19970680 Ver 1_Complete File_19970801

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., PI., Director
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
I LT!?FA
T?I 0
ED F= F1
August 20, 1997
Durham County
WQC 401 Project #970680
TIP #B-2963
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to place fill material in 0.27 acres of
wetlands or waters for the purpose of bridge replacement at SR 1107, as you described in your application
dated 29 July 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is covered by General
Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number
23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local
permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control,
Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire
when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are fuial and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorsey at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
2
toLnHo, Jr. P
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorsey
Central Files
970680.1tr
Division of Water Cluality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/100/6 post consumer paper

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGI 1, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRI; IAkv
February 21, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: 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 Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107
in Durham County over New Hope Creek, B-2963
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 March 26, 1996 at 9:30 A. 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 Jeff Ingham, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7844 (Ext. 236).
JI/plr o ??,6 C`'
Attachment I'?'X ?'? FMS ?I rl S ?J l yl J J ?ll S?
!mil , `?J? _ ? ,:? l,!?? /j G?; ?? r,
i??' z
??? j
lax
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT
B-2963
STATE PROJECT 8.2352201
F. A. PROJECT
BRSTP-1107(4)
DATE: 2-21-96
DIVISION 5
COUNTY Durham
ROUTE SR 1107
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New Hope
Creek in Durham County.
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
EXISTING LENGTH 42 METERS; WIDTH 5.5 METERS
STRUCTURE: 137 FEET 18 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ... ` ................................. $ 380,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 40,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 420,000
70
CLASSIFICATION: Urban Collector
i
jv
??So? V? ?'DZv
J a/

- •
°
I
I?
I
1 1113 1 ZJ
X75;
1110
1
i
35°
\TC -Ali 1 9 2?61 40
FiA
hid 54 , -- - •7 ??? if--mss
I 1 t.
%
ell
r
Blonds Porkwood
• 1118 ( (uniric.) ?
POP. 9,420
B. EVERET
1 ?(
? JORDAN LAKE? ,
' c
BRIDGE NO. 111
751
$?
North Carolina Department Of
o`'I Transportation
°-
40 '? - - Planning & Environmental Branch
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 111 ON SR 1107
OVER NEW HOPE CREEK
B-2963
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
i '1 Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
c
N. C. DEPARTMBNT OF -TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DAYS /
TOt REF. NO. OR ROOM, GLQO.:
FR MI REF.'NO. OR ROOM, GLDO.
A 4
ACTIOIC
-0 NOTE AND FILE ? Pon OUR CONVERSATION -
?NOTE AND RETURN TO ME - ? PER YOUR REOUsST
Q RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE Ms A/OUT THIS '-? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER - ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS - -
E3 PREPARE REPLY FOR MY GIGNATURll -? SIGNATURE
? TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT'
COMMENTSI
RECEIVED
_I APR 0 3 1996
ENV!RO MENIALSCiENCFS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. 60X25201, RALEIGI L N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
GowANOR March 29, 1996 SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1107, Durham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 1 I 1
over New Hope Creek, State Project 8.23
F. A. Project BRSTP-1107(4), B-2963
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building on
March 26, 1996.
The following people were in attendance:
Jimmy Goodnight Roadway Design
Steve Smallwood Roadway Design
Jerry Snead Hydraulics
Debbie Bevin State Historic Preservation Office
Sid Autry Location and Surveys
Betty Yancey Right of Way
Eric Galamb Division of Environmental Management
David Cox North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
Henry Esealuka Traffic Control
Steve Hall DPR/ Natural Heritage
Jeff Ingharn Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either called in or given at the meeting:
Eric Galamb of DEM stated that this section of New Hope Creek is classified as
Class WS IV waters and recommended that High Quality Waters soil and erosion control
measures be implemented on the project. He requested that there be no weepholes on the
bridge over the stream and recommended that the bridge be replaced in place with road
closure.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission recommended that Best
Management Practices be used on this project. He stated that all efforts should be made
to avoid impacts to game lands and to maintain dry bank passage under the bridge for
wildlife. Steve Hall of the Natural Heritage Program stated his concurrence with these
recommendations.
Debbie Bevin stated that no archaeological or architectural surveys would be
needed on this project.
gn.
Tom Norman of the Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation, indicated that
SR 1 107 is a proposed regional bike route. He recommended a 1.2 meter (4 foot)
shoulder and 1.37 meter (54 inch) bridge rails on the bridge to accommodate bicycles.
Sid Autry, P. E., RLS, Area Locating Engineer, stated that there is an
underground fiber optic service line running along the south side of SR 1107. He
recommended that the bridge be replaced on the existing horizontal and vertical alignment
and traffic be detoured offsite during construction.
D. A. Allsbrook, Jr., P. E., Division Engineer for Division 5, recommended that
the road be closed, the bridge be replaced at its current location, and traffic be detoured
along surrounding roads.
Jerry Snead of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced with a
bridge approximately 48 meter (157 feet) in length at the same location with
approximately the same roadway elevation with a minimum 0.3 % gradient to facilitate
deck drainage. He noted that there is a USGS Stream Gage station attached to the bridge
on the south (downstream) side of the bridge. Coordination should be made with USGS
prior to construction regarding removal or relocation of the stream gage.
Roadway and Structure Design agreed with the division engineer and Hydraulics in
that the bridge should be replaced in place and traffic detoured along secondary roads.
The possibility of using an on-site detour to maintain traffic was brought up. This
option was determined not to be warranted at this site.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
Alternate 1: Replace bridge with a new bridge structure approximately 48 meters
(157 feet) in length at the same location with approximately the same
roadway elevation. Close SR 1 107 to traffic during construction and
detour traffic along surrounding roads. This will be the only replacement
alternate evaluated.
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 3-29-96
TIP PROJECT B-2963 DIVISION 5
STATE PROJECT 8.2352201 COUNTY Durham
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-1 107(4) ROUTE SR 1107
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
STRUCTURES
BRIDGE NO. I I I
EXISTING LENGTH 42 METERS, WIDTH 5.5 METERS
STRUCTURE: 137 FEET 18 FEET
NEW STRUCTURE
LENGTH
TRAFFIC
1996 ADT: 400 VPD
% TTST, I% Dual
10% DHV, 60% Dir
48 METERS, WIDTH 9.8 METERS
157 FEET 32 FEET
Estimated 2020 ADT: 4500
2% TTST, 3% Dual
10% DHV, 60% Dir
COSTS
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................
TIP TOTAL COST ......................................
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE
Expected to be completed by May 1996.
CLASSIFICATION: Urban Collector
TIP ESTIMATE
$ 380,000
+ $ 40,000
$ 420,000
t ,
. ?.,.,.: 9 7 0 6 8
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPAPUMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
29 July 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6512 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 105
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
RECEIVED
AUC Q 1 1997.
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
. , 1 1
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 23 APPLICATION FOR REPLACEMENT OF
BRIDGE NO. 111 ON SR 1107 OVER NEW HOPE CREEK, DURHAM
COUNTY, TIP NO. B-2963.
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion
Classification Form and the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13, 1996,
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.
Potential wetland impacts are approximately 0.27 acres. This was determined
using the entire project right-of-way. Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right-of-way, therefore, actual wetland and surface water impacts may be
considerably less.
The project will impact a strip of land, approximately 4 feet wide, on both sides of
the roadway for the length of the project. This land is part of a waterfowl impoundment
managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC) and qualifies
as Section 4(f) resources. A set of commitments to protect this land has been coordinated
with Mr. David Cox of the NCWRC and are listed in the CE document.
R 1%
2
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing a copy of the CE document and
the NRTR to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Michael Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
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. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. D. A. Allsbrook, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Jeff Ingham, Planning & Environmental
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2963
State Project No. 8.2352201
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-1107(21
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New Hope
Creek in Durham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately
48 meters (157 feet) in length and 9.6 meters (32 feet) in width at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. This section of roadway
is part of a proposed bicycle route. The bridge width will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) shoulders to allow for bicycle travel. The
bridge will have 1372 millimeter (54 inch) high bicycle-safe railing. Approach work
will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to provide two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including a 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulder for bicycle travel. Shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where
guardrail is required. Total project length will be approximately 220 meters
(720 feet). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 111 has a sufficiency rating of 47.3 out of 100. The structure is a two
lane bridge with 5.3 meters (17.4 feet) of bridge roadway width. This width does not
meet modern design standards. The bridge is posted for 18 tons for single vehicles
and 27 tons for truck tractor semi trailers. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is
neither practical nor economical. "Do nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual
closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
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
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is consistent 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 procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. Best Management Practices (BMP's) including High Quality Soil
and Erosion Control Measures will be implemented and properly maintained during project
construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
3
The US Geological Survey (USGC) Gauging Station attached to the south side of the
existing bridge is currently in use. In order to allow USGS time to remove all gauging
equipment from the bridge, the NCDOT Resident Engineer will notify Doug Smith with the
USGS (919-571-4000) of the bridge removal thirty days prior to construction.
During final hydraulic design, efforts will be made to design the deck drainage so that
there are no weepholes over the stream, and if possible, no weepholes on the bridge at all. If
possible, rip rap will be avoided in an effort to maintain wildlife passage under the bridge.
The project will impact an approximately 1.2 meter (4 foot) wide strip of land on both
sides of the roadway for the length of the project. This land is part of a waterfowl
impoundment managed by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC).
The following commitments are made to protect the Section 4(0 Gamelands and waterfowl
impoundment:
The hunter access to the waterfowl impoundment located on the west side of the
existing bridge must remain open from September to January 31.
2. NCWRC personnel must have access to the impoundment at all times.
3. The parking lot at the impoundment will not be available for use as a
construction staging area by the contractor.
4. Disturbance of the area during the waterfowl season (September through
January) must be kept to a minimum.
The NCWRC has requested that mitigation take one of two forms; either
purchase an appropriate amount of land adjacent to the property, or add 6 inches
of gravel to the parking lot at the impoundment and stabilize all newly graded
slopes with weeping lovegrass.
6. David Cox of the N. C. Wildlife Resource (919-528-9886) will be invited by the
resident engineer to attend the preconstruction meeting for this project.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 625,000
Right of Way $ 33,500
Total $ 658,500
4
Estimated Traffic:
Current
Year 2020
TTST
DUAL
400 VPD
4500 VPD
1%
- 1%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 2.4 meters (8 feet) wide including 1.2 meters (4 feet) paved,
3.3 meters (11 feet) wide where-guardrail is required
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Urban Collector
Division Office Comments:
1. This project is located in the midst of a waterfowl impoundment area with
the flood control dam and gates located approximately 61 meters (200 feet)
north of SR 1107. Therefore, the proposed structure should be located on
the existing. alignment.
2. Based on the above and a traffic count of 400 VPD, the Division would
agree to close SR 1107 during construction.
3. A MCI fiber. optic cable is located on the south side of SR 1107.
4. A sign also notes that this is a wild turkey restoration area.
5. The existing bridge has a measuring device attached to the south side.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists 91X of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be Completed.
5
t
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
,7 -
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? F7 X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? j? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 17 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? - -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?~- X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 1 X
6
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 N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel --
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned --
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or ---,
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X-
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land -------
use of any adjacent property? X
7
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X C
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or --
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X i
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
8
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
After coordination with the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission, it was
determined that the project commitments made in Section D of this document sufficiently
address the response to Question 27.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2963
State Project No. 8.2352201
Federal-Aid Project No. _ BRSTP-1107(2)
Prpject Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New
Hope Creek in Durham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately
48 meters (157 feet) in length and 9.6 meters (32 feet) in width at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation as the existing bridge. This section of roadway
is part of a proposed bicycle route. The bridge width will include two 3.6 meter
(12 foot) lanes and 1.2 meter (4 foot) shoulders to allow for bicycle travel. The
bridge will have 1372 millimeter (54 inch) high bicycle-safe railing. Approach work
will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to provide two 3.6 meter (12
foot) lanes and 2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, including a 1.2 meter (4 foot) paved
shoulder for bicycle travel. Shoulders will widen to 3.3 meters (11 feet) where
guardrail is required. Total project length will be approximately 220 meters (720
feet). Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
_ TYPE II (A)
X _ TYPE II (B)
Approved:

Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Head
ate Pro' t lanng Engin r
3/-)71y7 - __-?.-----
Date ision Administrator
Weral Highway Administration
10

I
e""A
? cdl:y ?B
¦
I r

I 1113 Y\?
I
10
35° 55.
L. I
.7 FAA
?l -----
Blands
( II1 Parkwood
' (uninc.)
V J a .., ?? • POP. 9,420
' . B. EVERET `
`JORDAN LAKE-
' c
Q BRIDGE NO. 111
o 7c1\
° d a ly? North Carolina Department Or
Transportation
0
`?e?• _,,i Planning & Environmental Branch
Studied Detour Route DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. I l l ON SR 1107
OVER NEW HOPE CREEK
B-2963
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
' I Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2
' NCWRC,HCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:[phone] Mar 21'97 16:25 No.005 P.02
® North Carolina Wddhfe Resources Conumssion
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh. North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Fngineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coprditmlor ,
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 21, 1997
SUBJECT: Bridge No. I I I replacement in Durham County. North Carolina. TIP No. 11-2963.
We have reviewed the information provided by NCDOT and feel that the following measures would
provide adequate protection for NCWRC Gamelands and the subject waterfowl impoundment.
1. The hunter access to the waterfowl impoundment located on the west side of tlic existing bridge
must remain open from September 1 to January 31.
2. NC: WRC personnel must have access to the impoundment at all times.
3. Tito parking lot at the impoundment will not be available for use as u construction staging area
by the contractor.
4. Disturbance of the area during the waterfowl season must be kept to a minimum (i.e. loud
noises).
S. Mitigation should take one of two forms; either purchase an npproprinto n?nount of land ndjacont
to the property, or add 6 inches of gravel to the parking lot at the impoundment and stabilize all
newly graded slopes with weeping lovegrass.
6. This property was not acquired with Pittman Robertson funds.
NCD(Yl' should use Best Management Practices to control sediment at this site. We wish to attend
the preconstructiou meeting for this project to discuss our concerns with NCDOT construction personnel
and thu contractor.
Tf you have any further questions please call me at [phone].
JASTATEv
a?,t ? Zc
a?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
March 27, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 111 on SR 1 107 over New Hope
Creek, Durham County, B-2963, Federal Aid
Project BRSTP-1 107(4), State Project
8.2352201, ER 96-8363
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1 V 46
6?
MAR 2 9 1996
7A OF
??? N1GNW PY
?? ?lnwnrlPllr`/
On March 26, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above
project. We reported our available information on historic architectural and
archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT
provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??V
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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: `'1'-I. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FINAL NATIONWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AND APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH MINOR INVOLVEMENT
WITH PUBLIC PARKS, RECREATION LANDS, AND WILDLIFE AND
WATERFOWL REFUGES
F. A. Project: BRSTP-1107(4)
State Project: 8.2352201
T. I. P. No. B-2963
Description: Replace Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107 over New Hope Creek in Durham
County.
Yes No
Is the proposed project designed to
improve the operational characteristics,
safety, and/or physical condition of
existing highway facilities on X
essentially the same location?
2. Is the project on new location? F-1 X
3. Is the Section 4(f) land a publicly
owned public park, recreation land, or
wildlife and waterfowl refuge located X
adjacent to the existing highway?
4. Does the amount and location of the land
to be used impair the use of the
remaining Section 4(f) land, in whole or
in part, for its intended purpose? F-1 X
(See chart below)
less than 10 acres ............ 10 percent of site
10 acres-100 acres ............ 1 acre
greater than 100 acres ............ 1 percent of site
Yes No
Do the proximity impacts of the project
(e.g., noise, air and water pollution,
wildlife and habitat effects, aesthetic
values) on the remaining Section 4(f)
land impair the use of such land for its X
intended purpose?
6. Do the officials having jurisdiction
over the Section 4(f) land agree, in
writing, with the assessment of the
impacts of the proposed project on, and
the proposed mitigation for, the Section X
4(o lands? . _F
7. Does the project use land from a site
purchased or improved with funds under
the Land and Water Conservation Act
(Section 6(f)), the Federal Aid in Fish
Restoration Act (Dingell-Johnson Act),
the Federal Aid in Wildlife Act
(Pittman-Robertson Act), or similar
laws, or are the lands otherwise
encumbered with a Federal interest a X
(e.g., former Federal surplus property)?
8. If the project involves lands described
in Item 7 above, does the appropriate
Federal Agency objedt to the land F-1 N/A
conversion or transfer?
9. Does the project require preparation of
an EIS? F-1 X
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AN D FOUND NOT TO B
FEASIBLE AND PR UDENT
Yes No
The following alternatives were evaluated and
found not to be feasible and prudent:
1
hi
D X
.
o-not
ng.
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies? X
or (b) correct existing safety hazards? X
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions? ? X
and (d) create costs, unusual problems, or X a
impacts of extraordinary measure?
2. Improvement of the highway without using
the adjacent public park. recreational N/A
land, or wildlife waterfowl refuge.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts,
changes in standards, use of a
retaining walls, etc., or traffic X
management measures been evaluated?
(b) The items in 2(a) would result in
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse community impact
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet the need
and (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which are
extraordinary magnitude
The bridge cannot be replaced without using land included in the recreational
area, which is on both sides of the roadway.
Yes No
3. Build an improved facility on new
location without using he public park.
recreational land. or wildlife and
waterfowl refuge. (This would be a
localized "run around.")
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve
the existing problems
or (ii substantial social,
environmental, or economic
impacts
or iii a substantial increase in
project cost or engineering
difficulties
and (iv such impacts, costs, or
difficulties of truly unusual
or unique or extraordinary
magnitude
1. The project includes all possible
planning to minimize harm.
2. Measures to minimize harm include the
following:
(circle those which are appropriate)
a. Replacement of lands used with lands
of reasonably equivalent usefulness
and location and of'at least
comparable value.
b. Replacement of facilities impacted
by the project including sidewalks,
paths, benches, lights, trees, and
other facilities.
X 17
Yes No
X F-I
O Restoration and landscaping of
disturbed areas.
O Incorporation of design features and
habitat features, where necessary,
to reduce or minimize impacts to the
Section 4(f) property.
Payment of the fair market value of
the land and improvements taken or
improvements to the remaining
Section 4(f) site equal to the fair
market value of the land and
improvements taken.
f. Additional or alternative mitigation
measures as determined necessary
based on consultation with the
officials having jurisdiction over
the parkland, recreation area, or
wildlife or waterfowl refuge.
3. A discussion of specific mitigation measures is provided as follows:
1. The hunter access to the waterfowl impoundment located on the west side of
the existing bridge must remain open from September to January 31.
NCWRC personnel must have access to the impoundment at all times.
The parking lot at the impoundment will not be available for use as a
construction staging area by the contractor.
4. Disturbance of the area during the waterfowl season (September through
January) must be kept to a minimum.
The NCWRC has requested that mitigation take one of two forms; either
purchase an appropriate amount of land adjacent to the property, or add 6
inches of graveLto the parking lot at the impoundment and stabilize all newly
graded slopes with weeping lovegrass.
6. David Cox of the N. C. Wildlife Resource (919-528-9886) will be invited by
the resident engineer to attend the preconstruction meeting for this project.
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. Officials having jurisdiction over x
the Section 4(f) Land
b. Local/State/Federal Agencies N/A
c. US Coast Guard N/A
(for bridges requiring bridge permits)
d. DOI, if Section 6(f) lands are N/A
involved
V
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(0 evaluation approved on
December 23, 1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable
to this project. There are no feasible or prudent alternatives which avoid use of the Section
4(f) land.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and there are assurances that
the measures to minimize harm will be incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed.
Approved:
Date q f6- Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch,
NCDOT
Date Q,? vision Administrator, FHWA
s..? FNL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkA NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
23 September 1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JP-
SECRETARY
Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 111, Over New Hope Creek,
Durham County, TIP No. B-2963; State Project No.
8.2352201; Federal Aid No. BRSTP-1107(4).
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
Bridge Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimations of impacts likely
to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
Waters of the United States and federally-protected species is also provided.
I would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Categorical Exclusion for
this project. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto
disk format (ext. 305).
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
Gordon Cashin, Permits Supervisor
File: B-2963
?#: *•
Replacement of Bridge No. 111
On SR 1107 Over New Hope Creek
Durham County
TIP No. B-2963
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1107(4)
State Project No. 8.2352201
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2963
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
BRUCE O. ELLIS, ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
23 SEPTEMBER 1996
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .................................................................................................................. . I
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................1
1.2 Purpose ..............................................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology .....................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ............................................................................2
1.5 Definitions .......................................................................................................2
2.0 Physical Resources .......................................................................................................2
2.1 Soils ............................................................................................................... ..2
2.2 Water Resources ...............................................................................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .................................................. ..3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .................................................................... ..3
2.2.3 Water Quality ...................................................................................... ..4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................ ..5
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................................................................................... ..6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................. ..6
3. 1.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Forest .......................................................... ..6
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed .......................................................................... ..7
3.2 Aquatic Communities ..................................................................................... ..7
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .................................................................... ..8
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics ................................................................................................... ..9
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................. ..9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................ ..9
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................... 10
4.1.3 Permits ................................................................................................ 10
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................................................................ 11
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ................................................................................. 11
4.1.4.2 Minimization ............................................................................ 11
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................... 12
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .............................................................................. 12
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ................................................................ 12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ......................... 14
5.0 References .................................................................................................................15
Figure 1. Project Location ................................................................................................2A
Figure 2. Project Area ......................................................................................................3A
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ..........................................................8
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Durham County .................................................12
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Durham County .................................................15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is
situated in Durham County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107
over New Hope Creek (Figure 2) in existing location with an off-site detour. The existing
cross section is 5.5 in (18.0 ft) and the proposed cross section is 9.6 in (32.0 ft). The
existing right-of-way is 18.3 in (60.0 ft). The proposed right-of-way is 30.5 m (100.0 ft).
Project length is 220 in (725 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the
various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also
attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to
these resources. Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource
impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing
preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional
field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in
this pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Southwest Durham), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetland Inventory Map (Southwest Durham), Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil maps, and NCDOT aerial
photographs of project area (1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR,
1993) and from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Durham County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern, and the N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Bruce O. Ellis and Logan Williams on 24 April 1996 and by Bruce Ellis on 23
August 1996. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and
recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observation
techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying
2
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Bruce O. Ellis, Environmental Biologist NCDOT.
Education: BS Agriculture/Environmental Science, Rutgers University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Certification: Certified Lake Manager (North American Lake Management Society).
Experience: Biologist, Allied Biological, Inc., March 1976-April 1994.
Expertise: Aquatic resource management; wetland delineation; Section 7
field investigations; NEPA investigations.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and
Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle
map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The
topography in this section of Durham County is characterized by gently rolling hills
which are dissected by fairly wide flood plains. Topography in the project area is
relatively flat since it is located in a wide flood plain area associated with New Hope
Creek. Project elevation is approximately 73 m (240 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
One soil phase occurs within project boundaries: Altavista silt loam, 2-6 percent
slopes. Altavista silt loam is a moderately well drained soil that occurs on broad stream
terraces. Permeability is moderate, runoff is medium, and the seasonal high water table is
located at 0.8 m (2.5 ft) below the surface. Flooding occurs infrequently for brief periods,
usually in late winter and early spring. Altavista silt loam is listed as non-hydric.
Altavista silt loam is low in natural fertility, however, it is well suited to locally
grown crops. Woodland productivity is rated as high. Wetness, periodic flooding and
erosion are major limitations for this soil.
Tm,a„p„ -?
, CA
a.? 1 ` ??.
e
S7
I 1 f ? /L
f , -fem.

NC
7113
I 1 75,
{ ??
35° 55'
?/y, I d
FiA
hid ?1 ? 1. ; ? _ ? .
C
I \ G ?? v
C'j
Glands '
v 8 I Porkwood
(uninc.)
v J `? gk? POP. 9,420
I : B. EVERET,
JORDAN LAKE,
I ° BRIDGE NO. 111
/!??•---- •- •---•-•- •------ /-I
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
?p " Planning & EnOronmental Branch
DURHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 111 ON SR 1107
OVER NEW HOPE CREEK
B-2963
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
s Figure 1
0 miles 1 miles 2

3
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a silty
texture. The soils did exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas
of the flood plain. Therefore, hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual", 1987, were observed within the project study area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
New Hope Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the
proposed project (Figure 2). New Hope Creek is located in sub-basin 03-06-05 of the
Cape Fear River Basin. New Hope Creek is a tributary to Jordan Lake, and has its
confluence with the lake approximately 3.2 km (2.0 mi stream channel distance)
downstream of Bridge No. 111. Jordan Lake is a 5790 ha (14,300 ac) impoundment of
the Haw River and its tributaries, and was created for flood control, fish and wildlife
habitat, recreation, and water supply. It is currently used as a water supply for the towns
of Cary and Apex [Division of Water Quality (DWQ), formerly the Division of
Environmental Management, 1995].
New Hope Creek, at Bridge No. 111, is approximately 14 m (45 ft) wide and has
an average depth of 1.8 m (6.0 ft) at this location. The substrate is composed of silt, sand
and gravel. The waters of New Hope Creek were very turbid at the time of the survey,
yielding a visibility of less than 0.5 m (1.5 ft).
A flood control structure is located approximately 90 m (300 ft) north (upstream)
of Bridge No. 111. Between the flood control structure and Bridge No. 111, a large pool
has formed, and it is approximately 61 m (200 ft) wide and 230 m (750 ft) long, resulting
a surface area of 1.4 ha (3.4 ac). The creek once again becomes channelized
approximately 30 m (100 ft) north of Bridge No. 111.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The
classification of New Hope Creek [index no. 16-41-1-(11.5)] is WS-IV NSW. The WS-
IV classification denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally in
moderately to highly developed watersheds: point source dischargers of treated
wastewater are permitted pursuant to rules .0104 and .0211 of 15A NCAC 2B .0100;
local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are

?P..Ilu

.
?LtA:., WWWWO
?N
u
w _A
u
a
d r? O •? v
a 3
o
?a \L.1
x N
a A o 0
I

.. ,r,

4
required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C uses include aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental
classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters which require limitations on
nutrient inputs.
The project area is located in a water supply watershed. Within the project
vicinity, approximately 0.8 km (0.5) downstream of the project area, the Jordan Lake
watershed is listed as a water supply critical area. A critical area is the area adjacent to
a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than
from the remaining portions of the watershed. The critical area is defined as extending
either 0.5 mile from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which the intake is
located or to the ridge line of the watershed (whichever comes first); or 0.5 mile upstream
from and draining to the intake.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing 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. Some macroinvertebrates
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. A BMAN station on New
Hope Creek is located at Bridge No. 111 on SR 1107. This station was sampled once in
October 1985 and received a rating of Poor.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The type of water quality data or parameters,
that are collected is determined by the waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification
and corresponding water quality standards (DWQ, 1995). Class C waters are sampled at
a minimum frequency of once per month. Bridge No. 111 over New Hope Creek is
designated as a location for a AMS station. A water level/quality monitoring structure is
attached to the bridge. The structure consists of a stainless steel box (located
approximately 1.2 m above the deck) connected to a section of corrugated galvanized
pipe which extends to the creek bottom. The DWQ reports that high conductivity
readings and elevated concentrations of nitrate/nitrite-nitrogen have been noted at this
location (DWQ, 1995).
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger
is required to register for a permit. One major discharger is located on New Hope Creek,
5
the Durham (Farringtion Road) Wastewater Treatment Plant (WWTP). The WWTP
outfall is located approximately 1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of Bridge No. 111. The
WWTP is permitted to discharge 10.0 million gallons per day into New Hope Creek. The
DWQ (1995) reports that the WWTP contributes an instream waste concentration of 99.5
percent to New Hope Creek under 7Q 10 low flow conditions (minimum average flow for
a period of seven consecutive days that has an average recurrence of once in ten years).
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new location usually results in more
severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft), anticipated impacts to
New Hope Creek will be 30.5 m (100.0 ft). Usually, project construction does not require
the entire right of way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the
study area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of
Water Supply Watersheds should be strictly enforced during the construction stage
of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to:
minimizing built upon area and diversion of stormwater away from surface water
supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval should also be strictly enforced.
6
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes
those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between
fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic
communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic
influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow
descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et'
al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhenick (1991), Potter, et
al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visit are denoted with an
asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating
fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities (Figure 2) are identified in the project study
area: Piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest, and maintained/disturbed. Community
boundaries within the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone
between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit both
communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is present along the New Hope Creek corridor and it is very
extensive south of SR 1107. The transition from alluvial forest to maintained/disturbed
community is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance activities. The hydrology of the
alluvial forest is driven by intermittent flooding during high flow periods. Periodic
flooding provides nutrient input through sediment deposition making this system very
productive. However, periodic flooding can also be a destructive factor during large
storm events by undercutting banks and eroding soils.
The canopy is composed of river birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus
americana), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), overcup oak
(Quercus lyrata), willow oak (Q. phellos), boxelder (Acer negundo) and red maple (A.
rubrum). The shrub layer consists saplings of the canopy trees, flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), spicebush (Lindera benaoin), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
ironwoood (Carpinus caroliniana). Herbs within the alluvial forest include; Japanese
grass (Microstegium vimineum), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Jack-in-
7
the-pulpit (Asimina triloba), and lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and greenbrier
(Smilax rotundifolia) comprise the vine layer of this community.
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include: two-lined salamander
(Eurycea bislineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis)
and raccoon* (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), will use this
forest community for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well as mast.
Avian species utilizing the alluvial forest include: the belted kingfisher*
(Megaceryle alcyon), prothonotary warbler* (Protonotaria citrea), northern parula*
(Parula americana), tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus),
and blue-gray gnatcatcher* (Polioptila caerulea). The barred owl (Strix varia) is a
permanent resident in this community type.
Portions of the alluvial forest south of SR 1107 are designated as a NC Wildlife
Gamelands Wild Turkey Restoration Area. Turkey restoration areas are provided through
cooperative efforts of public and private landowners and the WRC. Turkeys are stocked
in these areas in an effort to re-establish the species. The area is closed to all turkey
hunting until it has been determined that the population is self sustaining. The proposed
project will have no affect on the Wild Turkey Restoration Area.
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community is restricted to road shoulders along SR
1107 and are present along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically
maintained community includes: fescue (Festuca spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.),
buckhorn plantain (Plantago lanceolata), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), sicklepod (Cassia
obtusifolia), curly dock (Rumex crispus), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), yellow
woodsorrel (Oxalis stricta), and buttercup (Ranunculus bulbosus). The width of the road
shoulder varies between 4.6 and 6.0 m (15.0 and 20.0 ft).
• The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested
areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the
project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be
largely those species inhabiting the alluvial forest.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, New Hope Creek, will be impacted by the proposed
project. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water resource
influence faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to
a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent
aquatic vegetation was observed within this section of New Hope Creek.
Fauna associated with the aquatic community include various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Prey fish including shiners (Notropis spp.), chubs (Semotilus spp.),
provide foraging opportunities for pumpkinseed sunfish (Lepomis gibbosus) and bluegill
(L. macrochirus). Yellow bullhead catfish (Ameiurus natalis) and largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides) provide a sport fishery in this reach of New Hope Creek.
Invertebrates that would be present include: crayfish (family Cambaridae) and nymphal
stages of; dragonflies and damselflies (Order Odonata). The bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana),
pickerel frog (R. palustris), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina) northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon) are common permanent residents in this community.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way, therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Impacts
Alluvial Forest 0.35 (0.87)
Maintained 0.20 (0.50)
Total 0.55 0.371
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 111 and its associated
improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers.
However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna
will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for
the species.
9
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-
related work will effect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures which may impact
many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
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. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas 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).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of
Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three parameter approach is used where
10
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be
present for an area to be considered a wetland.
Wetlands are present within the project area, and are associated with the alluvial
forest (Figure 2). The wetlands can be described as palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous seasonally flooded (PFO 1 C, Cowardin, et al), or piedmont/low mountain
alluvial forest (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). Soils within the wetland areas have a silty
texture and a Munsell color notation of I OYR 511. Hydrological indicators include
saturated soil, the presence of oxidized rhizospheres and drift lines. Vegetation within
the wetlands include overcup oak, green ash, red maple, boxelder, tulip poplar, lizard's
tail, and Jack-in-the-pulpit.
New Hope Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality
aspects of New Hope Creek are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to wetland areas are determined by using the entire project
ROW width of 30.5 m (100.0 ft). Impacts to wetlands have been determined to be 0.11
ha (0.27 ac). Impacts to New Hope Creek have been determined to be 30.5 m (100.0 ft)
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW, therefore, actual wetlands
and surface water impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with
provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for
implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
II
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the section 404 nationwide #23.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and-
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for
impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
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
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. Wetland impacts can be avoided by confining construction activities
within the boundaries of the existing road shoulder (maintained/disturbed
community).
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 footprint of the proposed project through the reduction
of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical
mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed
project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
I . 1
12
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is 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 Waters of the United States. Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site. Compensatory
mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide permit # 23.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 23
August 1996, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Durham County
(Table 2). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Durham Coun
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower Endangered2
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac Endangered
Threatened species are species that are likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
2 Endangered is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
1 ? 1
13
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can
be identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in 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 NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting habitat in the form of large trees with a clear flight path to water
is not present within the project vicinity. The trees occupying the canopy of the alluvial
forest are fairly uniform in height and very dense. Open water (Jordan Lake) that is of
sufficient size for foraging opportunities for the bald eagle is approximately 1.6 km (1.0
mi) south of the project area. Additionally, the NC Natural Heritage Program data base
of rare species and unique habitats has no record for the presence of the bald eagle within
the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 09 December 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched
rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest,
and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly
lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are smaller than the basal
leaves. Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually
droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands,
glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone
bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North
Carolina populations are found in soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous
rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition from other
herbaceous plants.

14
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
The maintained grassed road shoulder offers the only potential habitat for smooth
coneflower within the project area. A plant by plant survey, for smooth coneflower
within areas of potential habitat, was conducted on 23 August 1996 by NCDOT biologist
Bruce O. Ellis. No Echinacea spp. was observed during the survey. Additionally, the NC
Natural Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats contains no record
for the presence of smooth coneflower within the project vicinity. Therefore, project
construction will not affect smooth coneflower.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Michaux's sumac is present only within the road shoulder
portions of the project area. A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac, within areas of
potential habitat was conducted on 23 August 1996 by NCDOT biologist Bruce O. Ellis.
No Michaux's sumac was observed during the survey. Additionally, the NC Natural
Heritage Program data base of rare species and unique habitats contains no record for the
presence of Michaux's sumac within the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction
will not affect Michaux's sumac.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are eight Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Durham County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those
species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally
candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was

15
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded
state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the
study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Durham Coun
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe (mussel)* T yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T yes
Lasmigona subviridus Green floater E yes
Somotogyrus virginicus Panhandle pebblesnail SR no
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR yes
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur E-SC no
Juglans cinerea Butternut W-5' no
Montropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C no
Plagiochila columbiana A liverwort C no
No specimen found in Durham County in twenty years.
Watch List.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of rare
species and unique habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-list of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, Jame L., and A. S. Weakley, 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Cowardin, Lewis M., et al 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of
the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Miss.
'A'e, - , •
16
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Vir inia. 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 Term Changes in Water
Quality, 1983- 1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins." Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1995. "Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management
Plan". Raleigh.
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, 1976, Soil Survey of Durham Coun , Soil Conservation
Service. 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.
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.
a.'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVP.RNOR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 31, 1997
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
RECEIWE
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Michael D. Smith, P.W.S.
Chief, North Section
Dear Sir:
SbG G , 1997,
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
.
Subject: Rockingham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 94 over Hogans Creek
on SR 2572 (Tate Road), Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2572(1), State
Project No. 8.251040 1, T.I.P. No. B-2864.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced
project. Bridge No. 94 will be replaced at its existing location. The new structure will be
a 3 barrel reinforced concrete box culvert 4.0 meters (13 feet) by 3.7 meters (12 feet).
Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction. No
jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The provisions of Section 330.4 and
Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are providing one
copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
Not
.?
2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N. Gordon
at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. W. Watkins, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Michele L. James, P & E Project Planning Engineer
It
Date: 1!93
Revised: 1,94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
A.
B
C
TIP Project No. B-2864
State Project No. 8.2510401
Federal-Aid Project No. BR7.-2572(] )
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 94 at the existing location
on Tate Road (SR 2572) over Hogans Creek in Rockingham County. The
new structure will be a 3 (") 4.0 m x 3.7 m (13 ft. X 12 ft.) reinforced concrete
box culvert. The structure will be replaced at approximately the same
elevation as the existing. The length of the culvert will be adequate to
accommodate two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.2-meter (4-foot) turf
shoulders. The approaches will include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes and
1.2-meter (4-foot) turf shoulders. Traffic will be detoured along secondary
roads during construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 94 has a sufficiency rating of 18.2 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for 9 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck tractor semi-trailers.
which is well below standards. For these reasons, Bridge No. 94 needs to be
replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving. turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
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)
Date: 1,193
Revised: 1/94 ff
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
U 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.
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.
2
Date: 1;'93
Revised: 1/94
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 \T-PA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
Permits:
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 likely be applicable.
Prior to issuance of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit #23, a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification must be obtained.
Estimated Costs:
CURREN'T' TIP
* Construction $ 3 50, 000 S 350,000
Right of Way S 211000 S 21,000
Prior Cost S -0-
------------- S 100,000
-----------
TOTAL S 371,000 S 471,000
Date: 1/93
Revised: 11/94
*Cost includes 15% for engineering and contingencies
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year: 1996 - 400 VPD DUAL - 1°10
Design Year: 2020 - 700 VPD TTST - 1%
Design Speed: 100 km/h
Functional Classification: Local Route
Division Mee Comments:
The Division Office concurs with the proposed project.
School Buses:
DHV - 100,6
DIR - 60%
Three school buses cross Bridge No. 94 twice a day. The Transportation Director for
Rockingham County prefers the road be closed in the summer months during
construction.
Architectural / Historic Resources:
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended no architectural
survey for this project.
The SHPO recommended an archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project. Archaeological site 31RK103 is located in the
northwest quadrant of the intersection of Hogans Creek and Tate Road
(SR 2572). An informal consultation was held on December 18, 1995 between
an NCDOT staff archaeologist and Delores Hall of the Office of State
Archaeology. At the consultation, it was determined an archaeological survey for
this project is not recommended. The proposed project will have little likelihood of
affecting any archaeological properties eligible for listing on the National
Register of Historic Places.
Utilities:
According to the Area Locating Engineer, Duke Power has a single phase
electrical service along the south side of SR 2572. Southern Bell Telephone has
an underground cable along the south side of SR 2572. The cable is aerial over
Hogans Creek.

4
It
Date: V93
Revised: 1!94
Detour Route:
The studied detour route includes SR 2574, SR 2582, NC 150 (Rockingham and
Caswell County), SR 1155 (Caswell County) and SR 1.152 ( Caswell County).
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type 11 actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be completed.
If the project consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need to
be completed.
ECOLOGICAL )TES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? I x
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
u
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of --
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x u
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
x
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? ?j X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters x
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? Y
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? 1
5
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
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 X
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? --?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? I X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F11 X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or n
business? X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? 1 -
X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? U X
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan r--
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)9

6
Date: 1!93
Revised: 1194
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? 1
--
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or -
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for -
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? j X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources i
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl Z
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for Z
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question no. 2:
As of April 1, 1996, the USFWS lists the smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata) as the only federally-protected species for Rockingham
County. Habitat for the smooth coneflower does exist in the project area. A
plant-by-plant survey for smooth coneflower was conducted on June 25, 1996,
by two NCDOT biologists. No populations of smooth coneflower were identified
in the project area. Impacts to this species are not expected from project
construction. A search of the North Carolina Heritage Program database
revealed no known populations of smooth coneflower within 1.6 km(1.0 mi) of the
project area.
7
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1,194
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2864
State Project No. 8.2510401
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2572(1)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 94 at the existing location
on Tate Road (SR 2572) over Hogans Creek in Rockingham County. The
new structure will be a 3 (a? 4.0 m x 3.7 m (13 ft. X 12 ft.) reinforced
concrete box culvert and will be replaced at approximately the same elevation
as the existing. The length of the culvert will be adequate to accommodate
two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.2-meter (4-foot) turf shoulders. The
approaches will include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.2-meter (4-foot)
turf shoulders. Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during
construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
D to Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
Q (p
Date Project Planning Unit Head
9 30 9 1 ?5? -
ate Project Planning En ' eer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date r Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

N Sad ler QykJK
' Iim
s 2577
)J 2363
1.1 y
en .7 \
17336 7666 .1 .0 ?
Lowsonville 7 FAI
y 7se•
ONO

a
2696

4t N 236$

?{
e,l{.
` ;? s

2570 Cosy i

!4!
*
.? .3

2377
-. •9 h

62 73 i i
/ 2"
- $ Comm

IIOp .}
2697 pAp 7

/

lk
?
h
Lm

?. /
T
? , 7.36 Gtce li I '^;
7 •

? 7Lt1 ? 6A 9 ?133
2622

d
2 7 'a
Pleasant

?

?s» 2696
L
J G

`` I at • = y

f ,

11 Z7
_ )Sol
239

`
2se. A • 1 :: ?.?
.
23 a
1149

} 33Z 2609
-- 0
?
t? v
I

•D . e
llg
\ D
III6
?
WY• 7623 \
:doh ? ?
r

]3.lL
?
i ,i69u
2392

u07
6..
I t u
s?1131
,r

r

`
Lenox
nC
\ \??

, Gfw?

v
+3 2K3
.. 1 , 6 1
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
B - 2864
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 94
OVER HOGANS CREEK ON SR 2572
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
0 miles 2 FIG. I
10 s,,. RAiF ?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 10, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department oMTrans ort/ation
FROM: David Brook
Dep uty State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
cEi
IMAY 15 1995
z.
DIVISION OF Q?
HIGHWAYS
SUBJECT: Replace Bridge 94 on SR 2572 over Hogans Creek,
Rockingham County., 6=2864, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-2572(1), State Project 8.2510401, ER 95-8599
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
April 25, 1995. However, Clay Griffith provided an aerial of the project area to us
for review.
Based upon this aerial, there appears to be one structure that may be over fifty
years old on the south side of SR 2572 west of the bridge. If the bridge is s
replaced in place with road closure, this structure will be outside of the area of
potential effect hnd,;,r 0 pNtc k a1:, scmmended,A If a temporary on- f
site detour is selected, the structure might lie within the`'projlect's area of potential
effect and should be'evi luated for National Register eligibility.
Archaeological site 31 RK1O3 is located in the northwest quadrant of the
intersection of Hogans Creek and SR 2572.. This site dates from the Middle 'and.
Late Archaic and Woodland periods and has the potential for intact features. We
recommend that the proposed project area be surveyed and that 31 RK103 be
tested to ; etermine its eligibility, for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
PWl 6s: Y .
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.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
I
s . sun v
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
05 October 1995
MRAORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott. Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Phillip Todd. Environmental Biolo--ist /
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Investigation for proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 94 on SR 25-2 over
Hogan's Creek. Rockingham County: TIP No.
B-2864: State Project No. 3.2510--01: Federal
Project No. BRZ-2572(1).
ATTENTION: Michele James. Project Manager
The following report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). A
completed Ecological Threshold checklist for Type II PCE is
also included. This report contains information concerning
water resources. biotic resources. Waters of the United
States, mitigation, permits and federally-protected species.
The proposed project involves replacing the Bridge No.
94 over Hogan's Creek with a box culvert. Two alternatives
have been proposed:
:alternate 1: Replace the structure on existing location with
road closure. The northside approachway would
be widened 1.5 m (4.9 ft).
Alternate 2: Replace the structure on existing location with
an on-site detour located north of the existing
bridge. The northside approachway would be
widened 1.5 m (4.9 ft).
METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations;
these information sources include U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Williamsburg). and Natural Resources
Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps of Rockingham County.
Water resource information was obtained from publications of
the Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR, '_990) and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base Map
0
I

of Rockingham County (N.C. Center for Geographic Information
and Anaivsis. 1992). Information concerning the occurrence
of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of
protected and candidate species and the N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
. General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Phillip Todd and Bruce Ellis on
25 September 1995. Plant communities were identified and
recorded. Jurisdictional wetland determinations were
p--rformed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987). _
WATER RESOURCES
Hogan's Creek, the water resource transversed b;: the
project. lies in the Dan River Sub-basin of the Roanoke River
Basin. Hogan's Creek flows in a northeasterly direction and
originates approximately 3.5 km (5.3 mi) southwest of the
study area. Hogan's Creek has a width of 2.4 in (S.0 ft) and
a depth of 15.2 cm (6.0 in). This creek has a sand/pebble
substrate and a moderate current flow.
A ditch parallels the southeast side of the roadway and
empties into Hogan's Creek at the project site. This ditch
has a width of 1 m (3 ft. and a depth of 5.1 cm (2.0 in) with
sand/pebble substrate and moderate flow rate.
The Division of Environmental )Management (DE`1) assigns
streams a best usage classification. Unnamed tributaries are
attributed the classification of streams to which they are a
tributary. The DEM has designated Hogan's Creek as "C" and
the ditch has this classification as well. This designation
denotes Class C waters as suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation and agriculture.
From a natural resources perspective, it is preferred
that Alternate 1 be constructed. Construction of this
alternate has less impacts to Hogan's Creek when compared to
impacts caused by Alternate 2. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) and sedimentation guidelines should be administered.
It is also recommended that the streamside embankment be
vegetated immediately after construction. These measures
will help in reducing the wash of sediment and toxic
compounds into water resources.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial
ecosystems. This section briefly describes those ecosystems
encountered in the stud,,- area. Descriptions of the

terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications. Dominant flora and fauna likely
to occur in each community are described and discussed.
TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Two distinct terrestrial communities have been
identified in the project study area: disturbed community and
alluvial hardwood forest. :Many faunal species are highly
.--adaptive and may populate the entire range of terrestrial
--communities discussed.
DIISTURBED COMMUNITY
Disturbed communities exist in areas which have a
regular or an irregular disruption of successional processes.
Two types of this community occur in the subject project
area: roadside shoulder and agricultural field. Vegetation
found in the roadside shoulder area includes fescue (Festuca
sp.). crab grass (Digitaria sp.), goosegrass (Eleusine
indica) and?foxtail (Setaria sp.). The agricultural field
lies in the northwest quadrant of the project study area and
had recently been planted at site visit.
Fauna frequently encountered in this habitat are
woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Svlvilaus
floridanus), mockingbird (Mimus polvalottos), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and
black racer (Colub'er constrictor). The Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana) frequents this community in search of
insects, earthworms, carrion or vegetable matter on which to
forage.
ALLUVIAL HARDWOOD FOREST
An alluvial hardwood forest lies along Hogan's Creek and
will be impacted by Alternate 2. It appears that this area
had once been farmland as ditches and small rows remain
throughout the forest which now has a canopy of box elder
(Acer neaundo), sycamore (Planatus occidentalis) and black
walnut (Juglans nigra). The county soils map shows that
hydric soils occur here although no hydric soil indicators
were found. Spicebush (Lindera binzoin) dominated the
subcanopy. Poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera Japonica) and microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum) are in the herb/vine layer.
Animals likely to live in this habitat include raccoon
(Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virainianus),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and tufted titmouse
(Parus bicolor). Reptiles and amphibians that may occur in
this community include eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), slimy salamander
(Plethodon el;ltinosus) and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus).
I
I
4
AQUATIC COMMUNITY
Hogan's Creek is a Piedmont perennial stream. Fish
species likely to occur here include swallowtail shiner
(Notronis Procne), cresent shiner (j. cerasinus), white
sucker (Catostomus commersoni), redbreasted sunfish (Lepomis
auri.tus) and yellow perch (Per.ca flavescens).
From a natural resources perspective, it is preferred
that Alternate 1 be used for the proposed replacement of
-ridge No. 94 with a box culvert. Alternate 2 will impact
the alluvial hardwood forest, altering the forest and pushing
wildlife further away from the roadway. Again, BMP's and=
sedimentation guidelines should be administered to reduce
further impacts to Hogan's Creek.
WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad
category of "Waters of the United States." Criteria to
delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric
soils. hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No
juriidictional wetlands occur in the study area although
surface waters will be impacted by the subject project.
PERMITS
Impacts to surface waters will occur from the proposed
project. A perrnit will be required from the COE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
- A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be
applicable for all impacts to Waters of the United States
resulting from the proposed project. This permit is
designated for projects classified as Categorical Exclusions.
In addition, this project will also require a 401 Water
Quality General Certification from the DEM prior to the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean
Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge to Waters of the
United States.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of 28 March 1995, the FWS lists only
one federally-protected species for Rockingham County, smooth

V
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). Smooth coneflower is
classified as "Endangered" (a species that is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range). A brief description of smooth coneflower's
characteristics and habitat follows.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) E
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from
simple or branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and
Lew leaves. The basal leaves are the largest, and these
le,,aves are smooth to slightly rough. tapered to the base and
el-l-Tptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short
or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves.
Flowers are present from June to early July, light pink to
purplish in color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually
droop. Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-
angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of
meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides,
power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone
bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous
parent material. North Carolina populations are found in
soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock.
Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little
competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Habitat (roadside shoulders and ecotones of forests) for
smooth coneflower exists in the project study area. Plant-
by-plant surveys for smooth coneflower will be conducted
during the early summer of 1996.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2864
I
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES
(1), Will the project have a substantial impact
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
.species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and-minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by
proposed construction activities?
NO

0 -
? X
x ?

ax
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?

(3) Will the project.require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated - ?
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ?
hazardous materials sites?
d
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AN COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly a
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(171) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ?
Y Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ? y .
required?
? U
(13) Will the project result in the modification
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream I I
relocations or channel changes? l_1
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of
a-ny family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(13) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?

S
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
F. Additional Documentation Required or Unfavorable
Responses in Part F
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
1-?4??T4T E. Z. O= 4A C.OF--jAE E2 (E;4t.'-j4C.rct1 l-AEVi(0,4,7 ) 1
"
Co.. 7c-?..,T - CS7 - ?U -'r

't•
7