19960853 Ver 1_Complete File_19960903

960854
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETf JP-
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 19, 1996
,
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Chatham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 419 over Haw River on
SR 1011. TIP No. B-2814, State Project No. 8.2520901, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-1011(2).
Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action classification
form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by the
Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categoric
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of t e CE doc ent to
the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural esour , Division
of Water Quality, for their review.

j
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerel ,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, DEM, Water Quality Section
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E., Planning & Environmental
TIP Project No.: B-2814
State Project No. 8.2520901
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-1011(2)
A. Project Description :
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 419 on SR 1011 over the Haw River in Chatham
County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge at the existing location. The new
bridge will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes, and a
1.2 meter (4 foot) offset on each side. The new bridge will be approximately 168 meters
(550 feet) long and will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing structure.
Traffic will be detoured along existing local roads, as shown in figure 1.
This section of SR 1011 is part of a designated NC bicycle route, US-I Carolina
Connection, an intrastate bicycle highway running from the Virginia state line to the
South Carolina state line. Since this is a designated bicycle route, the replacement bridge
will have 1372 millimeter (54 inch) bicycle safe rails and 1.2 meter (4 foot) offsets, as
indicated, to meet AASHTO bicycle safety standards.
B. Pose and Need:
Bridge No. 419 has a sufficiency rating of 17.8 out of 100. The deck of Bridge
No. 419 is only 7.0 meters (23 feet) wide. For these reasons Bridge No. 419 needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following 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 driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
2
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
4. High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures will be
implemented and strictly maintained throughout project construction.
The US Geological Survey Gauging Station attached to the north side of the
existing bridge is no longer in use and all gauging equipment has been removed.
The remaining pipe and housing can be disposed of as part of the removal of the
existing bridge.
3
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2018
$ 1,725,000
$ 31.000
$ 1,756,000
3100 VPD
4800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide with two 3.6 meter travel
lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved shoulders on each side. A total shoulder width of
at least 2.4 meters (8 feet) will be provided, including the paved shoulder. Shoulders will
be increased by at least 1.0 meter (3 feet) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
80 km/h (50 mph)
Functional Classification:
SR 1011 is classified as an Rural Minor Collector Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification system. SR 1011 has a posted speed limit of 45 mph.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer concurs with the chosen recommendation and the detour
route shown in figure 1.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be
completed. If the project consists Qnly of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not
need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or ? X
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur ? KI

4
t
f
h ?
ff
d X
(3) romous
is
Will the project a
ect ana
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1 /3) acre
id
d
i
i
i X
ze
and have all practicable measures to avo
an
m
n
m
takings been evaluated ?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? F-1 X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted ?
X
by proposed construction activities ?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
X
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(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 ? 1-1 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
X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
F1
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources ? F-] X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required ? F X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway ? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
5
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or X
land use for the area ?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business ? El X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor ? X F1
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control ? F-1 X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land X
use of any adjacent property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local ? X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? -
(21) 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
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? FI X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing roads, X
staged construction, or on-site detours ?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or ?
X
environmental grounds concerning the project ?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the action? ?
X
CULT URAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or ? X
listed on the National Register of Historic Places ? _-
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,

historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the ?
X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
6
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(1) Response to question 2 on page 4 - Endangered species
Cape Fear Shiner
The project is located 4 miles downstream of a known population of the
endangered Cape Fear Shiner. This fish is known to inhabit a section of the Deep River, 2
miles upstream of its confluence with the Haw River. Since it is highly unlikely that the
fish will occur at this location, no special project commitments other than the
implementation of HQW soil and erosion control measures will be required to address
possible endangered species impacts.
Bald Eagle
Haw River in the project vicinity is a large river sufficient to support eagle
foraging. In addition, Harris Lake is located 8 km (5.0 miles) to the east, and Jordan
Lake, with known populations of bald eagles, is located 5.6 km (3.5 miles) to the north.
Many large trees occur along the shoreline which could provide nesting sites.
Visual surveys for bald eagle nests were conducted within the project impact zone
and areas surrounding the Haw River in the project vicinity on July 22, 1996. No eagle
nests were observed. Given the survey results, it is apparent that this species does not nest
within the project vicinity. This does not preclude the possibility that a bald eagle could
forage within the project vicinity. However, foraging opportunities will not be adversely
impacted. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the bald
eagle.
Harperella
Habitat for harperella may exist in the project area. The Haw River at the
proposed crossing appears to have a sand to gravel substrate with steep banks. Though no
rocks were apparent during the site visit, rock outcrops may be present during periods of
lower flow which could provide protected shoreline habitat. A review of the NCNHP
database of rare and protected species revealed a known population of harperella is
reported to occur 3.2 km (2.0 miles) south of the project area.
Two small areas meeting habitat requirements for harperella were identified
during a July 22, 1996 site visit. The low-water conditions at the time of the survey
7
allowed wading to access these areas. Plant-by-plant surveys were conducted in these
areas and no specimens of harperella were observed. It can be concluded that this species
does not occur in the project area and will not be impacted by the proposed project.
G.
TIP Project No.: B-2814
State Project No. 8.2520901
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRSTP-10110.?
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 419 on SR 1011 over the Haw River in Chatham
County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge at the existing location. The new
bridge will be 9.6 meters (32 feet) wide, with two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes, and a
1.2 meter (4 foot) offset on each side. The new bridge will be approximately 168 meters
(550 feet) long and will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing structure.
Traffic will be detoured along existing local roads, as shown in figure 1.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X_ TYPE II (B)
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
7-23-Y6 W4yti? ???d
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
A
zL1-94, A Q -j-'_
Date ivision Administrator
oo'cH CARP ?'?.
?.•OFESS/4'% I
SEAL
21077
?q ' ?A G I N E :e '???
T Op
1111111111011
Federal Highway Administration
. ` f
? '
00 LIU

L411.
01 ' ? 1
0 449 ` ? 1 S1 f 1.f
_ ' ? tGr
U ' ?
?
1410' b u M. .75 f 0 ??
.: ,012
?J
•?9
1 OS'
•\ ?? r ?2:?" S M I I

CSx
.?F£P
Z
C
`y
?•r

Studied Detour Route
•
.A S 'r4,p ..•..• k:.i'.:iEi iiii
r?iiiii:•..:.
Moncvre ?::::::•
11i, off';.
S / fAg ROA
Lf Lf fps •
c::'s; ?o
loll*
'HAYW00D
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
YY (""ZIDIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 419 ON SR 1011
OVER HAW RIVER
B - 2814
0 mile 1 FIG. 1mile 1 FIG. 1
•'?Y Yuw'??!
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 31, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 419 on SR 1011 over Haw River, Federal
Aid Project BRSTP-1011(2), State Project
8.2520901, TIP B-2814, Chatham County, ER
96-7195, ER 96-8815
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your letter of April 22, 1996, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by Gerold Glover of the North Carolina Department of Transportation
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological resources were located within
the project area. Due to the absence of affected archaeological sites, Mr. Glover
has recommended that no further archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. We concur with this recommendation since this
project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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 Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sineerely, CNISION David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservatio
n Officer DB:slwcc: ?H. F. Vick T. PadgettG. Glover
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g?a
Federal Aid # bK.gTt?- l' ? l ) TIP # b• 2614 County C?dAfHAN
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description R-t:PLAe? tnR.iGG$ t. v. 411 •,j sr- loll vvr r- NA&A R.+.4e.R
On Ayy tI. 11 la'tlo, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
? Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the projects area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as I3p.toFf. n1•• k?1 arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Represent e.
411% ,olto
Date
HwA r the Division A inistrator, or of cr Federal Agency Date
th
?o Q f.,t A. ?-1??2_aYuVv __ ? ? t IT l (o
Representative, S'HPO

State Historic Preservation Officer
Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attache list will be included.

?'T,L l Z?t
11' S
•• i
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 419 on SR 101 1 over Haw River,
Chatham County, B-2814, Federal Aid Project
BRSTP-1 011(2), State Project 8.2520901, ER
96-7195
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
F?
SFP 15 1995
D!V/
?GHWA OF
?i_ONM On August 29, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years of
age in the area of potential effect is Bridge #419, which was built in 1926. We
recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate this bridge for
National Register eligibility. No further historic architectural survey is
recommended.
Since the likely alternate includes the placement of a detour structure south of the
existing bridge, we recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted prior to
project implementation.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
r
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ?P
Nicholas L. Graf
September 12, 1995, Page 2
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

r
.. sure,
JANAES B. HUNT )It.
GowikNC)R
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. MX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
20 June 1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
GARLAND Q. GARRETT JR
SEC RE FARY
James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 419 on SR
1011 over the Haw River, Chatham County; TIP
No. B-2814; State Project No. 8.2520901;
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-1011(2).
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of the natural resources within
the proposed project area, along with analyses of probable
impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of
project construction. Pertinent information on wetlands and
federally-protected species is also provided, with respect to
regulatory concerns which must be considered. Please contact
me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto
disk format.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
File: B-2814
(9
A
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 418 on
SR 1011 over the Haw River, Chatham County
TIP No. B-2814
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1011(2)
State Project No. 8.2520901
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2814
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
20 June 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ........................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................1
1.2 Methodology ....................................3
1.3 Definition of Areal Terminology ............... .4
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator ...... . 4
2.0 Physical Characteristics of Project Area ........... . 4
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................... .4
2.2 Soils ......................................... .5
2.3 Water Resources ............................... .7
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted
Surface Waters ......................... .7
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification .............. .8
2.3.3 Water Quality .......................... 10
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharges.... 10
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network ............... 10
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers ...... 11
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......... 11
3.0 Biotic Resources ................................... 13
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ....................... 14
3.1.1 Transportation Corridor Community...... 15
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest.. 16
3.1.3 Bottomland Hardwood Forest ............. 17
3.1.4 Upland Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest ...... 17
3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................... 18
3.2.1 Piedmont Brownwater River .............. 18
3.2.2 Piedmont Intermittent Stream ........... 19
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................ 19
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ..... 19
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities ......... 21
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics .............................. 23
4.1 Waters of the United States ................... 24
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and
Surface Waters ......................... 24
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......... 25
4.1.3 Permits and Consultations .............. 25
4.1.3.1 Section 404 Permits ........... 26
4.1.3.2 Water Quality Certification ... 26
4.1.4 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts .......... 26
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..................... 26
4.1.4.2 Minimization .................. 27
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ....... 27
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................... 28
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............ 28
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State
Listed Species ......................... 32
5.0 Summary ............................................ 33
6.0 References ......................................... 34
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion for the proposed project. The purpose of this
document is to inventory and describe the natural resources
which occur within the proposed right-of-way (ROW) boundaries
and which are likely to be impacted by the proposed action.
Assessments of the nature and severity of probable impacts to
these natural resources are provided, along with
recommendations for measures which will minimize resource
impacts.
This report identifies areas of particular environmental
concern which may affect the selection of a preferred
alignment or may necessitate changes in design criteria. Such
environmental concerns should be addressed during the
preliminary planning stages of the proposed project in order
to maintain environmental quality in the most efficient and
effective manner. The analyses contained in this document
are relevant only in the context of the existing preliminary
project boundaries and design. If design parameters and
criteria change, additional field investigations may be
necessary.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of bridge
no. 418 on SR 1011 over the Haw River. The project lies in
Chatham County, directly east of the town of Haywood (Figure
1). The existing structure is a two-lane bridge which will
be replaced with a similar facility. The existing
right-of-way is approximately 18 m (60 ft). Two alternates
are proposed:
Alternate 1) The bridge will be replaced on new
location, approximately 30 m (100 ft) south of the existing
bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge
during construction. After the new facility is completed,
the old bridge will be removed from the site. Project length
is 800 m (2625 ft) and right-of-way width is 30 m (100 ft).
Alternate 2) The bridge will be replaced in place, with
traffic maintained on off-site detours. Total project length
is 60 m (200 ft) on either end of the existing bridge and
right-of-way width is 18 m (60 ft).
1
IC
It Ve,.m
-Otte
I
I
rI

r
ix:hl_h
2?
!t1L ?? ?
ITZ-1
`? ?1 t t
ry?yp?'y q o !?69.
U `
7 Ja ? ` FCA
?
4 `? ?`
61 F`P, • Y
!1ll ` ? ?
o ?
1YL4 ° I .SS ald ` I

'oo Monon.
Itli
'r v
of'. ? ` ?
`
\•' ` ttT{.
' _
'S I?11 ?S ,I A.gro.n
\ 'fin
? t
1\ ttl o I?Tv
ii?'
? •(r
'J ?` ?.: i?;:???'
v
\
1 ALI
C cs*
y .t
r
o
HAYWOOD
?
le `
qT - '
:.
POP. 190 1.7f

cr

Studied Detour Route -? --

CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 419 ON SR 1011
OVER HAW RIVER
B - 2814
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
NORTH CAROLINA DEI'ARTMENT Of-'
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IIIGIIWAYS
J PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
cw?u 11RANCII
1.2 Methodology
Prior to a site visit, published resource information
pertaining to the project area was gathered and reviewed.
Resources utilized in this preliminary investigation of the
project area include:
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps
(Monocure, N.C., Merry Oaks, N.C.)
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) Maps (Monocure, N.C., Merry Oaks,
N.C.)
- Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS) Soil
Survey of Lee County, North Carolina (1989)
- NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis
Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Chatham County
(1995)
Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1993). Quantitative sampling was
not undertaken to support existing water quality data.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was obtained from the FWS
list of protected and candidate species (April 1, 1996) and
from the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats. NCNHP files were reviewed
for documented occurrences of state or federally listed
species and locations of significant natural areas.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT Environmental Biologist James W. Hauser on
4 March and April 17, 1996. Water resources were identified
and their physical characteristics were recorded. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were also
identified and described. Terrestrial community
classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al.
(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (198(T)1
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al.
(1985). Predictions regarding wildlife community composition
involved general qualitative habitat assessment based on
existing vegetative communities. Field surveys for
federally-protected species were performed following initial
habitat assessments where suitable habitat for each species
was identified.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were identified and
evaluated based on criteria established in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environment
Laboratory, 1987) and "Guidance for Rating the Values of
Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental
3
Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the
classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979).
1.3 Definition of Areal Terminology
For the purposes of this document, the following terms
are used concerning the limits of natural resources
investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by
the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of the
project alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area
extending 1.0 km (0.6 mi) on all sides of the project area,
and "project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to
the area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map, ie.
163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi).
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: James W. Hauser, Environmental Biologist
Education: MS, Forest Ecology, Virginia Tech;
BS, Forestry, N.C. State University;
Experience: NC Dept. of Trans., Env. Biologist
Peace Corps, Forest Ecologist
Expertise: Forest ecology, forest management,
wetlands science, community
classification
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS OF PROJECT AREA
Soil and water resources which occur in the project area
are discussed below with respect to possible environmental
concerns. Soil properties and site topography significantly
influence the potential for soil erosion and compaction,
along with other possible construction limitations or
management concerns. Water resources within the project area
present important management limitations due to the need to
regulate water movement and the increased potential for water
quality degradation. Excessive soil disturbance resulting
from construction activities can potentailly alter both the
flow and quality of water resources, limiting downstream
uses. In addition, soil characteristics and the
availability of water directly influence the composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in biotic communities, thus
affecting the characteristics of these resources.
2.1 Regional Characteristics
Chatham County lies in the Piedmont physiographic
province of North Carolina. Topography is characterized by
4
rolling hills with steeper slopes along major drainageways
and occassional level alluvial plains. In vicinity of the
project area, topography is nearly level to moderately
sloping, with slopes of approximately 5-10 percent rising up
from the floodplain. Project elevations range from 49 m (160
ft) to 55 m (180 ft) above mean sea level. Parent material
for soils in Chatham County is primarily heavily weathered
igneous and metamorphic rocks. Soils in the project vicinity
are principally derived from alluvial deposits of upland
sediments.
The majority of the project region is occupied by
agricultural fields and forestlands, with minor commercial
and residential development along primary roadways. Forested
tracts are interspersed throughout, both in upland and
riparian sites, and occupy a large proportion of the project
region. The total area of disturbed agricultural and
commercial development is less than 50 percent.
2.2 Soils
The Chatham County Soil Survey is in progress;
therefore, soil mapping is currently unavailable for the
project area. However, soil mapping is available for nearby
portions of the Haw River in Lee County. Table 1 provides an
inventory of specific soil types which may occur in the
alluvial portions of the project area based on an examination
of available soi maps and a knowledge of area soils. A brief
description of each soil type is also provided.
Table 1. Soils potentially occurring in the project area.
Specific
Mapping
Unit Percent
Slope Hydric
Class. Erosion
Hazard
Chewacla silt loam 0-2 I (1,1) Slight
Congaree silt loam 0-2 I (1,1) Slight
Wehadkee fine sandy loam 0-2 H (1,1) Slight
Note: H Hydric soils or soils ha ving hydric soils as a
major component.
I Soils with inclu sions of hydric soils in
depressional are as.
(1,1) Hydric soils whi ch suppo rt woody vegetati on and
are saturated by ground water
Chewacla soils formed from recent alluvial deposits
under forest vegetation along the floodplains of rivers and
streams. They are nearly level and frequently flooded for
5
brief periods, ususally during the winter and spring.
Chewacla soils are described as somewhat poorly drained and
moderately permeable, with a seasonal high water table at
0.2-0.5 m (0.5-1.5 ft) below the surface. In exposed areas,
surface water runoff causes a slight erosion hazard.
Included in Chewacla mapping units are smaller areas of
Wehadkee hydric soils which occur at the toe of adjacent
uplands.
Congaree soils are present within the floodplains of Haw
River and its tributaries. These soils are nearly level,
well drained, and permeability is moderate. Occasional
flooding occurs for brief periods during the winter and
spring. The seasonal high water table occurs at a depth of
0.8-1.2 m (2.5-4.0 ft). Although these soils are not
considered hydric, they do have the potential for hydric
inclusions of Wehadkee soils in wet topographic depressions.
Wehadkee soils generally occur in small depressions
within the floodplains or at the boundary between the
floodplains and upland slopes. Permeability is moderate, and
the seasonal high water table is within 0.8 m (2.5 ft) of the
surface. Wehadkee soils are frequently flooded for brief
periods and is classified as a hydric soil.
Erosion hazards are slight in the floodplain protions of
the project area primarily due to the nearly level
topography. Surface runoff velocity under such conditions is
low, limiting its erosive potential. However, along upland
areas where slopes are steeper, erosion of exposed soils is a
greater concern. Erosion control practices should be
strictly enforced within steep slope areas.
Soil wetness and frequent flooding are management and
construction concerns, primarily in the winter and spring,
but occassionally in the summer during storm events. Hydric
soils of the Wehadkee series comprise a significant
proportion of the project area in the southeastern quadrant
of the project area. Soil sampling in floodplain areas
revealed soil colors with low chroma values indicative of
hydric soils. Observed soil colors were 5GY1 at a depth of
15-20 cm (6-8 in) (Munsell Soil Color Charts).
Table 2 compares the ranges of potential forest
productivity for the soils described. Forests within the
project area are primarily associated with the alluvial
floodplain of the Haw River. The floodplain areas along the
Haw River currently support productive forestland, though no
evidence of active management was observed. As indicated in
Table 2, forest productivity for soils occurring in the
project area is good, particularly in comparison to typical
Piedmont upland areas.
6
Table 2. Potential forest productivity of soils in the
project area.
Site Index
Soil Series Loblolly Pine Yellow Poplar
Chewacla silt loam 96 100
Congaree silt loam 90 107
Wehadkee fine sandy loam 102 98
Note: Site Index is defined as the expected average height
in feet of dominant trees in an even aged stand at
50 years of age.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface
water resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
project. Water resource assessments include the physical
characteristics, best usage standards, and water quality
aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship
to major regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to
surface water resources are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Impacted Surface Waters
Water resources within the project vicinity are part of
the Haw River subbasin of the Cape Fear River drainage basin.
The Haw River originates in Guilford County to the northwest
and flows generally southeastward through Chatham County. It
joins the Deep River 2.4 km (1.5 mi) downstream of the
project area to form the Cape Fear River. B. Everette Jordan
Lake lies 4.5 km (2.8 mi) upstream, and Buckhorn Dam is
located approximately 9.7 km (6.0 mi) downstream.
The Haw River at the project site is approximately 45 m
(150 ft) wide with an undetermined depth. The substrate is
variable and is composed of rock, gravel, sand, and silt. At
the project site, water velocity is slowed and depth is
increased due to the effects of Buckhorn Dam downstream. The
banks of Haw River rise approximately 1.5 m (5.0 ft) above
the water level at the time of the site visit. The banks are
currently lined with forested vegetation which shades the
water surface along the margins, except in the immediate area
of the existing bridge. The floodplain extends over 30 m
(100 ft) along both sides of the river channel. The
floodplain exhibits evidence of recent overbanking which is
indicated by scouring, overwash of vegetation, and the
presence of flotsam at the soil surface. At the time of the
site visit, turbidity and water flow were high due to recent
precipitation. No aquatic vegetation was observed within the
existing channel.
An intermittent tributary of the Haw River is located on
the western side of the project area, between the existing
road and railroad (Figure 2). This tributary is
approximately 1 m (3 ft) wide and 0.3 m (1.0 ft) deep. It
extends back the entire length of the project on the western
side and will be significantly impacted by Alternate 1. This
stream should not be impacted by Alternate 2.
An unnamed perennial tributary to the Haw River is
located to the north of the project area (Figure 2). This
tributary has its source approximately 6.5 km (4.0 mi) north
of the project area and has its confluence with the Haw River
15 m (50 ft) upstream of the project area. At its confluence
with the Haw River, the stream is 9 m (30 ft) wide with high
banks. However, the confluence of this tributary is outside
the proposed project area. Barring significant changes in
design criteria, this intermittent tributary should not be
impacted by the proposed project.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification
by the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) which
reflects water quality conditions and potential resource
usage. Unnamed streams or tributaries carry the same best
usage classification as that assigned to the river segment to
which they are a tributary. Haw River (DEM Index No. 16-
(42)) is classified as WS-IV from Jordan Lake dam to its
junction with the Deep River (08/03/92). Class WS-IV waters
are protected as water supplies which generally occur in
moderately to highly developed watersheds. Under this
classification, point source discharges of treated wastewater
are permitted, and local programs to control nonpoint source
and stormwater discharge of pollution are required. Class
WS-IV waters are also suitable for all Class C uses. Class C
waters are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation
and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture. A Water Supply Watershed Critical Area occurs
6.5 km (4.0 mi) downstream of the project area.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water
Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project study area.
8
dl9Z-8

83A18 MtlN H3A0
Z bT3 ? `?
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality of the water
resources within the project area. Potential sediment loads
and toxin concentrations of these waters from both point
sources and nonpoint sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are made based on published resource information
and existing general watershed characteristics. These data
provide insight into the value of water resources within the
project area to meet human needs and to provide habitat for
aquatic organisms.
2.3.3.1 Nonpoint Source Discharges
Nonpoint source runoff from agricultural areas is likely
to be a primary source of water quality degradation to the
water resources located in the project vicinity. Water
quality throughout North Carolina is significantly influenced
by nutrient loading and sedimentation from agricultural
runoff. The high proportion of surface area occupied by
agriculture, along with the sloping topography and
erodibility of the soils, suggest that surface runoff from
agricultural areas is probably moderately high for the Haw
River watershed. Thus, sediment loads and turbidity in the
Haw River during storm events are probably elevated over
normal undisturbed levels. Inputs of nonpoint source
pollution from residential areas within the project area are
probably also significant, but to a lesser extent. Likewise,
inputs of toxins from roadway runoff are probably minor
within the immediate project area due to the limited area of
road surfaces and the moderate traffic use.
2.3.3.2 Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN),
managed by DEM, is part of an on-going ambient water quality
monitoring program which addresses long term trends in water
quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites throughout the state. Such
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water
quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of
these organisms are reflections of water quality. However,
BMAN information for Haw River in the project vicinity is
currently unavailable.
10
2.3.3.3 Point Source Dischargers
Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by
the DEM. All dischargers are required to register for a
permit. Three permitted dischargers are listed for the
project vicinity. The names of these dischargers along with
their distance upstream of the project area are provided in
Table 3.
Table 3. Point source discharges located on the Haw River.
Distance
Discharger Permit No. km (mi)
USACOE/Jordan Lake Manager Office NCG550663 4.2 (2.6)
USACOE/Poe's Ridge WWTP NCG550664 4.0 (2.5)
Allied-Signal, Inc./Allied Fibers NC0001899 0.3 (0.2)
Two of these dischargers are located on the Haw River
immediately below the Jordan Lake dam, and the third (Allied-
Signal, Inc./Allied Fibers) discharges to the unnamed
tributary which joins the Haw River at the project area.
These dischargers likely cause a significant deterioration in
water quality conditions of the Haw River in the project
vicinity.
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to water resources which often result
from highway construction occur primarily because of
increased sedimentation as a result of accelerated soil
erosion from exposed areas. Sedimentation and substrate
disturbance occurring during construction can significantly
reduce water clarity and dissolved oxygen content, in
addition to the direct clogging of stream channels.
Sedimentation of water resources can also lead to increased
nutrient loading, resulting in eutrophication. Effects are
usually most severe locally but may extend downstream for
considerable distance, with decreasing intensity.
The potential for water quality degradation resulting
from project construction is high due to the proximity of the
project area to surface water. In particular, construction
within the stream channel and along the banks may result in
significant impacts. The gently sloping topography on the
west side of the Haw River suggests a moderate hazard for
11
soil erosion from exposed upland areas. In addition, the
steep stream banks along the Haw River indicate that stream
scouring of unprotected, disturbed banks will likely be a
primary concern. The length of the crossing will necessitate
in-stream construction activities which will result in
resuspension of substrate sediments. Use of heavy machinery
along streams also increases the risk of accidental discharge
of petrochemicals or other toxins into surface waters.
Inputs of runoff toxins are not expected to increase
because traffic use on the new facility is not anticipated to
be affected. These compounds are carried into water
resources via precipitation and surface runoff from
impervious roadways. Improvement of the exising facility
will probably not increase the use of the bridge, thereby
leading to an increase of toxic compounds being washed into
Haw River.
In order to minimize potential impacts to water
resources in the project area, NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be
enforced during the construction phase of the project. This
would include:
1) elimination or reduction of direct and nonpoint
discharge into the water bodies and minimization of
activities conducted in streams.
2) installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and
earth berms to control runoff during construction.
3) placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of
disturbed sites to reduce runoff and decrease
sediment loadings.
4) elimination of construction staging areas in
floodplains or adjacent to streams to minimize
disturbed surface area in close proximity to surface
waters and to reduce the potential for accidental
discharge of toxins into water bodies.
5) protection of streambank vegetation.
Any bridge construction necessitates grubbing and/or
clearing in streamside areas. However, these activities are
usually more intensive on new location, in order to stabilize
the stream embankment. As a result, replacing an existing
structure in place, with road closure during construction, is
almost always the preferred alternative from a natural
resources perspective because it poses the least risk to
water quality and aquatic organisms. Bridge replacement on
12
new location or detour bridges usually result in more severe
impacts due to clearing and grubbing in the construction
area. Alternate 1 may also require the partial removal of
the existing causeway which will result in more extensive
clearing of the riparian zones.
Construction on new location to the south of the
existing roadway will additionally require extensive
channeling or relocation of the intermittent stream on the
west side of the Haw River. Impacts from this construction
include increased sedimentation, water flow acceleration, and
a reduction in natural stream characteristics. A scour area
may potentially develop at the outflow of the channelized
stream because water movement will become focused, thereby
increasing its velocity and erosive potential.
Some degree of water quality degradation is probably
inevitable from project construction due to the necessity of
streambank and substrate disturbance. However, impacts can
be minimized through adequate planning which emphasizes the
reduction of disturbed surface area and by protecting exposed
areas from the kinetic energy of falling and flowing waters.
Use of BMPs will also help to ensure that impacts to water
quality are temporary and localized rather than long-term and
extensive.
The primary sources of long term water quality
degradation in the project area watershed are agricultural
practices and urban point source discharges. Long term
impacts on streams as a result of road construction are
expected to be negligible. However, due to the cumulative
effect of water quality degradation and the existing quality
of water resources downstream, consideration should be taken
to minimize sediment and toxic discharge into these waters.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources within the project area include both
terrestrial and aquatic communities, with their associated
flora and fauna. This section describes the biotic
communities encountered in the project area, as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these
ecosystems. The composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land uses.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the
context of plant community classifications, defined by the
dominant plant species observed. Representative animal
species which are likely to occur in these habitats (based on
published range distributions) are also cited.
13
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism refer
to the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities were identified
within the project area: transportation corridor,
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, piedmont bottomland
hardwood forest, and upland pine/hardwood forest. Transition
areas within the study corridor are relatively small, since
the natural communities usually border disturbed areas which
receive periodic maintenance. However, precise species
composition varies with landscape position, slope and
drainage. Community composition is reflective of the
physiography, topography, and current and prior land uses of
the area. These communities all exhibit some form of past or
continued human disturbance which has affected their
structure or species composition.
The transportation corridor community occurs as a linear
strip along both sides of the existing roadway, while the
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community occurs along
both banks of the Haw River. These two community types
intersect at the project area at the point where SR 1011
crosses the Haw River. The piedmont bottomland hardwood
forest community exists in the southeast quadrant of the
project area, on the new location alternative ROW (Alternate
1). Upland pine/hardwood forests also occur in the new
location ROW, up slope from the alluvial plain, and will be
impacted by Alternate 1. These upland pine/hardwood forests
exist to the north of SR 1011, but these areas will not be
impacted by either alternate.
The landscape immediately surrounding the project area
is occupied to a large extent by agriculture and forestland,
interspersed with minor development along roadways. Forests
occupy a large percentage of the project region, on both
upland and riparian sites. However, in the project area,
forest communities are somewhat isolated by transportation
corridors, both highways and railroads, which may
significantly limit the movement of terrestrial vertebrates.
Much of the wildlife in the project area probably uses
various communities for forage, cover, and nesting habitat.
Many faunal species are adapted to the boundary conditions
along the edges of forests and clearings, and wildlife within
the project area likely utilize numerous communities to some
extent. Such species may not be listed for each community
described. Raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum
14
(Didelphis virgin iana), and northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis) are examples of species which likely occur in all
of the habitats in the project area. In addition, many
semiaquatic species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, such that both are required for survival and
reproduction.
3.1.1 Transportation Corridor Community
The transportation corridor community consists of areas
along roadways which have been heavily impacted and
maintained by human development activities. Such areas
extend out approximately 5 m (15 ft) on both sides of the
existing roadway and descend 4 m (12 ft) along the road
causeway to the alluvial floodplain. Included also in this
community are the disturbed alluvial forests bordering the
Haw River which have been greatly degraded in size and
structure, and the adjacent powerline ROW which parallels the
road on the northern side. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide
application, inhibit natural succession and keep this
community in an early successional state. As a result, the
community is dominated by herbs and grasses such as fescue
(Festuca sp.), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium spp.), and wild
onion (Allium canadense). Important associate species found
further from the roadside include Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), blackberry (Rubus argutus), greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans),
switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), aster (Aster sp.),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
and pokeberry (Phytolacca americana). Seedlings of various
tree species occur along slopes and embankments where mowing
is less frequent or where the bridge crosses the alluvial
river bank. These species include white oak ( uercus alba),
black cherry (Prunus serotina), yellow poplar (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), privet (Ligustrum sinense), boxelder (Acer
negundo), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and loblolly pine
(Pinus taeda).
Wildlife expected in this community type consists
primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species such as
woodchuck (Marmota monax), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus),
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), eastern harvest
mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), and eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), which favor open, disturbed
areas. Nocturnal mammals common to disturbed areas, such as
raccoon and Virginia opossum, may travel periodically through
this community type. Bird populations likely include species
15
such as northern cardinal, Carolina chickadee (Parus
carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Carolina
wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), American robin (Turdus
migratorius), crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), common grackle
(Quiscalus quiscula), and European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris). Common predators found in this community type are
the black racer (Coluber constrictor), eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), American
kestrel (Falco sparverius), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and red fox (Vulpes vul es). Wildlife found in
this community type often appears as "road kills" as a result
of highway use.
3.1.2 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest community
occurs along both sides of Haw River where periodic flooding
deposits sediment and debris at the soil surface. These
communities extend out 15-30 m (50-100 ft) from the river
bank. As a result of this periodic flooding, alluvial forest
communities are very productive and provide valuable wildlife
habitat. These communities are common throughout the
mountains and piedmont along the banks and floodplains of
many streams and rivers. The topography of alluvial
floodplains is nearly level, and the understory is moderately
dense with shrubs and vines. The alluvial forest stand
within the project area is mature in age (>50 years old) and
does not exhibit significant recent disturbance. Dominant
vegetation in the overstory and midstory of this community
includes sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), sweetgum, sugarberry (Celtis laevigata),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), northern red oak ( uercus
rubra), black walnut (Juglans nigra), yellow buckeye
(Aesculus flava), and hornbeam (Carpinus caroliniana).
Understory vegetation consists of privet (Ligustrum sinense),
switch cane, poison ivy, grape (Vitis sp.), common chickweed
(Stelaria media), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
and Japanese grass (Microstegium viminea).
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests provide valuable
habitat for a variety of terrestrial and semiaquatic species.
Common mammals found in this community type are raccoon,
Virginia opossum, gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginiana), and muskrat
(Ondatra zibethicus). Birds typical of this habitat include
the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), yellow-rumped
warbler (Dendroica coronata), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), and barred owl (Strix varia). A
diverse community of reptiles and amphibians occurs in
piedmont/low mountain alluvial forests, including eastern box
turtle (Terrapene caroline), copperhead (Ankistrodon
16
contortrix), ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus), spring
peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris
triseriata), and American toad (Bufo americanus).
3.1.3 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
Bottomland hardwood forests in the project area occur at
the base of upland slopes on the east side of the Haw River,
where seasonal high water tables create surface water
conditions. This wetland area is mostly forested within the
proposed ROW, but adjoins open, marsh habitats further to the
south. In addition, the bottomland hardwood forests have
been partially disturbed by logging operations, and there is
some evidence of beaver activity. This community grades
uphill through a transitional wet flat area to the young
upland pine/mixed hardwood forest. The mucky soils have a
heavy clay texture. Dominant trees in the overstory include
sweetgum, red maple, and willow oak ( uercus phellos).
Midstory shrubs and vines consist of privet, switch cane,
greenbrier, southern arrowwood (Viburnum dentatum), and
possumhaw (Ilex decidua). Soft rush (Juncus effusus) and
sedge (Carex sp.) occur in clumps within the open water, and
duckweed (Lemna spp.), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), and water-
milfoil (Myriophyllum heterophyllum) are found either
floating or submerged.
Wildlife found in this community is similar to that
found in the alluvial forest community, with the addition of
more semiaquatic species. Mammals likely to occur in
bottomland hardwood forests are beaver (Castor canadensis),
muskrat, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed deer. Birds
found in bottomland forests include downy woodpecker
(Dendrocopus pubescens), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus
pileatus), barred owl (Strix varia), and wood duck (Aix
sponsa). Eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) were
observed in open pools, along with various tadpoles (Rana
sp.).
3.1.4 Upland Pine/Mixed Hardwood Forest
The upland pine/mixed hardwood forest occurs along the
slopes which rise up from the alluvial plain on both sides of
the Haw River. Upland pine/mixed hardwood forests grade
gradually into alluvial forest on the west side of the
project area and into bottomland hardwood forest on the east.
This community likely represents a midsuccessional stage of
the dry-mesic oak-hickory forest community typical of
Piedmont uplands. Two age classes of this forest are
present. Those on the east side of Haw River are
approximately 5-10 years old, while those on the west side
17
are 30-40 years old. Dominant vegetation of the overstory
and midstory of these forests is much the same, despite the
age differences. The overstory includes loblolly pine,
sweetgum, American holly (Ilex opaca), southern red oak
( uercus falcata), white oak, red maple, red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), American ash (Fraxinus americana), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
and dogwood (Cornus florida). Understory vegetation consists
of fescue, broomsedge, blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), and Japanese honeysuckle.
Wildlife expected here includes the gray squirrel,
southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), eastern
box turtle, and five lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus). Birds
which inhabit this community type are the blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), brown-headed nuthatch (Sitta pusilla),
tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), and pine warbler (Dendroica inus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic community types, defined as a Piedmont
brownwater river and a Piedmont intermittent stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Composition of the aquatic
communities is reflective of the physical characteristics of
the water body and water quality conditions. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to water resources also greatly
influence aquatic community composition and structure.
Larger rivers, such as the Haw River, with various substrates
will generally support a greater diversity of aquatic fauna
than its smaller tributaries. The presence of gravel cobble
and sand substrates, and woody debris creates diverse
habitats for aquatic organisms.
3.2.1 Piedmont Brownwater River
The Haw River is a Piedmont brownwater river community
which is characterized by warm, turbid water and a gravel to
sandy substrate interspersed with larger rocks. Flow varies
seasonally and with precipitation intensity. Occassional
overbank flooding occurs during storm events, scouring the
channel and depositing debris material. Shallow, flowing
habitats are interspersed with deeper pools where flow is
slower and debris is deposited. Scattered woody debris
occurs within the channel and along the shallow shoreline.
Dominant fauna found in these rivers or along the shoreline
includes a variety of aquatic and semiaquatic species. No
fish were observed during the site visit, but the river could
provide habitat for resident species such as shiners
(Notropis spp.), darters (Etheostoma spp.), redbreast sunfish
18
(Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), green sunfish (Lepomis
cyanellus), channel catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), carp
(Cyprinus carpio), and largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides). Amphibians and reptiles expected to occur in
this community include green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel
frog (Rana palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentaria), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), and
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
3.2.2 Piedmont Intermittent Stream
Intermittent streams occur as small headwater channels
where water flow is discontinuous. Dry intervals usually
occur during the summer, though flow may be high at any time
following prolonged precipitation. During dry periods, these
streams may retain water in the form of pools along their
course. It is these pools, which are influenced in size and
depth by climatological events, that provide habitat for a
diversity of semiaquatic species. Fish diversity in
intermittent streams is lacking due to stream size and
limited water flow. However, amphibians frequently lay their
eggs in intermittent streams, thereby avoiding egg and larva
predation by fish. Adult amphibians will emerge from these
streams before the dry season of late summer. No amphibians
were observed, but the stream and adjacent shoreline habitat
could support northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus), green frog (Rana clamitans), Fowler's toad (Bufo
woodhousei) and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various
impacts on the biotic resources described. This section
quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the natural
communities within the project area in terms of the area
impacted and the organisms affected. Temporary versus
permanent impacts are considered as well, along with
recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from
project construction due to the clearing and paving of
portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Table 4 summarizes potential quantitative losses to
these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial
communities reflect the relative abundance of each community
19
present in the study area. Estimated impacts are derived
based on the project length and the entire proposed
right-of-way width for each alternate. However, project
construction often does not require the entire right-of-way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 4. Estimated area impacts to biotic communities.
Impacted Area
ha (ac)
Community Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Transportation Corridor 0.4 (1.0) 0.4 (1.0)
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.3 (0.8) -
Bottomland Hardwood Forest 0.2 (0.5) -
Upland Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.1 (2.7) -
Total Impacts 2.0 (5.0) 0.4 (1.0)
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from
Alternate 2 will have minimal impact on populations of native
flora and fauna. This alternate will only impact roadside
areas and thus will not have large-scale effects on the
natural communities of the project region. The affected
transportation corridor community is already highly altered
from its natural state, and residual species are well adapted
to such disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in
these communities are generally common throughout North
Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging
environmental factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder
environment will be re-established after construction.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities
should repopulate areas suitable for the species following
project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the
project area following construction.
Alternate 1 will have greater impact on natural forested
communities and terrestrial wildlife, though the effects will
still be relatively minor. Much of the impacted forest is
young pine/hardwood forests which are common in the project
region. Although the alluvial and bottomland forest
communities along the Haw River have high value as wildlife
habitat, only a small total area of these forested
communities will be disturbed. Only narrow zones along the
edges of these communities will be impacted, and the
displacement of native flora and fauna away from the project
area should be minor. A small proportion of the total area
of these community types will be reduced in the project
20
vicinity. Terrain modified by construction but not paved
will become road shoulders and early successional habitat.
As a result, there will be a slight conversion of forested
community types to the transportation corridor community due
to project construction, with a corresponding shift in
associated vegetation and wildlife. Such habitat reduction
on a large scale concentrates residual wildlife into smaller
areas of refuge, thus causing some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation, and starvation. However,
the forested communities to the south of SR 1011 are
surrounded on all sides by existing transportation corridors,
and so represent a small, isolated habitat. To minimize the
temporary effects of project construction, all cleared areas
along the roadways should be revegetated soon after project
completion to minimize the loss of wildlife habitat.
The data in Table 4 predict only the direct taking of
land and community types in the wake of project construction.
However, indirect effects on wildlife population levels and
habitat value should also be insignificant. Roadways
frequently act as barriers to faunal migrations which reduce
territories/ranges and result in roadkills. Because the
project consists of replacing an existing structure in place,
fragmentation of natural habitats and disruption of normal
wildlife movement will not be a serious concern. The
riparian areas along Haw River likely serve an important
function as corridors for animal movement within the
landscape. The existing roadway and bridge already partially
disrupt the natural movements of wildlife in this habitat
corridor, such that the proposed project is not expected to
create unusual environmental conditions. Although the
alignment may be moved slightly to the south if Alternate 1
is selected, the effect on movement patterns should be
insignificant. Road width, traffic use, and traffic speed
are not expected to increase, such that the new roadway will
not present a more formidable barrier to migration. Post-
project conditions should be very similar to current
conditions with regard to habitat fragmentation and wildlife
dispersion.
3.3.2 Impacts to Aquatic Communities
Potential impacts to aquatic communities downstream of
the project area primarily result from increased
sedimentation of the stream channel and toxic inputs from
stormwater runoff. Increased sedimentation during highway
construction activities and road surface runoff after
construction are widely recognized as factors that can
contribute to the commulative degradation of water quality.
Aquatic organisms are generally highly sensitive to changes
in water quality. Downstream increases in turbidity or toxin
21
concentrations could have lasting detrimental effects on the
Haw River if not controlled. Effects will be most severe at
the point of bridge replacement, but could extend downstream
for considerable distance. The severity of impacts to the
Haw River will likely diminish with increasing distance from
the project area as sediment and toxins settle out of the
water column.
Sedimentation in rivers and streams reduces water
clarity and light penetration, affecting the photosynthetic
ability and growth of aquatic vegetation. Suspended
particles may also impact benthic filter feeders inhabiting
downstream areas by clogging their filtration apparatuses or
by covering them with excessive sediment. Sedimentation
affects the concentration of dissolved oxygen in the water
column by raising water temperature. Warmer water contains
less oxygen and results in a reduction in aquatic life
dependent on high oxygen concentrations. Moreover, increased
nutrient loadings can result in the accelerated growth of
certain types of algae at the expense of other aquatic
organsims.
Toxic substances from roadways (eg. oil, gas, etc.) may
also enter surface waters through stormwater runoff from
impervious surfaces. Such toxins can degrade aquatic
communities through direct mortality to inidividuals or by
interfering with growth or reproductive cycles. These
impacts may eventually be observed in organisms throughout
the various trophic levels of aquatic communities.
Construction on new location generally results in more
exposed soil surface and greater potential for erosion and
sedimentation. Thus, Alternate 2 is the preferred
alternative from a natural resources perspective. Alternate
1 will also impact surface water wetlands of the bottomland
hardwood community, and may require a portion of the
intermittent stream in the southwest quadrant to be piped
and/or relocated. Effects usually associated with piping or
relocation are sedimentation, loss of natural stream
characteristics, loss of natural bank vegetation, and
scouring of the streambanks and substrate due to accelerated
water flow.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by
limiting the amount of construction on new location and by
strict adherence to BMPs during the construction phase of the
project. Use of BMPs will ensure that sedimentation and
toxic inputs are minimized, so that impacts to water quality
and aquatic communities are limited. In addition, if
Alternate 1 is selected, the following general guidelines
should be administered for any stream relocation:
22
1) minimizing in-stream activities during peak fish
spawning periods (April-June).
2) scheduling in-stream activities, when applicable,
during periods of low flow.
3) consideration of bioengineering techniques, where
possible, for streambank protection/stablization as
opposed to standard methodologies.
4) minimizing/eliminating the use of fertilizers and
herbicides adjacent to water resources.
The Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) document 'INC
Stream Protection and Improvement Guidelines" should be
consulted as a reference for any questions concerning the
mentioned guidelines and other aspects of stream relocation,
in-stream construction, and stream stabilization.
Overall, the proposed project should have only moderate
impacts on downstream aquatic communities, assuming
precautionary measures are taken. Because the project
consists of a bridge replacement, only a relatively small
surface area of soil should be exposed by construction
activities. Erosion and sedimentation will be most
pronounced as a result of disturbance of the stream banks and
substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high
during actual bridge construction, but should diminish
rapidly following project completion if exposed soils are
revegetated and streambanks are stabilized. Minimizing the
area of streambank disturbance will greatly aid in limiting
erosion from the project area and protecting aquatic
communities. Avoiding wetland areas and extensive stream
relocation will also prevent disturbance of aquatic systems.
Toxic inputs from roadways following construction are not
expected to increase since vehicular use of the new facility
is not expected to increase. Local aquatic communities will
likely be temporarily impacted by construction activities;
however aquatic fauna should recover to predisturbance
levels.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses
pertinent to two significant regulatory issues: Waters of
the United States and rare and protected species. This
section deals specifically with the impact analyses required
to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project
construction.
23
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States," as defined in
Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part 328.3.
Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material
into surface waters or wetlands falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters
include all standing or flowing waters which have commercial
or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified
based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic
vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or
part of the growing season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual". Criteria to delineate jurisdictional
wetlands include:
1) presence of hydric soils
2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and
3) evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics
during the growing season.
All of these features must be present for an area to be
considered a wetland. The scope of this investigation did
not allow for the delineation of wetlands within the project
area.
Field surveys revealed that jurisdictional wetlands do
occur in the project area. This wetland area occurs in
association with a bottomland hardwood forest in the
southeast quadrant of the project area. Hydric soils and
hydrophytic vegetation are present, and there is evidence of
surface and subsurface satruated conditions (e.g. surface
water, stained leaf litter, soil mottling, and oxidized
rhyzospheres). Soils exhibited a matrix color of 5GY1 at a
depth of 15 cm (6 in) (Munsell Color Chart), and vegetation
observed in the wetland consists of sweetgum, red maple,
privet, greenbrier, switch cane, duckweed, smartweed, water
millfoil, and soft rush. Along the wetland boundary soils
exhibited a color of 10YR6/1 with mottles of 10YR4/6 at a
depth of 25 cm (10 in). This wetland occurs in association
24
with a more open, marsh system which exists outside the ROW
to the south.
The wetland classification scheme of Cowardin et al.
(1979) provides a uniform approach in describing concepts and
terms used in classifying wetland systems. Based on this
system, the wetland within the project area would be
classified as PFO1C. These classifications are interpreted
as palustrine (P), Forested (FO), Broad-Leaved Deciduous (1),
with a seasonally flooded (C) water regime.
The N.C. DEM has instituted a numerical rating system
from 0-100 to gauge wetland quality. The fourth version of
this rating system assesses wetlands on the basis of water
storage, pollutant removal, bank/shoreline stabilization, and
aquatic life value aspects of a wetland community. Other
wetland attributes considered are wildlife habitat and
recreational, educational, and economic value. The DEM
rating for this wetland is 61.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The impacted wetland area for Alternate 1 is estimated
to be 0.2 ha (0.5 ac) based on wetland width and ROW width.
However, this estimate assumes that project construction
occupies the entire proposed ROW, and so represents a maximum
potential value. Impacted wetland area could be
significantly reduced if construction activities are more
limited. Alternate 2 will not impact the observed wetland.
Alternate 1 will impact 79 m (260 ft) of surface waters
based on the proposed crossing of the Haw River and the
probable relocation of the intermittent stream on the west
side of the project area. Alternate 2 will impact only 18 m
(60 ft) of surface waters at the Haw River crossing.
4.1.3 Permits and Consultations
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands
are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and
certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge of
protecting the water quality of public water resources.
Surface water systems and wetlands receive similar treatment
and consideration with respect to most regulatory permits.
These permits are authorized under the Clean Water Act and
under separate state laws regarding significant water
resources.
25
4.1.3.1 Section 404 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters
are anticipated from project construction. In accordance
with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a
permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredge or fill material into Waters of the United States.
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 is likely to be applicable
for the proposed construction. This permit authorizes
activities that are categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because they neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
However, final decisions concerning applicable permits rest
with the COE.
4.1.3.2 Water Quality Certification
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality
General Certification from the DEM prior to the issuance of a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water quality
certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into Waters of the
United States. Section 401 Certification allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulation. Issuance of a 401
permit from the DEM is a prerequisite to the issuance of a
Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation of Wetland Impacts
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental
Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of he
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, and compensating for impacts (40
CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensation) must be considered
sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and
practicable possibilities of averting impacts to Waters of
the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
26
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and
practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of
those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Wetlands can be avoided by the selection of Alternate 2,
replacing the existing bridge in place. Bridge replacement
to the north of the existing facility would avoid wetlands
located to the south, but may be complicated by the tributary
which joins the Haw River on that side.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and
practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of
the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the impact area
of the proposed project through the reduction to median
widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
If Alternate 1 is selected, impacts to wetlands can be
minimized by locating the new alignment as close to the
existing roadway as possible. Other potential measures
include decreasing the fill slopes or road shoulder widths,
increasing the length of the bridge span, and eliminating
staging areas in wetland sites.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until
anticipated impacts to Waters of the United States have been
avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after
all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration,
creation and enhancement of Water of the United States,
specifically wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in
areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site, if
possible.
Projects issued under Nationwide Permits usually do not
require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental
27
Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Threatened or endangered species are species whose
populations are in decline and which face probable extinction
in the near future without strict conservation management.
Federal law under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973,
as amended, protects plant and animal species which have been
classified as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), or Proposed Threatened (PT). Provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA require that any action
which is likely to adversely affect such federally classified
species be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS). Other potentially endangered species may
receive additional protection under separate state laws. In
North Carolina, protection of endangered species falls under
the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, administered and
enforced by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) and
the N.C. Department of Agriculture, respectively.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
As of April 1, 1996, the FWS lists the following
federally-protected species for Chatham County (Table 5). A
brief description of the characteristics and habitat
requirements of each species follows Table 5, along with a
conclusion regarding potential project impacts.
Table 5. Federally-protected species for Chatham County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
Note: T - Threatened (a species that is in danger of
becoming endangered in the forseeable future).
E - Endangered (a species that is threatened with
extinction throughout all or a significant portion
of its range).
28
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Brunswick,
Carteret, Chatham, Chowan, Craven, Dare,
Durham, Guilford, Hyde, Montgomery, New
Hanover, Northhampton, Periquimans,
Richmond, Stanley, Vance, Wake, Washington.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water
(within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water,
in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open
view of the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an
eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. The breeding
season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish
are the major food source for bald eagles. other sources
include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may be live
or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle may exist in the
project area. Haw River in the project vicinity is a large
river sufficient to support eagle foraging. In addition,
Sharron Haris Lake is located 8 km (5.0 mi) to the east, and
Jordan Lake, with a known population of bald eagles, is
located 5.6 km (3.5 mi) to the north. Many large trees occur
along the shoreline which could provide nesting sites.
Surveys for eagle nests in the impacted area is warranted. A
review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database
of rare and protected species revealed no record of known
populations of bald eagle within 3.2 km (2.0 mi) of the
project area.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 26 September 1987
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore,
Randolph.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky
minnow. Its habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble,
or boulder substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting
slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water
willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater,
among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and
pools. The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom
detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes.
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in
North Carolina. The strongest population of the Cape Fear
29
shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the Locksville dam
upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population
is located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham
County, and the third population is found in the Deep River
system in Randolph and Moore counties.
Bilogical Conclusion: No Effect
Habitat for the Cape Fear shiner does not exist within
the project area. Due to the effects of Buckhorn Dam, water
depth is increased and flow is slowed. John Alderman of the
N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission has stated that habitat
does not exist for Cape Fear shiner within this portion of
Haw River (pers. comm. 06/06/96). The proposed project area
does not impact any designated Proposed Critical Habitat for
this species (John Alderman, pers. comm. 06/18/96). A review
of the NCNHP database of rare and protected species revealed
that a known population of Cape Fear shiner is reported to
occur 0.6 km (0.4 mi) upstream of the project area. However,
this record is believed to be historic and does not represent
an active population. Thus, no impacts to Cape Fear shiner
will occur from project construction.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
Distribution in N.C.: Anson, Beaufort, Bertie, Bladen,
Brunswick, Camden, Carteret, Chatham,
Columbus, Craven, Cumberland, Dare, Duplin,
Forsyth, Gates, Halifax, Harnett, Hertford,
Hoke, Hyde, Johnston, Jones, Lee, Lenoir,
Montgomery, Moore, Nash, New Hanover,
Northhampton, Onslow, Orange, Pamlico,
Pender, Perquimans, Pitt, Richmond, Robeson,
Sampson, Scotland, Tyrrell, Wake, Wayne,
Wilson.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) uses open old growth
stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested
stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick
understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest
exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres).
This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
30
from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above
15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. They can
incrustation of running sap that
lays its eggs in April, May, and
approximately 38 days later.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
the ground and average 9.1-
be identified by a large
surrounds the tree. The RCW
June; the eggs hatch
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does
not exist in the project area. No pine forests with trees of
sufficient size or density occur which could serve as nesting
or foraging habitat. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no record of known
populations of RCWs within 2.0 km (1.6 mi) of the project
area. Thus, no impacts to this species are anticipated.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with
fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. North Carolina
currently has two known populations of harperella, one in
Granville and one in Chatham County. This plant can be found
in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and the
margins of clear, swift-flowing stream sections, and the
edges of intermittent pineland ponds or low, wet savannah
meadows in the coastal plain. It is always found in
saturated substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate
flooding. There is a preference for sunny areas and this
species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream
erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks or
amidst thick clones of water willow.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Habitat for harperella may exist in the project area.
The Haw River at the proposed crossing appears to have a sand
to gravel substrate with steep banks. Though no rocks were
apparent during the site visit, rock outcrops may be present
during periods of lower flow which could provide protected
shoreline habitats. Sandbars may occur within the river
which may also provide suitable substrate and disturbance.
Moreover, a review of the NCNHP database of rare and
protected species revealed that a known population of
harperella is reported to occur 3.2 km (2.0 mi) south of the
project area. Surveys for this species should be conducted
during the plant's flowering season (late July - August) to
determine if individuals occur within the project area.
31
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Six federal species of concern (FSC) are listed by the
FWS for Chatham County as of April 1, 1996 (Table 6).
Federal species of concern are not afforded federal
protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until
they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. However, the status of these species is subject
to change, and so should be included for consideration. FSCs
are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there are not sufficient data to
warrant a formal federal listing of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
In addition, organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and
Animal Species are afforded limited state protection under
the NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Species listed
under state laws may or may not be federally-protected.
Species with state designations of Candidate (C),
Significantly Rare (SR), and Watch List (W) are not protected
under state laws; however, evidence suggests that populations
of these species are also in decline.
Table 6 lists federal species of concern, the state
status of these species (if afforded state protection), and
the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for
each species. This species list is provided for information
purposes as the protection status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
Table 6. Federal species of concern and N.C. protected
species for Chatham County.
Scientific
Name
NC
Common Name Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC No
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater T Yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T Yes
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail SR Yes
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T Yes
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort C Yes
NOTE: C - Candidate
SC - Special Concern
SR - Significantly Rare
T - Threatened
32
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any of these species observed. The
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats indicates
that a freshwater mussel, the notched rainbow (Villosa
constricta) (SR), is known to occur within the project
vicinity, 0.3 km (0.2 mi) upstream of the project area. This
population should not be impacted by project construction.
Based on available information, no impacts to state listed
species are anticipated.
5.0 SUMMARY
The proposed project should have only minor long term
effects on natural resources and environmental quality in the
vicinity of the project area, given adequate preliminary
planning. The project area is already partially disturbed,
and the proposed project simply involves replacement of an
existing bridge. The primary issue of concern is protecting
water quality in Haw River from excessive sedimentation.
Minimizing the impacted area along the stream channel and
protecting exposed soils from erosion should greatly aid in
reducing water quality degradation. Permits and water
quality certification will be required from the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and the N.C. Division of Environmental
Management prior to construction initiation for impacts to
surface waters and wetlands. Wetlands which occur in the
project area can be adequately avoided by replacing the
existing structure in place. Overall, Alternate 2 is the
preferred alternative from a natural resources perspective
because it requires less disturbance to soils and forested
communities, avoids wetland impacts, and avoids extensive
relocation of an intermittent stream. Impacts to populations
of other native plants and animals should be minor,
regardless of the alternate chosen.
33
6.0 REFERENCES
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers
Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical report Y-87-1, U.S.
Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III.
1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North
Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1986.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data
Base and Long Tern Changes in Water Quality, 1983- 1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality
Standards for North Carolina River Basins." Raleigh,
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina".
Raleigh, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's
Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species". Raleigh,
North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds
of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of
the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
The Natural Communities of North Carolina. Third
Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
34

North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States., U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals
of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
35
TArt
?. i
F
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 23, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: Bill Goodwin, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species Update for the Proposed Replacement of
Bridge No. 419 on SR 1022 Over the Haw River, Chatham
County; State Project No. 8.2520901; TIP No. B-2814.
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report for B-2814, June 20,
1996 by James W. Hauser
The referenced report gave "Unresolved" Biological Conclusions for the Bald Eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum), pending surveys for
these species. This report provides biological Conclusions addressing potential impacts for
these two species.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
File: Protected Species Issues
File: B-2814
NCO
The referenced report stated that habitat suitable for the bald eagle was present in
the project area, and that habitat for harperella may also be present, but could not be
determined, because of high water conditions. The project site was visited by NCDOT
biologist Tim Savidge on July 22, 1996, and appropriate surveys were conducted for each
species.
Biological Conclusion (bald eagle): No Effect
Visual surveys for bald eagle nests were conducted using binoculars within the
project impact zone and areas surrounding the Haw River in the project vicinity. No eagle
nests were observed. Given the survey results. it is apparent that this species does not nest
within the project vicinity. This does not preclude the possibility that a bald eagle could
forage within the project vicinity. However, foraging opportunities will not be adversely
impacted. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the bald
eagle.
Biological Conclusion (harperella) No Effect
Two small areas meeting habitat requirements for harperella were identified in the
northeast and southeast quadrants of the bridge. The low-water conditions at the time of
the survey allowed for wading to access these areas. Plant-by-plant surveys were
conducted in these areas and no specimens of harperella were observed. It can be
concluded that this species does not occur in the project area and will not be impacted by
the proposed action.
. STAT( ?' ?
JAMPS It. HUNK IR.
UUVI RNOR
DIVISION OF I IIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RA11161 I, N.C. 27611 5201
July 27, 1995
R. SAMUH.11UN I I I I
S1CRIIARY
RECEIVED
AUG 0 71995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
np-,U
MEMORANDUM TO:
STATE OI, NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Chatham County, SR 1011,
Replacement of Bridge No. 419 over Haw River, Federal-
Aid Project No. BRSTP-1011(2), State Project No.
8.2520901, TIP No. B-2814
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for August 29, 1995 at 2:00 p.m. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Bill Goodwin, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-3141, Ext. 238.
WTG/pl r ?300q
Attachment
r
hM,1
?7iu L
btAdje-
-V 'V e W a r
I(?cc1?6?h

BRIDGE, PROJECT SC'OPI\G SHE,I T
7 2095
TIP PROJF,CT: 11-2814 DIVISION: Fia.ht
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP_1011(2) COUNTY: Chatham--__-_-
STATE PROJECT: 8.2520901 ROUTE: SR lull
DESCRIPTION: Biidgc No. 419 over Haw River. on SR 101 l
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge------
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S):
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local collector-
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLIIT)WG ENGINEERING AND CONTENGENCIES) ............................. $ '',??0,000
G Q RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILMES. ANT) ACQUISMON) ... ... S ,000
(? ??•d TOTAL COST ............................................................................................................................... S ?.'?90,000
/ r
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ..................... ............ . . . .......................................... .. ................ $ 1,350.000
1177 .
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ S 50,000
CGS(v PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0.000
TIP TOTAL COST .... : t ................................................................................................................. S 1.400.000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALI'T'Y, DEVELOPERS,
?p S OR OTHERS' YES OR (D(CIRCLE ONE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $ OR 0,0 ? S
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4800__ ZUZ?VPD
TTST 2 0/0 DUAL 5 %
?OL q" EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section -
tr 19 PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: _ two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------------------------------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE --------------------------------------------------------- ?
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 169NimERs WIDTH 6.1 METERS
551 FEET ZU FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE. LENGTH M=ERS WIDTH METERS
E'EET ---- FEET
IUD
IC
it Vernon
r;Qe
r?

9
r
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS.
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 419 ON SR 1011
OVER HAW RIVER
B - 2814
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
//???
Nor
P.
??' --RZ'
Mr. I?xlc Galan+
1)1,,M - l)F,IINIZ, 6th floor
STATE OF NORTH
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
October 12, 1995 RECEIVED
OCtzo1995
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File ^"""'
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 419 on SR 1011
over Haw River, Chatham County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-1011(2), State Project No. 8.2520901,
TIP No. B-2814
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on August 29, 1995. The following
persons were in attendance:
David Cox NC WRC
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Eric Galamb DEM
Don Sellers Right of Way
John Taylor Location and Surveys
Theresa Ellerby Program Development
Peter Slipp Statewide Planning
Roy Girolami Structure Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Jenny Summerlin Hydraulics
Bill Bunting Roadway Design
Alice Gordon Planning and Environmental
Davis Moore Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
The following is a summary of comments made at the scoping meeting and through
correspondence prior to the meeting.
Utility conflicts will be high for this project. There is an underground telephone cable
along the north side of SR 1011. There is a water line suspended from the south side of the
bridge. There is an underground fiber optic cable along the south side of SR 1011. There are

aerial three phase power lines and an aerial fiber optic line parallel to and north of the structure.
Also there is a United States Geological Survey (USGS) water gauging station attached to the
south side of the bridge, near the east bank of the river.
This project will be designed in Metric units. The design speed will be approximately
100 km/h (62 mph). The proposed structure will be 9.6 meters (32 ft) wide, with two 3.6 meter
(12 ft) travel lanes, a 1.2 meter (4 ft) offset on each side. The roadway approaches will have two
3.6 meter (12 ft) travel lanes, 1.2 meter (4 ft:') paved shoulders and total shoulder widths of at
least 2.4 meters (8 ft). The shoulder will be wider where guardrail is warranted.
Mr. Jerry Snead of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new structure approximately 168
meters (550 ft.) long will be required to replace the existing bridge. The new structure can be built
at approximately the same roadway grade as the existing structure with a minimum 0.3% deck
gradient to facilitate deck drainage. If an on-site detour is required, a 115 meter (380 ft.) long
temporary structure can be constructed to the south of the existing structure. The detour structure
elevation can be set 2 meters (6 ft.) lower than the existing bridge elevation.
Three alternates will be evaluated for replacing bridge number 419 over the Haw River.
Alternate One - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place. The
existing structure and SR 1011 will be closed to through traffic during construction.
Traffic will be detoured along SR 1012, US 1 and SR 1972.
Alternate Two - The existing bridge will be removed and replaced in place.
Traffic will be maintained during construction using an on-site detour structure located
just south of the existing bridge.
Alternate Three - The existing bridge will be replaced on new location, south of
the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during
construction.
Construction cost estimates for this project are as follows:
Alternate One Alternate Two Alternate Three
Construction $ 1,725,000 $ 2,850,000 $ 2,050,000
Fight of Way $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000
Total $ 1,775,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 2,100,000
Mr. Eric Galamb of DEM indicated that the Haw River is classified as Water Supply - IV.
Implementation of High Quality Waters (HQW) soil and erosion control measures was requested.
Mr. Galamb asked that there be no weep holes in the bridge deck over standing water.
Mr. Galamb also asked that fill from any on-site detour be completely removed and the area be
replanted with appropriate grasses and saplings.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated that the Haw River may contain Cape Fear Shiner,
a federally endangered fish known to occur in area rivers. Mr. Cox agreed with Mr. Galamb's
request for HQW soil and erosion control measures. Mr. Cox also asked that the proposed bridge
be designed similar to the existing bridge in that it span all or part of the floodplain to allow for
wildlife passage.
Following the meeting, Mr. Cox checked the NC WRC's database of species occurrences
and found records of known populations of-Cape Fear Shiner downstream of the project area. A
Section 7 consultation will likely be required.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known architectural or archaeological sites in the immediate project area. Ms. Bevin asked
that the existing bridge be evaluated to determine it's eligibility for the National Register. She also
indicated that archaeological surveys will be requested if an on-site detour is required or if the
new bridge is on new location.
Mr. Tom Norman of the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation indicated, by
phone after the meeting, that 1.2 meter (4 ft.) shoulders would be required on the bridge to meet
AASHTO specifications, and that bicycle-safe 1.35 meter (54 inch) rails would be required. He
also asked that 1.2 meter (4 ft.) paved shoulders be provided on the roadway approaches.
The current project schedule calls for right of way acquisition to begin in October 1996
and construction to begin in February 1998.
WTG/plr
Attachment
cc/att: Scoping Meeting Participants
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
Revised
10/11/95
TIP PROJECT: B-2814 DIVISION: Eight
F. A. PROJECT: BRSTP-1011(2) COUNTY: Chatham
STATE PROJECT: 8.2520901 ROUTE: SR 1011
DESCRIPTION: Bridge No. 419 ovet Haw River, on SR 1011
PROJECT PURPOSE: replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Moncure Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: local collector
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENG]NEMUNG AND CONTENGENcIES) ............................. $ 2,050,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELocATIoN, UTaxrIEs, AND ACQULsmoN) ................... $ 50,000
TOTAL COST ................................................................................................................................ $ 2,100,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ........................................................................................................ $ 1,350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ........................................................................................................ $ 50,000
PRIOR YEARS COST .................................................................................................................... $ 0,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................................................ $ 1,400,000
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY, DEVELOPERS,
OR OTHERS? YES OR ® (cm= oNE)
IF YES, BY WHOM?
WHAT AMOUNT? $
OR %
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 3100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 4800 VPD
TTST 2 % DUAL 5 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
PROPOSED ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: two lane shoulder section
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE ------------------------------------------ 0
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ON-SITE DETOUR -----------------------------------------
3. RELOCATION OF STRUCTURE ---------------------------------------------------------*(q
4. OTHER -------------------------- ?
EXISTING STRUC'T'URE:
LENGTH 168 mE=
551 FEET
WIDTH 6.1 mErERs
20 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE: LENGTH 168 ERs WIDTH 9.6 mffrFRs
550 FEET 32 FEET'

go
. '
.000
Studied Detour Route
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 419 ON SR 1011
OVER HAW RIVER
B - 2814
0 mile i FIG. 1
ST'W
STATE oi: NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
April 16, 1998
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
L
t t?.l e MAY - ! 1998
r
WERANDS GR0i;r
W?,TER QJA(LLY.
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 RENEWAL APPLICATION FOR
BRIDGE NO. 419 OVER HAW RIVER, CHATHAM COUNTY. TIP
B-2814. ACTION ID 199605760.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 for the
subject project on September 10, 1996. This permit expired on January 21, 1997. The
replacement of the Bridge No. 419 is scheduled to be let to construction in August 1998.
Consequently, the Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to renew authorization for
this work.
While the information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources
Technical Report in a letter dated August 19, 1996, it can be further clarified that 0.05
acre of wetlands will be temporarily cleared as a result of this project. Additionally,
approximately 260 feet of an unnamed tributary will be relocated. The new channel will
also be approximately 260 feet long, resutling in no net loss. Native vegetation will be
reestablished along the new channel. The bridge will be replaced on existing location.
An off-site detour will be utilized during bridge replacement as traffic will be maintained
along secondary roads.
The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project under
a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of the 401 Water Quality
2
Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested. If you have any
questions or need additional information please call Mr. Michael Wood at [phone]
Extension 306.
Sincerely,
David C. Robinson, Ph.D., P.E., Asst. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
DCR:hrs
cc: Mr. David Franklin, ACOE
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E., Planning & Environmental
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action Id. County
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property owner nA c?c,T 1 ('?? \?.> '\\? SCE \U?? \P ?o . C'?- aR\y
Address KTT tl'• Mc H n\??,?:, rv,4 ??.?.<< ?.??•c?tr>\
r
L e\
Telephone No.
Size and Location of project (water body, road name/number, town, etc.) d '.?l„ p Nn . y \o\ or S \Z
\('?\?\ '? ? \E'? ??F r,? ?\es-.mac .tce N ? s'.?e '?? ?oe\c?. ? ?.? ?.er,??c.?ec•?
/Description of Activity R \n r \ p\ ?c? c0,2 -VI- y\?k ?h o?_? VNe \<-")v cam`. c f?n V
l rl ?' •Cl / \C??c? Y, C. Ilk e P)L •?'?\ . n n n C L' . CTY1 . \ c C& { L • \ `? Ch
?L C\ E``F C c t C'\ Cl\? C? Y ? ? ?r ? r?r < C' c`,C\C?'? -
Applicable Law: ? Section 404 (Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. 1344).
(check all that apply) Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899).
Authorization: Regional General Permit Number.
al Nationwide Permit Number.
Your work is authorized by this Regional General (RGP) or Nationwide Permit (NWP) provided it is accomplished
in strict accordance with the attached conditions and your submitted plans. If your activity is subject to Section
404 (if Section 404 block above is checked), before beginning work you must also receive a Section 401 water
quality certification from the N.C. Division of Environmental Management, telephone [phone]. For any
activity within the twenty coastal counties, before beginning work you must contact the N.C. Division of Coastal
Management, telephone [phone].
Please read and carefully comply with the attached conditions of the RGP or NWP. Any violation of the conditions
of the RGP or the NWP referenced above may subject the permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or
appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army RGP or NWP verification does not relieve the permittee of the responsibility to obtain
any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee may need to contact appropriate State
and local agencies before beginning work.
If there are any questions regarding this authorization or any of the conditions of the General Permit or Nationwide
Permit, please contact the Corps Regulatory Official specified below.
Date \G `D c_c?\- `\
Corps Regulatory Official Telephone No. ?M'\)
Expiration Date of Verification W ?c?r\
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORMS, PROJECT PLANS, ETC., MUST
BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CESAW Form 591
Revised July 1995