally soft silt
substrates. Stream banks are stable, having extensive root systems and mature riparian buffers.
Water quality within the rivers and streams where the dwarf wedgemussel is found is good to
excellent (NCWRC, 2005).
Dwarf wedgemussel once occurred in rivers and streams from New Brunswick, Canada to North
Carolina. North Carolina supports the greatest number of known occurrences within the Neuse
River Basin (Orange County, Wake County, Johnston County, Wilson County, Nash County),
and the Tar River Basin (Person County, Granville County, Vance County, Franklin County,
Warren County, Nash County, and Halifax County) (NCWRC, 2005).
A field review was conducted on September 29, 2005. The portion of Quankey Creek within the
project study area exhibited no flow and a homogenous silt and sand substrate. The preferred
habitat of this species includes clay banks along root systems or trees, mixed substrates of cobble,
gravel and sand, and occasionally soft silt substrates. Water quality should be good to excellent.
December 2007
Page 19

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
The lack of persistent water and suitable substrate, limits the potential for dwarf wedgemussel to
be present in the project study area.
According to a memorandum from NCDOT dated August 21, 2007, a survey for the dwarf
wedgemussel was conducted by NCDOT personnel on October 25, 2006 (reference Attachment
D). According to the memorandum, no freshwater mussels of any species were encountered
during the field survey, and the habitat was characterized as marginal for dwarf wedgemussel.
The memorandum concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) - The Tar River spinymussel is a federally and
state listed endangered species. The average adult mussel is 2.5 inches in length. Juvenile
mussels contain twelve spines and have an outer shell surface that is orange-brown with greenish
rays. Adult mussels tend to lose their spines as they mature and have a darker outer surface with
inconspicuous rays. The inner shell of both the juvenile and adult mussel is yellow or pinkish at
one end and bluish-white at the other end (NCNHP, 2001). This species is typically observed in
unconsolidated beds of gravel and coarse sand in relatively fast flowing water. The water quality
of the stream is good to excellent. Stream banks are usually stable, having extensive root systems
(NCWRC, 2005). The Tar River spinymussel is known to occur in Edgecombe County within
the Swift Creek subbasin and the Tar River (NCWRC, 2005). This mussel has also been
observed within Johnston County (Little River Subbasin-Neuse River Basin), Nash County (Swift
Creek Subbasin and Tar River), Franklin County (Shocco and Sandy Creek subbasins), and
Halifax County (Little Fishing Creek Subbasin) (NCWRC, 2005).
A field review was conducted on September 29, 2005. The portion of Quankey Creek within the
project study area exhibited no flow and a homogenous silt and sand substrate. This species is
typically observed in unconsolidated beds of gravel and coarse sand in relatively fast flowing
water. The water quality of the stream is good to excellent. Very limited potential habitat is
present. The lack of persistent water and suitable substrate limits the potential for the Tar River
spinymussel to be present in the project study area.
According to a memorandum from NCDOT dated August 21, 2007, a survey for the Tar River
spinymussel was conducted by NCDOT personnel on October 25, 2006 (reference Attachment
D). According to the memorandum, no freshwater mussels of any species were encountered
during the field survey, and the habitat was characterized as marginal for Tar River spinymussel.
The memorandum concluded that the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - The bald eagle has been delisted as a federally
threatened species, effective August 8, 2007. The bald eagle is protected pursuant to the Bald and
Golden Eagle Protection Act.
Female bald eagles are approximately 35 to 37 inches long while the male bald eagles are
approximately 30 to 34 inches. Adults tend to have a blackish-brown back and breast with a white
neck, head, and tail and a yellow bill. Juveniles tend to be brown and white with a black bill. This
bird nests in mature live pines or cypress trees in the transition zone between mature forests and
large bodies of water. Nests are very large, up to six feet in width, and constructed of large sticks
and soft materials such as dead vegetation, grasses, and pine needles (USFWS, 1992). Nesting
December 2007
Page 20
a
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
trees are usually less than two miles from open water. Winter roosts are usually in mature trees.
similar to nesting trees, but may be somewhat farther from water.
A field review was conducted on September 29, 2005. No individuals of this species were
observed during the field survey. This bird nests in mature live pines or cypress trees in the
transition zone between mature forests and large bodies of water. The survey revealed a lack of
large bodies of water in the project vicinity and no suitable nesting or roosting habitat within the
project study area. Therefore, based on the habitat requirements for bald eagle and the lack of
available preferred habitat identified within the project study area, the proposed project should
have no effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) is a
federally and state listed endangered species. The adult bird is approximately 7 to 8.5 inches long
with a black cap and nape, a prominent cheek patch, and a back barred with black and white. The
male's tiny red cockade is just behind the eye, but is often absent or difficult to see (Potter, et al.,
1980). The bird is native to southern pine forests and typically nests in open pine stands
containing trees 60 years or older (NCNHP, 2001). Roosting cavities are excavated within live
pines, which are often infected with red-heart disease (NCNHP, 2001). Foraging may occur in
pine and/or mixed pine stands with trees greater than 10" diameter at breast height (dbh).
A field review was conducted on September 29, 2005. No individuals of this species were
observed during the field survey. The survey revealed no suitable nesting or foraging habitat
within the project study area. The project study area contains a relatively thick, well-developed
understory and the size of the trees, generally less than 10" dbh, does not meet typical foraging
requirements. Therefore, based on the habitat requirements for red-cockaded woodpecker and the
lack of available preferred habitat identified within the project study area, the proposed project
should have no effect on this species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
In addition to on-site field reviews, information was requested from the USFWS regarding
protected species information within the project study area. In a letter dated June 10, 2005, the
USFWS indicated that their records do not indicate the known presence of any federally protected
species within or near the project study area (Appendix D).
A search of the NCNHP database also provided existing information concerning the potential
occurrence of federal species of concern (FSC) within Halifax County. This database indicates
that there are twelve species known to exist or that have historically existed in Halifax County, as
listed below in Table 7. The potential presence of habitat for each of these species as ascertained
during field review efforts is also noted.
December 2007
Page 21
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Table 7
Federal Species of Concern - Halifax County
Common'Name

-t ScrenttficName', F* ,'
, r F
,,,r ,r State'
, e
Status `Federal^,y
- r
Status N .: County„
?-
Status - Potential'-

Habitat
Yellow Lance Elli do lanceolate E FSC Current N
Atlantic Pi oe Fusconaia masoni E FSC Current N
Yellow Lam mussel Lam silis cariosa E FSC Current N
Green Floater Lasmi ona subviridis E FSC Current N
Chowanoke Crayfish Orconectes vir iniensis SC FSC Current Y
Carolina Least
Trillium Trillium pusillum vac
usillum E FSC Current Y
Bo St. John's-Wort Hv ericum ad ressum SR-T FSC Historic N
Southeastern M otis M otis austrori arius SC FSC Current N
Bachman's Sparrow Aimo hila oestivalis SC FSC Historic N
Cerulean Warbler Dendroica cerulean SR FSC Current N
Roanoke Bass Amblo lites cavi ons SR FSC Current N
Carolina Madtom Notorus uriosus SC (PT) FSC Current N
h5C = federal Species of Concern, T = Threatened, E = Endangered, SR = Significantly Rare, SC = Special Concern,
PT = Proposed Threatened
Reference: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Accessed May 2007.
None of the above-listed species of concern were observed in the project study area during field
review efforts.
December 2007
Page 22
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L. M., et al. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United
States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Report FWS/OBS-79/31. 103 pp.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
Griffith, et al. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South Carolina. Reston, Virginia U.S.
Geological Survey (Map scale 1:1,500,000).
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison Ill. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina. 264 pp.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management (currently Division of Water Quality), Water Quality
Section. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Fourth
Version. January, 1995.
NCDENR, DWQ. 1998b. Guidance Manual for Protecting and Maintaining Riparian Areas.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), Division of
Water Quality (DWQ). Basinwide Planning Program. September 1996. Roanoke River
Basin Water Quality Plan.
NCDENR, DWQ. Basinwide Planning Program. July 2001. Roanoke River Basin Water Quality
Plan.
NCDENR, DWQ. CSU: Surface Water Classifications. May 2007.
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/csu/swe.htmi. Accessed June 2007.
NCDENR, DWQ. 2001. High Quality Water and Outstanding Resource Water Management
Zones, Division of Water Quality: NC DENR, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh.
NCDENR, DWQ. April 2000. Neuse Basin Fish Community Database. Environmental Sciences
Branch. Available: http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.usfNCIBI.htm. Accessed September
2005.
NCDENR, DWQ. 2004. Final North Carolina Water Quality Assessment and Impaired Waters
List (2004 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report).
NCDENR, DWQ. April 2000. Roanoke River Basin Fish Community Database. Environmental
Sciences Branch. Available: http://w%vw.esb.enr.state.nc.us/NCIBI.htm. Accessed
September 2005.
December 2007
Page 23
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax Countv
NCDENR, DWQ. Water Quality Section, Environmental Sciences Branch. April 2005.
Basimvide Assessment Report - Roanoke River Bajn.
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT). 1997. Best Management Practices For
Protection of Surface Waters. March, 1997.
NCDOT, 2005. Memorandum from Jason W. Mays to Pam Williams. Subject: TIP B-4541
Bridge 24, SR 1434, over Quankey Creek in Halifax County, dated December 1, 2005.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP). 2001. Guide to Federally Listed
Endangered and Threatened Species of North Carolina. Available:
http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/guide.htm. Accessed: May 2007.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC). North Carolina Atlas of Freslnvater
Mussels and Endangered Fish, Species Information and Status, Wildlife Species and
Conservation. 2005. http://www.ncwildlife.org/pg07_wildlifespeciescon/pg7bla.htm
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 408 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina. 1183 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina, Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 325 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). 2001.
Soil Survey of Halifax County, North Carolina.
USDA, NRCS. Soil Data Mart. Hydric Soils, Halifax County, North Carolina. Available:
http://soildatamart.nres.usda.gov/Report.aspx?Survey=NC083&UseState=NC. Tabular
Data Version 9. Accessed May 2007.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1992. Source: Endangered and Threatened Species of
the Southeastern. United States (The Red Book) FWS Region 4.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2005. Threatened and Endangered Species System database
[web application]. Available:
http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/TESSWebpageUsaLists?state=NC. Accessed February
2005.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory Map, 7.5-minute
quadrangle topographic map series: Roanoke Rapids, North Carolina. Available:
http://,A,vm.nwi.Avs.gov/. Accessed August, 2005.
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS), 1974. 7.5-minute quadrangle topographic map series: Roanoke
Rapids, North Carolina.
December 2007
Page 24
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
APPENDIX A
FIGURES

-2- x
Quankey Creek T7 c
- Q
t
?a5db
kK2005 MaDQuestcom, Inc,; 0 2005 GQT, Inc
4Q .,e,4
i
?• .. . - NapPalAf _ - -
WUbEN . L ? , •SPOI..A.x Adum-
Nd91N
1
Not to Scale u xy?
x?x
A ?
4 c
SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) Bridge Replacement over Quankey
Creek
Bridge No. 24
T.I.P. No. B-4541
Site Location
FIGURE 1
-,,. -,Q?7flnrn
2100}[
HANhx comfy
a
Sam PaweM Rd
casmog Ln
FattaV Gu
-- RI?Pa 3 ??sRa -
-- !Oa?H?Ar
N
Nor th Carolina Vicinity Map
Fig Oft .,?---
Ir
G i Approximate
-{
c B-4541 Project
o Study Area
J
J
2-17 -
J
i f? C '• ' \ ---? I I -? 1
Not to Scale
`?,. oeru?
4k

SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) Bridge Replacement over
Quankey Creek USGS Quad
Bridge No. 24
T.I.P. No. 4541 FIGURE 2
Halifax County, North Carolina
North Carolina Vicinity Map
Bc??r
.'fi'r rx N
Approximate B-4541
K Project Study Area t r I
x 4 aOzc""?r ?--Al
F<?,TPs"t..7; ,ilx p -dS_.
t
N t Y?q, c$3e
???-s..??a?"?1i?• 6 i? '{. xK pea _. `
JO/.
_
?..tT,YPa,k'?it .,.+ 15a E y{ ?i .Aa td? ?-t 5 .fei
?l ,> a k' e? I ' y : . se u?ti3.'''9 9r $r t ?'T Y .3 i ?, ,i,.g'?
v?*l s:-
445 Tnl?
y 4? p
v 1. s2c5?,
WON
X"J
'go
ems: ! is
a y r ?
Anna 'o
cY ILA}TT"`
Mapped Soil Units in Project Study Area
Emporia-Wedowee Complex (320B, EwB)
Pacolet coarse sandy loam (32B,PaB)
Wedowee coarse sandy loam (35B, 32C, WeB and
WeC)
aL ?g
Not to Scale
SR 1434 (Sam Powell Road) Bridge Replacement over
Quankey Creek Soil Survey Map
Bridge No. 24
T.I.P. No. 4541 FIGURE 3
Halifax County, North Carolina

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quan key Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
APPENDIX B
PHOTOGRAPHS
Bridge no. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankev Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
rnotograph Quankey Creek at SR 1434 Bridge No. 24, looking upstream (northwest).
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek: Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
(southeast).
k.
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
ores.

w- .

10 - -1

r ?vffi

i{.
Photograph 6: View of maintained and disturbed roadside and mixed pine/hardwood
forest in the northwest quadrant.
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quaukey Creek Bridge Replacement
'T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County

.y

C
F

f t"?' fi v g:; z? ai '
vI rk iv

-- - ----------
Photo.araph ;: View of maintained and disturbed roadside and mixed pine hardwood
forest.
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.J.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
APPENDIX C
PERSONNEL QUALIFICATIONS
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
The following STV/RWA employees were responsible for the preparation of this document:
Michael A. Iagnocco, P.W.S., Senior Environmental Scientist
B.S. Biological Sciences
Mr. Iagnocco has over 26 years of experience in performing environmental studies and managing
the preparation of environmental documents, including assessments and impact statements, at
federal and state levels. Mr. Iagnocco also has extensive experience in wetland assessment,
delineation, and permitting; the development of comprehensive mitigation plans involving
restoration, creation, and enhancement; and natural resource inventories.
Adam H. Karagosian, P.W.S., Senior Environmental Specialist
B.S. Environmental Studies (Biological Sciences concentration)
Mr. Karagosian has over 13 years of experience in ecological studies and environmental
assessment. His experience includes wetland and stream delineations on more than 12,000 acres
of land, functional assessments, wetland classifications, all aspects of Section 404/401 permitting,
compensatory mitigation planning, vegetation inventories, water quality monitoring, agency
coordination, and regulatory negotiation.
Jennifer L. Schwaller, NEPA Project Planner
B.S. Organismal Biology
Ms. Schwaller has over nine years of experience in ecological studies and environmental
assessment. She is well versed in National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and State (North
Carolina) Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) compliance, and has served as the primary author on
numerous environmental documents, including environmental assessments. She has completed
coursework towards earning a NEPA Certificate from Duke University's Environmental
Leadership Program. In addition, Ms Schwaller has attended several workshops sponsored by the
USFWS, which focused on rare plant identification within the Carolinas. These workshops have
included instruction on Schwenitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweiuitzii), dwarf-flowered
heartleaf (Hexastylis nanioro), bunched arrowhead (Sogittaria fasciculoto), mountain sweet
pitcher plant (Sarracenia jonesii), and swamp pink (Helonias bullata).
Steven Busbee, Project Environmental Scientist
M.S. Forest Resources
B.S. Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Wildlife Biology
Mr. Busbee, P.W.S. has seven years of experience in ecological studies and environmental
assessment throughout the southeastern United States. Mr. Busbee has a Master's Degree in
Forest Resources and a Bachelor's Degree in Aquaculture, Fisheries, and Wildlife Biology, both
from Clemson University. His experience includes stream and wetland determinations,
delineations, functional assessments, natural resource and feasibility studies, preparation of Clean
Water Act Section 404 pennit documents, compensatory wetland mitigation design, plarming and
monitoring, protected plant and animal species surveys, invasive plant species management,
water quality monitoring, and regulatory agency reporting and coordination.

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
Melissa M. Bell, Environmental Scientist
B.S. Environmental Science
Ms. Bell has over two years of experience in environmental assessments. Her qualifications
include National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance. Her experience includes Phase
I environmental assessments, indoor air quality analysis, and environmental assessments.
Rhett Baggett, Environmental Scientist
M.S. Earth Science, Hydrology
B.S. Biology, Ecology
Mr. Baggett has over four years of experience in surface and groundwater hydrological studies
and environmental assessments. His experience includes environmental assessments (Phase I and
II), jurisdictional stream and wetland determinations, delineations, and functional assessments,
Section 404/401 permitting, watershed modeling, hydrological and sediment transport analysis,
and water quality monitoring.
Alexis Baker, GIS Analyst
B.A. Environmental Studies
Working towards M.A. Geography
Ms. Baker has four years of experience in geographical information science. Her background has
ranged from work with wetlands and endangered species surveys to community planning, hazard
mitigation planning, and utilities management.
Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE

MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
TO:
CC:
FROM:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
August 21, 2007
Pam Williams, Project Planning Engineer
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
John Merritt, Natural Environment Project Management Group
Jason W. Mays, Natural Environment Biological Surveys Group
SUBJECT: TIP B-4541 Bridge 24, SR 1434, over Quankey Creek in Halifax County
Transportation Improvement Project B-4541 proposes the replacement of Bridge # 24 on
SR 1434 (Raleigh Road) over Quankey Creek in Halifax County. The US Fish and
Wildlife Service lists the federally Endangered species; dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) and Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana), as a species occurring in
Halifax County. This project site was visited by NCDOT personnel: Logan Williams,
Karen Lynch, Mike Sanderson, on October 25, 2006 for the purposes of habitat
assessment and surveys for this species. The group spent approximately 2.0 person/hours
of effort searching for mussels using visual and tactile methods as well as additional time
spent doing general habitat assessment and searching for additional habitat types. No
freshwater mussels of any species were encountered during these efforts and the habitat
can be characterized as unsuitable for the species in question.
Habitat at this site can best be characterized as marginal for dwarf wedgemussel and Tar
River spinymussel, but the lack of other mussel species at this site is a good indicator that
they do not occur here. Furthermore, there is currently no indication that either species
has ever been collected from the Roanoke River Basin. Under these circumstances it is
appropriate to state that B-4541 will have no effect on either species.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC
E North
MEMORANDUM
Resources C
Ric hard B. Hran l[on. Ese-LMVC Pirecwr
TO: Ms. Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

FROM: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator ?A
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 10, 2005
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Wayne, Wilson, Nash, Johnston, Halifax, and
Edgecombe counties. TIP Nos. B-4672, B-4673, B-4680, 8-4682, B-4588, B-
4589, B-4555, B-4556, B-4558, B-4559, B-4541, B-4503.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d5.
Our standard reconunendations for bridge replacement projects of this scope are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Memo
June 10, 2005
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed
areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr.
Logan Williams should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species
may be required. NCDOT should also. contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be_used,
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are
used:
Bridge Memo 3 June 10, 2005
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the
culvert or pipe invert should be buried at least I foot below the natural streambed
(measured from the natural thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels
other than the base flow barrel(s) should be placed on or near stream bankfull or
floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These should be
reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by
utilizing sills on the upstream and downstream ends to restrict or divert flow to the
base flow barrel(s). Silted barrels should be filled with sediment so as not to cause
noxious or mosquito breeding conditions. Sufficient water depth should be provided
in the base flow barrel(s) during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be
installed in a manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance
aquatic life passage: 1) by depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining
channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by providing resting places for fish and other
aquatic organisms. In essence, base flow barrel(s) should provide a continuum of
water depth and channel width without substantial modifications of velocity.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever
possible to avoid channel realignment. Widening the stream channel must be avoided.
Stream channel widening at the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases
water velocity causing sediment deposition that requires increased maintenance and
disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed
in a manner that precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures
should be professionally designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed
down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with
native tree species. If the area reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the
area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be utilized as mitigation for the subject project or
other projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-4672, Wayne County, SR 1537 over Nahunta Swamp. Anadromous species are found
in this portion of Nahunta Swamp. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines
for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15
to June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard
recommendations apply.
B-4673, Wayne County, SR 1728 over Walnut Creek. Anadromous species are found in
this portion of Walnut Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
Bridge Memo 4 . June 10, 2005
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
3. B-4680, Wilson County, SR 1507 over Whiteoak Swamp. We recommend replacing this
bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
4.. B-4682, Wilson County, SR 1628 over Contentnea Creek. We recommend replacing this
bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
5. B-4588, Nash County, SR 167 over Stoney Creek. Our records indicate Federal and
State listed mollusk have been observed upstream and downstream of this site, including
the Federally endangered Dwarf Wedge mussel. NCDOT should conduct a mussel
survey at this site prior to construction. We recommend replacing this bridge with a
bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
6. B-4589, Nash County, SR 1945 over Toisnot Swamp. We recommend replacing this
bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-4555, Johnston County, US 70 over Norfolk Southern Railroad. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
8. B-4556, Johnston County, NC 50 over Black Creek. Anadromous species are found in
this portion of Black Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium.from February 15 to
June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
9. B-4558, Johnston County, SR 1330 over Stoney Fork Creek. Anadromous species are
found in this portion of Stoney Fork Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing
guidelines for anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from
February 15 to June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard
recommendations apply.
10. B-4559, Johnston County, SR 1330 over Black Creek. Anadromous species are found in
this portion of Black Creek. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
11. B-4541, Halifax County, SR 1434 over Quankey Creek. We recommend replacing this
bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
12. B-4503, Edgecombe County, SR 1250 over Tar River. Anadromous species are found
in this portion of the Tar River. NCDOT should follow all stream crossing guidelines for
anadromous fish passage, including an in-water work moratorium from February 15 to
June 15. We recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations
apply.
NCDOT should routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the
vicinity of bridge replacements. Restoring previously disturbed floodplain benches should
narrow and deepen streams previously widened and shallowed during initial bridge installation.
Bridge Memo 5 June 10, 2005
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams.
Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box
culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks and reduce habitat fragmentation.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.
Cc: Gary Jordan, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Raleigh

Uniied States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
June 10, 2005
Ms. Colista S. Freeman, P.E.
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Freeman:
This letter is in response to Dr. Gregory Thorpe's request for comments from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) on the potential environmental effects of the proposed replacement of
the bridge on SR 1434 crossing Quankey Creek (TIP No. B-4541) in Halifax County, North
Carolina. These comments provide scoping information in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
For bridge replacement projects, the Service recommends the following general conservation
measures to avoid or minimize environmental impacts to fish and wildlife resources:
Wetland, forest and designated riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and minimized
to the maximum'extent practical;
2. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, a plan for compensatory
mitigation to offset tmavoidable impacts should be provided early in the planning
process. Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity via conservation
easements, land trusts or by other means should be explored at the outset;
Off site detours should be used rather than construction of temporary, on-site bridges.
For projects requiring an on-site detour in wetlands or open water, such detours should be
aligned along the side of the existing structure which has the least and/or least quality of
fish and wildlife habitat. At the completion of construction, the detour area should be
entirely removed and the impacted areas be planted with appropriate vegetation,
including trees if necessary;
4. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons. In waterways that may serve as travel corridors for
fish, in-water work should be avoided during moratorium periods associated with
migration, spawning and sensitive pre-adult life stages. The general moratorium period
for anadromous fish is February 15 - June 30;
'1
New bridges should be long enough to allow for sufficient wildlife passage along stream
corridors;
Best Management Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters should be
implemented;
7. Bridge designs should include provisions for roadbed and deck drainage to flow through
a vegetated buffer prior to reaching the affected stream. This buffer should be large
enough to alleviate any potential effects from run-off of storm water and pollutants;
8. The bridge, designs should not alter the natural stream and stream-bank morphology or
impede fish passage. To the extent possible, piers and bents should be placed outside the
bank-full width of the stream;
9. Bridges and approaches should be designed to avoid any fill that will result in damming
or constriction of the channel or flood plain. If spanning the flood plain is not feasible,
culverts should be installed in the flood plain portion of the approach to restore some of
the hydrological functions of the flood plain and reduce high velocities of flood waters
within the affected area.
Section 7(a)(2) of the Endangered Species Act requires that all federal action agencies (or their
designated non-federal representatives), in consultation with the Service, insure that any action
federally authorized, funded, or carried out by such agencies is not likely to jeopardize the
continued existence of any federally-listed threatened or endangered species. A biological
assessment/evaluation may be prepared to fulfill the section 7(a)(2) requirement and will
expedite the consultation process. To assist you, a county-by-county list of federally protected
species known to occur in North Carolina and information on their life histories and habitats can
be found on our web page at http://nc-es.fws.eov/es/countvfr.htmi .
Although the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database does not indicate any
known occurrences of listed species near the project vicinity, use of the NCNHP data should not
be substituted for actual field surveys if suitable habitat occurs near the project site. The
NCNHP database only indicates the presence of known occurrences of listed species and does
not necessarily mean that such species are not present. It may simply mean that the area has not
been surveyed. If suitable habitat occurs within the project vicinity for any listed species,
surveys should be conducted to determine presence or absence of the species.
If you determine that the proposed action may affect (i.e., likely to adversely affect or not likely
to adversely affect) a listed species, you should notify this office with your determination, the
results of your surveys, survey methodologies, and an analysis of the effects of the action on
listed species, including consideration of direct, indirect, and cumulative effects, before
conducting any activities that might affect the species. If you determine that the proposed action
will have no effect (i.e., no beneficial or adverse, direct or indirect effect) on listed species, then
you are not required to contact our office for concurrence.
We reserve the right to review any federal permits that may be required for this project, at the
public notice stage. Therefore, it is important that resource agency coordination occur early in
the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise and minimize delays in
project implementation. In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the
environmental documentation for this project include the following in sufficient detail to
facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined and detailed purpose and need for the proposed project;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the "no action" alternative;
3. A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact area that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers;
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife resources, both direct and indirect, and including
fragmentation and direct loss of habitat;
7. If unavoidable wetland or stream impacts are proposed, project planning should include a
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting the unavoidable impacts.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding our response, please contact Mr.
Gary Jordan at [phone], ext. 32.
Sipcere
Pete EL- jamin
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Bill Biddlecome, USACE, Washington, NC
Nicole Thomson/Christina Breen, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
?oF wArFRp W-ill, ..__...
iam G. Ross Jr., Secretap
\O G North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources:,.
Y Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director L`
-{ Division of Water Quality _
O ,? T
June 17, 2005
MEMORANDUM
TO: Colista Freeman, P.E., NCDOT Project Development & Environmental Analysis
FROM: Christina Breen, NC Division of Water Quality
SUBJECT: Scoping Review of NCDOT's proposed bridge replacement projects: B-4541
In reply to your correspondence dated May 20, 2005 (received May 31, 2005) in which you requested
comments for the referenced projects, the NC Division of Water Quality has the following comments:
L Proiect-Specific Comments
B-4541 Bridge over Ouankev Creek, Halifax Co.
1. Quankey Creek are class C waters of the State. Quankey Creek is on the 303(d) list for impaired use
for aquatic life due to impaired biological integrity. DWQ is very concerned with sedimentation and
erosion impacts that could result from this project. DWQ recommends that the most protective
sedimentation and erosion control BMPs be implemented to reduce the risk of nutrient runoff to
Quankey Creek. DWQ requests that road design plans provide treatment of the storm water runoff
through best management practices as detailed in Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface Waters. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0224(2) and 15A NCAC 2H. 1006.
2. This project is within the Neuse River Basin. Riparian buffer impacts should be avoided and
minimized to the greatest extent possible. Refer to 15A NCAC 2B .0233 for a table of allowable
uses.
H. General Comments Regarding Bridge Replacement Projects
1. If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, or concrete box culverts are used to replace
the bridge, then DWQ recommends the use of Nationwide Permit No. '14 rather than Nationwide
Permit 23.
2. If the old bridge is removed, no discharge. of bridge material into surface waters is preferred. Strict
adherence the Corps of Engineers guidelines for bridge demolition will be a condition of the 401
Water Quality Certification.
1 DWQ prefers spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream
and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and.vertical clearances provided by
bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
4. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream; stormwater should be directed
across the bridge and pre-treated through site-appropriate means (grassed swales, pre-formed scour
emen
holes, vegetated buffers, etc.) before entering the stream. Please refer to NCDOT fflffl
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters ^ E C p O Transpor
tation Permitting Unit Y Y WA 2 O
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, ..Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: 919d33.17B6I FAX [phone] Internet: httoY/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands OFFICE OF NATURAL ENVIRONMENT
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recyded/100/6 Post Consumer Paper
5. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream Concrete is
mostly made up of lime (calcium carbonate) and when in a dry or wet state (not hardened) calcium
carbonate is very soluble in water and has a pH of approximately 12. In an unhardened state concrete
or cement will change the pH of fresh water to very basic and will cause fish and other
macroinvertebrate kills.
6. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground
elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or
mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than
10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed.
Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving
the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to re-vegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
8. A clear bank (rip rap-free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath
the bridge.
Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect water resources must be
implemented prior.to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be maintained regularly,
especially following rainfall events.
10. Bare soil should be stabilized through vegetation or other means as quickly as feasible to prevent
sedimentation of water resources.
11. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area. Sandbags, rock
berms, cofferdams, dr other diversion structures should be used where possible to prevent excavation
in flowing water.
12. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in order to
minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other pollutants into streams. This
equipment should be inspected daily and maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from
leaking fuels, lubricants, hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
111. General Comments if Replacing the Bridge with a Culvert
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for aquatic life and fish passage. Generally, the culvert or pipe
invert should be buried at least 1 foot below the natural streambed (measured from the natural
thalweg depth). If multiple barrels are required, barrels other than the base flow barrel(s) should be
placed on or near stream bankfull or floodplain bench elevation (similar to Lyonsfield design). These
should be reconnected to floodplain benches as appropriate. This may be accomplished by utilizing
sills on the upstream end to restrict or divert flow to the base flow barrel(s). Sufficient water depth
should be provided in the base flow barrel during low flows to accommodate fish movement. If
culverts are longer than 40-50 linear feet, alternating or notched baffles should be installed in a
manner that mimics existing stream pattern. This should enhance aquatic life passage: 1) by
depositing sediments in the barrel, 2) by maintaining channel depth and flow regimes, and 3) by
providing tysstt{?$ l aced T¢T fiSfa andoFher aquatic organisms. In essence, the base flow barrel(s)
shqu)diptd?.id, cUnt,MuuiA ormp;er depth and channel width without substantial modifications of
14
velti4i
1?; ]ot1P ? ? ? ?? L!

2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during
normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated along the existing channel alignment whenever possible to avoid
channel realignment. Widening the stream channel should be avoided. Stream channel widening at
the inlet or outlet end of structures typically decreases water velocity causing sediment deposition that
requires increased maintenance and disrupts aquatic life passage.
4. Riprap should not be placed in the active thalweg channel or placed in the streambed in a manner that
precludes aquatic life passage. Bioengineering boulders or structures should be professionally
designed, sized, and installed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure.
If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland
impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be
on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-
year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area
should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. Tall fescue should not be used in
riparian areas. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to
wetlands. if successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional information, please contact Christina Breen at [phone].
cc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Chris Militscher, USEPA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Gary Jordan, USFWS
File Copy
?b5/'11/2011 / BB: 513 `Jl`J/`Jlbybb KHLF'H WHl ItHLALJ A=, F'Aut JL
is
U
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
TO:
CC:
FROM:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
December 1, 2005
Pam Williams, Project Planning Engineer
LYNAo TIPPEiT
SE=ARY
John Merritt, Natural Environment Project Management Group
Jason W. Mays, Natural Environment Biological Surveys Group
- SUBJECT: TIP B-4541 Bridge 24, SR 1434, over Quankey Creek in Halifax County
Transportation Improvement Project B-4541 proposes the replacement of Bridge # 24 on
SR 1434 (Raleigh Road) over Quankey Creek in Halifax County_ The US Fish and
Wildlife Service lists the federally Endangered dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heterodon) as a species occurring in Halifax County. This project site was visited by
NCDOT personnel: Logan Williams, Karen Lynch, Mike Sanderson, on October 25, 2006
for the purposes of habitat assessment and surveys for this species. The group spent
approximately 2.0 personihours of effort searching for mussels using visual and tactile
methods as well as additional time spent doing general habitat assessment and searching
for additional habitat types. No freshwater mussels of any species were encountered
during these efforts and the habitat can be characterized as unsuitable for the species in
question.
Habitat at this site can best be characterized as marginal for dwarf wedgemussel, but the
lack of other mussel species at this site is a good indicator that they do not occur here.
Furthermore, there is currently no indication that the species has ever been collected from
the Roanoke River Basin, despite no obvious reason that it should not occur there. Under
these circumstances it is appropriate to state that B-4541 will have no effect on this
species.

MAILJNG ADDRESS:
NC DEPMTMENr OF TR PORTATON
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT MID ENNRONMENTAL ANL. m
1548 MAIL SERNCE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 278991 SLB
TELEPNoNE: 919-7333141
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE; www.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANBPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
PL ZIGN Nc

Bridge No. 24 on SR 1434 over Quankey Creek Bridge Replacement
T.I.P. No. B-4541 Halifax County
APPENDIX E
WETLAND DATA FORMS
?Fv
DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: T.I.P. No. B-4541 Date: 09/29/05
Applicant/Owner: NCDOT County: Halifax
Investigator(s): Steven Busbee, PWS and Rhett Baggett State: NC
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: W? ..as
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: DP3
If needed, explain on reverse.
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soecies Stratum Indicator
1 Polygonum sagittatum herb OBL 9
2 Liquidambarsryraciilua shrub FAC+ 10
3 Acer rubmm shrub FAC b 11
4 Carex sp. herb 12
5 Impatiens capensis herb FACW 13
6 Juncus effusus herb FACW+ 14
7 Rosa pahu tris herb OBL 15
8 16
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC-)

6/6 =100%
All of the dominant plant sp ecies are FAC or wetter.
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in remarks):
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
X No Recorded Data Available Welland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
7 Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits (on leaves)
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: N/A (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
X Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Depth to Free Water in Pit: >12 (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: 11 (in:) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Wetland hydrology indicators are p resent.
ALOE Welland Data Forms Page 1 of 2 6118/2007

SOILS D133 Continued
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Emporia-Wedowee Com plex. 1-6% slopes (EwB) Drainage Class well drained
Reference: USDA Halifax County Soil Survey (1974)
Taxonomy (Subgroup): T is Ha ludults and T is Kanha ludults Indicate Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descri Lion:
. Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Honzon (Munsell Moistl (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
0->12 B 5Y 5/1 5YR 4/6 many/distinct loamy clay
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List (Inclusions)
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Law-Chroma Colors - Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
Indicators of hvdric soils are present.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No, (Circle
etland Hydrology Present? Ye No
(Circle)
Hytlric Soils Present? Ye No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Data point is representative of a jurisdictional wetland area.
Approved by HOUSACE 2,92
ACOE Weiland Data Forms Page 2 of 2 6/1812007

Proje ci. rain
Count;-
Name of eve
s?
'Al a t e F st0racrc I
?
SnOAShvehne stahNzadun _
.?.

Pollutant removal

Vt;itiliie Was t

^?..a6c life vales ...L??._

F.B .."i:a t40ni E:7UOai.ICn t
..._ /.?__
acres Wetland ldd
we,il
x r,.40
x GQ
x S.C10
x 2.00 =
x 4.GO =
i.u0 =
Jq
V et/and ScGre
M' ''i
And 7 pain[ 0 in se n_ Me. VV 0 nerd and > i O% , -3n, nine i . lance within 112 We upsu am, ti psopt w rad,
,,,,,,,,,,,,,..,. I, ,..,, .,,,,,.....,,.,.,: ..,,,.,,.,,.,,,.,..........
..,
Y

and acs es Vierlanrwt
? Scttcrnland harc;. oed forest C] pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
? S.:amp forest ? Bog/fen
? lvet flat ? Ephemeral wetland
CI PocoSin ? Carolina, Say
01 So, forest ? Other
City system cannot Le ppiied to Sa!e or L78CU5tl n12.rshes or stream channels
p ftt??l%t
lat 'storage x , 00 I

^t
Crank; Shc dine stabilization
x
e.OG
t. }.... fir' m nd 5ccre
Pcllutnnt renlovai x 5.00
?{
r 2
00
_ ildlife habitat x .
tuar.it <llui _ x ^ .OC Ell" P
ilOrlf r7UCa131r ?1 _I- X
?a
Add 1 ,=^r: i, if; sc.- si.,?e :-atershLd and. > I01. nonpcin' diStJrb30CC 1[hin 1 /,, ;rile ups roam, up;.ope, Or mdius

$$$S$$SYSTIME$$s$$
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$DDN$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Ss$sUSERNAME$E$$ 09/0$/99
[CONTRACT: TIP PROJECT: B-4541 J
'o o ° 0
m

?_
O
U? P
O
N
N
N
N
y,
(ad
r C
"'
3 GGG 10
w
? /? T
D

T

r
p m

_
p
O

IbI??
lyj O

n
y ?

?
!
OD

J

\ V/ y

/Tr O

m
A

-Z

0
C)
vi 3z
0

y
N
N
m
/ 9 / n N

S

cB
O
O
z O o n, pz m` /??
cm Z
y

°
v m OD
o

C

z
p

y

y

.
Z

A m
-v -
c
i u
1416
10

'b

"•

4
n O N N O < A
f1
G
o C y S
w
G o
o
°m
y

O
m
9L91 -
o
H II II
II u, w
v IP
a II II
N
O II

W 2,'
b Z y
O
T -
9 w
` A.

\\
O O N a m V a
/
O(1; aE
N D • e e O a 9?
O
r= Q ? O m /? /V N
m
O

y r r
m m
D G1 G1
r y y
r = _
m
Z

O N
C
C
a
a A

D
a
j

-a m A
O

II ?
O
II a

p y
O O
N o 0
3I;
z
o?
C5
m
m ? m
m ?
a

o om =0?

b
°z D o M @
j b 0 ?""+rh
c?e
z a z
? o
`
I O
m
e
m

? ? ?yy
y
O Y
C
a n

ti

z

M
H
(n
S a
m
^ 3 6Y%19p y0 y\
Q ?y,Y ,,'Rw S`
h

Il I1 w i //
II
I /
O
I
jN % /
1
? II
? Dy
?
I '
%/?
I Irn 0°/'iy?

rJ) G) cn
I (7)

DZ / /
I
D
Z
oo ; lam'/ , v
_
W ? ?' J N
+0
PI) I
I / + O
i o
Ul m
o m
O // -o
/: co
A
cn

WpNKEY CREEK
j?
f(/
cq
t

"i f

r it
cn p fTl
m yW Z -

N II
W O ii N ?
+ G7 i? D
?ao^m ?0
O
W O) L
+ m
C)f a o 0
n i
oW
?I I ?
I IQ A

? Cll
I I m
IIII A
?
?I I o
A
S?
m
r
pz
D
a X
?a
=z
m
m
? D
?z
^D ?
l J \
U)?
m
D
h
? Z l
b
b
b? ax I
fit ? fix„ N
cb ?? `J
n7 ?
b
C
T
O
y
i
e
'v
00
?A
a?

O
V
Ut
°
O ?
D
n
? m
4
? 'r• F
?i
\
O
N
A
D
? o
e
n
'm
cn
O

W
O
O
-n
(D
(D
I
(n Z
m
W N
O J
m W
N ?
y v
a
A
J T
N W
ut ?
qI O
O
fC
?

r ? C

s
N ? ?
m
I
Jn D O 13
N
IJO ? ?
0
N
n
'm
m
'D L1=73 1 l
m a o a m ?
g
o
Z O D
O o
O ? m ?
Z
?

r O O
2
u
O
0
n
6

0
Z
K n
n
O N
0 0 o
rt
1

0
b UI
C
m
N . D
m O
? N
C i
? N
O
• A
n
m
°
A
D
w
U
O
x n
\ \`\.
n n
'• \ o n ..
y n..
0
O
O
O
N
0
r
D T
n m' m
o ?k
m ,.v
w
n
? o
A
N
N •\
o °
o °
ti
D D
m ?
W
w.
X
Z 40h
-1 o

to
o V CD (D

C a
?

D CD
O_
0
CD
M

e I?
O
?l m
V

N
v O 9
? 2bp p I o
0 y
n y
y
O
?
? Z
p
eg
m ? y
C ?j ? C C
g ?N
? ? n n
F

a
V
Cn
O
W
O
O
-n
(D
CD
-i
5I
v
a
w m
ml? ?I
o
N m
?a
;a
W
i
n
? m
o
T
.9I
mOm
K
mmm ®Y
? O
y ?
yD ?
_y O U
rn

OW -""-a
!D O
G1 C X
(D (D
W V?
A
N
W
CL ch
.{? CD
z
Oh
--f 0 0 CA)

® ? < co

W
z R fD
N
:r A
SI)

s
m W
M
_
?• -0 m
m
X7

N Ln
m m
m m
N H
mm
NANM
T
= A
C rI
IN A
TO
O '-'
A m
N
1
C
tD
p m
?. Z
6SSSSEEEBSSSS

1\
\ I
1
a?? 111 I
V? ? III
I
= I
g I
s I
I
n O III
§ I
n
N
\/ // h k -
J kk'I`kkkmYik 4" kk k a 20an
kk kk kk^Y.kdkl" nY^?ha
7 kk kk k??kk?mk a? k '° C<Ni
< k r.?k
I kkk ry"?k?J?k?i.S ?+`H
?k k'k ,k4k kk'?k YA N.
k k fy
kk kk k4 k k?` k?k k? O
k kk k kk k
kkk kkkk 'k
Ih k k k k k F' /i
(k'I`kkk kk k?'k
k kk kk kkk kk
k,kk kkk kk4
k kk k
\4k ?` k
\k k \
ly k k?
1k
k.
\
------ -a;
- . ----------- --
n --
m y?lrOD?
n
u u11 It 11 it
?I?VW?'m0
I
I
w
a
e m???oDv
II II II II II II IIMH
VI t, mtH\n?lVO
?i\a.I Ccnul4a
map+
Cl O
m U7O m
z cm z
o :1) z o
-1 mo
Om D m -Ifrl
? r-
m I m cco
D-n
,-n D 3 Or
z m r
=
C-) -1
D
D m
z
N U1

?O
Z
of V? X
z

Cl Cl
z
N
Hf
m m
m m
N N
M m
m m
y m
r T
-40
2 ,-a
c 17
y X
T Q
m
c
4
c
mm
z
cn
S
N-1 p
O
m
z
0
r->m
rcn
m
D3
?um
Zn
MD
Z
N
m
0
(n o
c m
mz
no
D M
mm
m cn
:E:3
D?
M
MD
?
In
z
a
11 /O
i
C'n
m
N
0
m
z
:EM o
MM
-i?
r
D-
Z
or
r
z
N-.. O.
DZ
ao ?r
W;.L?
N O u. Z
10 0
7mr
0O
AA z
10 ,

?m
O X
N
co
mz
?o
mW
o?
<o
m c')
om
Vf?
•fc ? ' !Ic
)
/
I' I
II I
?I I
Iit
1^I I
? I
I I
? II
I ?
I? I
REVISIONS
------------
------------
III
??Y)l'? .i l Illlllly// i
II
l l/ w ?00
l l/0 •0? i ti
/ 06 0 a
/ m a
/
/
Ca?rm
CU
6
41
?z -'j, /r?N
I /r
Ica ??? ?
1
rn
J
G-)
m
0
m
N
O o
0
mm

op anCD
a ?a
?-Y C)?
2?v^
8 pj z
d?
15

y' ?
J ? -
C

'
a
r 2
?z
m
S6ESSEEES EI58ESEEOGNEESSEEEESEE1E488
03 10
m
r
I
In
D
m
N Z
W m
w
Wv
N
w m ?k
T
,NO
O z
N C
1 3

O
}
O
o I
1
I

I

? r
II m
?
Z
co ?p
_

N

- w

N

r m co

Ln
D
T
+ ° I m
0
° o
g En
D _
Z
r
w 00

nE
ti
m g
n
~ ggmm oo
mm0m a9 m?
'm o I
I ^'
?'
m
w o y yymm ?IA Ln ^" ?a I c

O
?= C c=j n?mrl
i
rn' -
I
T-
-- m F - ml
O i o v I
0
2 2? 2 n _ I y d w
+ 1? O
A ?m C a °pN D7C .

°o ? m i4 ?m?8
8 8N n m-
"
Z +Z
I
?
8e
o „

s'
' F.

r>
H
v
03 m
i y
? > ?_
- - P
?,
o`> 1
D
m m?
is D

~ <n?`?
tiN
?
? '<
yN? m
m'v ? >m
y
V1 m
00N
l il V
j n + m TT
N m
} N
O
° ig °O - O z
N G1
NC
r3

c

O r
i
I _D
p P
t
I o°o
N
+ I o
°
o 1

m:2
r m
m
4
N

m
y
mm
M
"
m V
J
rtI
' W
om
A w r

O m
?=
a
A p Z o z 'o
m Em zLm ?
I
v -1 y
Q ?.
? C? a
a F
z
r
r I M ? i m
z
w Z ? o
v
<

ak
C
?r
Q ?
tp `7 : 0
N N_ o
0 0
O
O
ESEEEESYST IME$$$$$
SSESSEE BS EEEE EESOGNE888E5 Eff EEEESEEE
P/2]/99

I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
,
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I ,
I
I
,
?
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I

I
I
I
I
I I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I

I I

I I
I
I I
I
I I

I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I I
I
I I
1
I

y N
l N I I
I ? I I I I
W I O` I ? I
I N ? N I I ?
I I A I I

I
I I

I
I I I
I
I I I
I I
' , 1
I
I

I,
O I

0
0 X
_ _
+ + +
° I ° °

o
i
?
o I
G
o
Im
I
o

1
00
i4?- IN

I
I I ? ?
?

Ln
CA Cl)

(n

N
y
?
r
I I
I I

J 00
LA I
I
er 00 I C)
p
. ;O I
m
I

N
N
I 60
V
I
N
D=
I
I m ? D m f I
I'. c> N
- I
D I
r I m Z z l I
I z I I I
,

I C) I n I I I
M n m (7 I I
D= j D= I I i o
I ? D I ? D I I N
I _
z N I z z I I I N
R
G7 m G7 N I I "
I FT7 I I I
, I ? I I

I I I I
I I
I 2
2
I m I I ? ;o

I
I N
I I
I
I ?

? Z

m
I o

I
I
I I
I I
I
I
I I I I x
w =

I
I ? I
? I
? i
o
tsh.dgn
'(CONTRACT. C202234 TIP PROJECT: B-4541
0 o c ? 3n h
c, 0
rQ GyG 1.
O m O ?? \ m
9 P
m = S ?Z
6 O
c o p
u -
x I'D
z ca
n N N pbj 9 S
0
~< O O m ~ p 2 9L91 a m °? N 0 D U II II II x Zo O Dr ? _ ?1??v F
O II p? p O N? ? m _
p ? P "
n? T? Je G N a y Q? n.i 90
_ N LA
rm Fn
m
Z p
O p O;
O <I
v
? O I
0
A j
n 7 II
0 0
.°0 0
N
3: 3
Z? p?
m
p?
N ? C
2 P. 93
g
m
v
m mm
H
e
m
b x
0
b
?s
??v
n
as
o
11
b
2
r
y
yQ
04
no
7y N
y
o \1 \? /
111 11? py/ j ?p
roo I ? ? ?ja? r m
rn G) i o
D cl) G)
D T Z
J ? V
w? +o
+0 j
01 G7 o m
om 60
O 0
W
A
A
r J
OuANKEY CREEK
`ryc _
R
?m
z
cn v
D0° ? rZ
+ ? D
co m
I ?o
O 0)
L
o d o m
0
m 0 W
A
n, A
O J
c ?i cn
? a
nb n? ? ? C7
?7 A
CO)
'n
a
a
Y Y a
u y
u
P P
N J S
a

p
N ?p
N
?
G G ? ?

?+ u 8

0

£
v
?' g
b7
? m ?
C
r 0
OF
s?
c
V C'
O
a
0
x
0
a
v
S
f °
;.
s
0
n. I

S
a

o T ?' c o ? 3 m o
?g
o_
T o' $ O 3 ? _ ]
III?m?°??
[?aQH?ox
N N a a a
O O 0 QT ,V
O O ° Q6 O
N J N ° ?C
A
a
i
0 :E
p ox
1 O N H
0 e
RJ

C
0
2
3
y

0
b
O
o ? ° m e m ?' $ X m' m' vp
3 N n n; s a n m
3 c o 0 0 3 O o a• o a
°< go R is 8 & 0,6
? c? a `p n N ? T
n= a n o' 0 4
a - 3 = s
I I
I I
O Q ? ®n In ic.
?p r I I
i1 ? ? ? i I? ? Y 0 ? 0 a % T
• 0 0 0 0 0 S
? a? a? a" o 0 0 0 0? m' p
?? $ 'o a o' o ti ? m
0 -!t I I
444111 Gl T p1
] 4 ? G ? O T
T a u a u D 51 a p a a o
O 9 C L O p , T a
0 Y O
Q n n; n a n
p ] S
S O d C O• O p
? o s
0
C C in
I ? 1
I I I
I I I
? I I
a i i j i ®? o 0 0¢?
I
I
ml O O ` N a x ° C
O f1 N p p ] ; O S N
] a C ' ? p yyo' 0
m ? ? a x 4
o O O
C_
R
a
I
m g
b 9?? e o ? •
- A

Z ya a y a a a s a `'G1 Q
y m m 1° S 3_ T$ m° ti I
??°; s o? o g S c. c n?" r. a i
°o °o ? a n ' ? C $ 3 S 'o
o a 9 a o g??? m' c 3
s? n a m a
Frog ass'
9 ? O
c
.0.00 I l I V I I
sE
RD I 'o
E
i
a°oaa 0 ne ?= >
d d d° m O 7 °O 0 p = O S O
a n ? P. P. n 3 n °-20
° T 3 3° 3 0,12 o s T? s 3 a a c O
3 3
g
cc s F f s s a ?
r.c?
o e ° 2 m
'•? 3 3 m
III I ? I? a
z a p ? ;,?: I D S { ?0 ?o
Iml II? t4¢
(Ss-aa T-•?? g?_??
O i S 0 ? T
O ? O y C ? O
41 ° O , n O
0 0 0 °. C S 2-
? ? T O O O O O °
2.
, ? a s
° x
0 0
N °
C
m
I
I
• I ®m®o??-o-.
I
I
I
s 1? O a

S

O
° 4

S

Y a

m
O
n
?
S °

° 9

;

;

O
- Z?
°s
?F

p

x
a

o
C
a
,
0•
K
c

C
S
o` y

n ?

n
0

v
I m
0

n
O
Z
m
O
Z
r
m
O
Z
2
m
3z
W
crA
P

m
s
?
?
X' X' N
a
g
?
o
?
E?
8
?°
3
?
7
?
7 7
?
8
A
o
s
s
o
a ?it a ?
a a ; o a
o O it v

N
.
^N
;
p. n
C o e o
O. m
O_
F n ° ?.
p O
a o
6 n n
< g o
N ] `Z i J ?
, S a S
°
3 a b^ ^_ 3 P O x x 3
R
o
'" 31 S
o
n
? 3
r _
o c c S 8
O R

^

m

o
]
o

o
? C H ?. n ]
o
o' C a E C H
O m o- O m C

m
I

s in
i
I
I I
?
I
I

I
I
?
4 I

I
I
I I

I I

I
l
I
I I
I ?
I f
I I
I ; I
I
i
rl*
P
11

cn
e?
z?
00
0
?e
O
n
?o
n s
r .- m
s z .., r
r ?^ 9 mo
-? z a n
z ? x Ina
a cio Az x v--
o_ '^?-? _m a z zv ?
m7?5 alvmvc'?m°o zo D
a z ?^ y o z o° m w? m o ?
a z N e a m n a z
rlnm a-ro°m? mti
o a r p a ° a a? m
Z ???r A0°? ?ffz5 rz-I -?. N
C (l I S D a ti m
O.r--.N N O-:nyNm X00° •n••rr??
N O- I C O ° ti C7 C l 7J T i y
....m ao a z z-? vo c
Inv ~Om-c n °? z? I--I
N O
° A -1 O a Z O O N O a Vf O
HI
m0' Iz?v ?z wio mm O
m z omz ai; z e`/'+a Z
r ? D° N ? ti CO -?
m r x
° N ? ? ?O N N N
(n ?I O x
y O .. T T ?
n. T ti, o x
m ?- -<m
N y
y
O
H
H
O

n `tv
ym b pp
Ci ? N b
h y
A
b ? 00
(,j POI
OZ o
ra
c
(b(pp
O O PJ
ro ZN H
O
S x
O
O
m y
Qb
N
}O
b
h
n
n
br
a h to O A
?"y H
OD ? Q G
? ? tl
O b
b
?a
b
b
O
m u ^ o
SP
P?
O Syi
?< -o r
I
\\\\ ® W
I
` ? m m m m -
\m?l4, rrrr T
S 6 b 6
N .

N r: ?. m •
? _ w s
m
s s e c
Oy NNNN
W w
l w
?J V
J j
Y N +- W W •
fJ ? .D pl
N W _ y'
r
` Ol S W W
Y

/ / O D m
,
[ ? 0 6 O 6

I
r ti?
I ? ? n

N ??? wd mlv -

0 oc
y c _
0 ' 0 0
ms m++
I m m
ti
614k
c'Y
/ co
Wr
IJ BK
? N
? OI I
y II?
IF
WpNKEY CREEK

\ We I IN
O
?m
r
I
W
r
I
O
3 3 3
m z r z m-- n r z m - a W r Z,:
3D 3- D 3m y.o y.o ? y.o _
W A J W W J N- m B
? D J - U D J m D?
m ti a
T? O .-. W .T .0 z N~ N
m UI O O -- m O (T m N O W
Z Z z
.0 v m: a m? m m m 7
D J N m- D m m- D? m
m N m<-- m m< m m m<
M D- m D- m D
M N ti N c N
o w o m w
Tl J O ?1 AJ O \1°m 3- m? z o W °z
Mo
m W W m y m m
r ti w w m m _ .
? 0 - Cl W A N
S UI -- C m O N-
o a c m .
Z N 'UI - B - 3
mN m O1 °'
m, m
o m m
r ? ?
m
r
cc
D
In
m
_r
Z
D
D
`C'
ry
` J
O
Llk
'V
m
Z
C7
D
O
D
D

Z
r m
m
nL I
in
A ? 70
fill D O
n ?
= w m
y N
= N
O
14
C17
?o
2'
m -4
I
Z r Z
..{ O O
m n mm
D m
z G)
_ +
fD
O
y y
M m
m m
rN
T
10
C L
y I
II A
O O
P m
M
c
m
v
z
y
OF \ I o m %??? , ,
Z`• 111 I II 1 2 0/// / /7/?i - K
D C30 a mm / // ?4
o n ? I, II .//r9/
' o y v I Il I j„?, ?`
' m n O I I 'I ///
m ? II I
I ? " I I I s?? / +
1 I I? I /
'v r i ill II I // ar'o
MIN. o ? , ? +
IIn / ? s
k
O) /0000
p,
!PJ t,,,l rl r '^ S
?OV
r o
r
m
p ?i
? Q off' ?? • S 8 S $: O?
+ m u4
,Q n e r
g 8$
O sy q g / dtr ,$r yam 6 Q Z
CI9. -/ $$ k gib" ??= D m
} ? i 35w I
>c Z +
o co
4* *-
II + pp 6/ ?? .4+k k*+44 f P ?i O A
•Oi.6p6/ SYg4p4 / « +F k +*+ N T
m2
p4 kp\y k + F Iv p+
3-tw .. G 4 4 4 I+1 \D c
?b A + 44 «? ty c
? ?/k4 4 + W ?T
50 0
k F n I* k +Z 4 aLaL
4
?N Sm *k+ I I k+4,+4k+*4 4 a o ?m
Z > "N++ + I *+ * +* ?
4 ?°+'?'444' I ?*44+ +kk * c? W any
4
dN ?O N:44 I 4*++444 F } l.•I 15#00 W=
J k I I k r
m? 4*+* + +k+ 4+? WC)
?+ 4+M 'I 4 ?k +k4 T
YI + ? r I k I (p
o * +* ?a I a ?+ r
4 k/ ?
c?hk .? ? sl ] I 5 ? 1 0 .
*4 .
+« 4.
4 I
k
?- Z ;«+ \
1
I " I
0 p s IE ?? _ ___- _ o
a/ -
o
p ? II I ?? °s
I ;
8 I II a
Nn
II " sresz
1 n . scat..[ x

m D`I-oDa
n it 14 U-4
0
y , •IyY$
W
a
Il n n n II n nv?
2
O,)2
y\oa?