19991409 Ver 1_Complete File_19991212

i
T
99 1 4 09
uu-'. n
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR P ACTING SECRETARY
December 9, 1999
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
ATTENTION:
Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT
Dear Sir:

L

Burke County, Bridge No. 16 on SR 1795 over Henry Fork Rive:
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1795(1); State Protect No. 8.2851801: TIP
No. 13-2933.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on December 1997. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 16 over Henry Fork River on SR 1795, Burke County. The bridge
replacement involves replacing bridge no. 16 with a new curved bridge structure
approximately 47.5 meters (156 feet) in length and 9.4 meters (31 feet) in width at
approximately the same location. Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during
construction. There will be approximately 132 meters (432 feet) of approach work to the
south and 95 meters (312 feet) of approach work to the north. No jurisdictional wetlands
will be impacted by the proposed project.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BD&R) will be followed and
adhered to (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
The existing bridge No. 16 in Burke County is a structure 91 feet long and 18 feet
wide. The superstructure is includes three spans composed entirely of timber and steel.
Demolition of the superstructure will not result in any fill. The substructure includes two
piers in the water. Depending upon the demolition method, which could include the use
of explosives, the maximum resulting temporary till would be 40 cubic yards. However,
actual fill quantities would likely be significantly less. This bridge demolition has been
classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
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 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit.
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(DWQ), for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county. a copy o
this document is also being provided to the NC Wildlife Resources Commission (Wl:( .
for their review.
The DOT asks that the bridge replacement work be autnorizect under
Nationwide Permit 23. The DOT is also requesting that the WRC provide comments t(
the COE concerning hermit request.
If you have any questions or need anv additional information, please contact M
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone]. Extension 31 -? .
Sincerely,
7r? William D. Gilmore. PE, Manager
r Planning and Environmental Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. W.D. Smart, P.E., Division 13 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC, Eastern Mountain Coordinator
Mr. Bob Brown, P.E., Design Services
4
I
f
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality anc,
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categorie'S.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
• If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can nroceea to the next sr)"...
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
It 'a CAMA permit is required. dropninc! any comnonent of a bridge into the wat,
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no teasible alternative. Such L.
activity would require coordination with and apnroval of CAME.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. if an unusual,
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must b
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This i"
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed b.,
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applving tho.ti
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time.
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included ir:?
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. T-w
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove an
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Armv Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with Jurisdiction over arrr.
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible tr,
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP'.s which shall minimi-c
eliminate the consultations required in the future
General.
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall M
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2933
State Project No. 8.2851801
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1795(1)
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 16 on SR 1795 over Henry Fork
River in Burke County. The new structure will be a curved bridge structure
approximately 47.5 meters (156 feet) in length and 9.4 meters (31 feet) in width at
approximately the same location as Bridge No. 16. The elevation of the new bridge
will be approximately one meter (3-feet) higher than the existing structure. Traffic
will be detoured along secondary roads during construction.
Due to the curvature of the alignment, curve widening is required on the
bridge structure. There will be two lanes of travel with adequate offsets to provid;
appropriate sight distance.
There will be 132 meters (432 feet) of approach work to the south anc
95 meters (312 feet) of approach work to the north. The pavement width on both
approaches to the bridge will taper from 7.5 meters (25 feet) at the bridge down to 5.=4
meters (18 feet) where it will match the existing road pavement width. There will be
2.2-meter (7-foot) grass shoulders to accommodate guardrail. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed should be 60 km/h (35 mph).
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 16 has a sufficiency rating of 48.4 out of 100. Bridge No. 16 is
posted 15 tons for single vehicles and 20 tons for TTST's. The "Do-nothing"
alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing
bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical. For these reasons, Bridge No. 16 needs to be
replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
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)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Instalitng ramp metering deviceE
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrai:
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pie-
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuaton
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
O repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
2
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 passence-
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which tnere i:,
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas use
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where suc!
construction is consistent with existing zoning and where there is nc
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance lane.
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a liinite-
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. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's)
will be included 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.
Foundation investigations will be required on this project. The investigation
will include test borings in soil and/or rock for in-site testing as well as obtaining
samples for laboratory testing. This may require test borings in streams and/or
wetlands.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 500,000
Right of Way $ 22,000
Total $ 522,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 290 VPD
Year 2020 - 600 VPL
TTST - 1 °/(')
DUAL - 4%
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the bridgt:
in place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction..
Design Exceptions:
A design exception will be required due to design speed.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II 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
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? 17 X
4
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of ?
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?-
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adverser- r-
impacted by proposea construction activities?
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Water: x
(HOW,
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ?j X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites`' 7 X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? a --
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ? X
5
(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? 0 X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area`: FX
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or -?
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ! X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? ? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 7 X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
6
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic ? -
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing a
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X F7
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project` X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and loca:
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action.
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? I X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public '
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined X
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2933
State Project No. 8.281801
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1795(1)
Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 16 on SR 1795 over Henry Fork
River in Burke County. The new structure will be a bridge approximatel:
47.5 meters (156 feet) in length and 9.4 meters (31 feet) in width at approximately the
same location as Bridge No. 16. The elevation of the new bridge will be
approximately one meter (,-feet) higher than the existing structure. Traffic will be
detoured along secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
12-- Z2 -`T ?
Date
/Z•2Z•97
Date
l z- I ? I'7
Date
Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
)1 ? ,--e 7 / v
Project Planning Unit Head
AI
Proj ct Pla ping Engineer
SEAL
0225-52
_
8

N
L!-!e-4/ 1984

)f P,%
rJ
113
9q
SMITH MTN. /

ELE V. 2000

p O* ---Abee's Chapel Ch. 1788 •6

3.1 174 .r
Abee
DROWNING g h
g 87
1737 CREEK MTN. 1791 178

1746 1846' T

b 1786 Mt. 1790
17,47 •
1793 q Hebroh
s Ch

Cr .
_
1B' ed No 16 1001
'ICARD r
(UNINC.)-
I POP. 2,484
1863
n g q t?9z Fork) 1.0
1786 1818
2.3 1858 1795 N '` / 1806
FAS N ?' 9
Creek q .3 847 `? °°
Henry
a' Walkers
Ir -
On ? .
[InvJle
p1ls La.
Al Iwa
0able flock r.•.?pro
S• ? 1
i _•
NO
n..Im1,.`
?vv ,I Hal '- \
Ik r,. t? 1Ar
g R K\ I
1 PINf?nl Wore
1 ',r>rs.r r.rl
?y \
!
? i t
J ?
180
803
i 1001 P 2501 18c

/ 6 2504
25
2 / 0
1786 0
1795 1800

l 1867 1736 Burke .9
h
Chapel
18,04

1800
1802
2 1
.T
•4 4
c? 1736
1796

u1ni.IwA
.T.-11 ' }
3 .S
181 1814
. ?
S
Ictr eo /

IOebrT?-
??' r
FSTUDIED DETOUR, ROUTE ------?--
1
North Carolina
i Department Of Transportation
?s>' Planning & Environmental Branch
BURKE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 16 ON SR 1795
OVER HENRY FORK RIVER
B-2933
kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
f Figure I
92 0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
e'. nevi
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
December',, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO
FROM:
Wayne Elliot, Unit He-- -I
Bridge Replacement Unit
Jeffrey Burleson, Natural Systems Specialist
Proiect Development and Environmental Analysis Branca
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Investigation for bridge replacement of bridge
No. 16 on SR 1795 over Henry Fork River in Burke County. TIP
No. B-2933; State Project No. 8.2851801: Federal Project No.
BRZ-1795(1).
ATTENTION: John Williams. P.E
Project Planning Engineer
The attached report addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a Minimal
Threshold Determination Checklist for the proposed project: water resources, biotic resources.
wetlands, and federally-protected species. The proposed project calls for the replacement of
Bridge No. 16 on SR 1795 over Henry Fork River in Burke County. Total project length is
274.5 m (900.59 ft.).
NCDOT natural systems specialists, Jeffrey Burleson and Elizabeth Lusk conducted a
field investigation on November 30, 1999 to assess natural resources at the project site. Biotic
communities were investigated and faunal composition was predicted based on habitats
observed. In addition to field investigation, information concerning federally protected species
was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service protected species list, and the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigated. Project study area (project area) denotes the area bounded by the
proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 MI) on
all sides of the project study area. Project region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5-
minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq. km (61.8 sq. MI)], with the project as the center point.
WATER RESOURCES
Classification
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.
Water resources within the study area are located in the Catawba River Drainage Basin;
Division of Water Quality sub-basin number 03-08-35; United States Department of Interior
Hydrologic Unit is 03050102. There is one water resource located within the project area. Henry
Fork River. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ, formerly known as the Department of
Environmental Management assigns streams) classifies the Henn, Fork River as class C (DWQ
Inaex: 11-129-1-(12.5 ): 03-01-62 ?. Ciass C waters are freshwaters protected for secondary
recreation. fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife. All freshwaters
shall be classified to protect these uses at a minimum, (DWQ, 1995)
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
study area.
Water quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ and i?
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 macro invertebrates are sensitive to
very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall biomass of these
organisms are reflections of water quality. There is a BMAN site within 1 mile upstream of the
project area on the Henry Fork River at the NC 18 crossing. This site received an excellent
rating on April 19, 1988 (DWQ, 1994).
Water quality impacts
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any action that
affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms. Although most of the
disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary, some environmental impacts
caused by the proposed project will be long term or irreversible. Installation or modification of
instream structures, such as replacement or extension of culverts, can permanently affect many
physical stream parameters.
2
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased sediment
load and riparian vegetation removal.
:- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or ground water
drainage patterns.
:Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from construction
equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources in the
study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction stage of the project. Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024 NCAC Title 15A, Sedimentation Control Program
(HQW standards) must be adhered to throughout construction of this project in areas
where HQWs are present. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances
should also be strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial Communities
A maintained/disturbed roadside community and a iow mountain alluvial fores'
community were present in the study area. 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 plant and animal species mentioned. Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only.
Maintained/disturbed community
Vecetation found in the maintained/disturbed roadside dog fennel (Eupatoritan
capillifoliunt), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), red clover (Trifoliunt pratense), staghorn
sumac (Rhus typhina), goat's beard (Aruncus dioicus), rattlesnake weed (Hierachan venosunt),
fescue (Festuca sp.), plantain (Plantago rugelii), blackberry (Rubes allegheniensis), Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), red maple (Ater rubrum) saplings, Indian physic (Gillenia
trifoliata), butter cup (Runculus sp.), heart-leaved aster (Aster divaricatus), bracken (Pteriditrnt
aquilinunt), wood sorrel (Oxalis acetosella), silky dogwood (Corpus aniontunt), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), bull thistle (Carduus pundlus), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum
leucanthemunt), Indian mallow (Abutilon theophrastii), lespedeza (Lespede-7a sp. ), multiflora
rose (Rosa nultiflora), and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Low mountain alluvial forest community
Some of the characteristics of this natural community are lacking, due likely to previous
disturbances. The canopy component is dominated by river birch (Betula nigra), sugar maple
(Ater saccharttnt), scarlet oak (O. coccinea), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), scrub pine (Pinus virginiana), and yellow poplar (Liriodendron
3
i
I

tulipifera). Sounvood (Oxydendron arboreuni), American holly (Iles opacca), flowering
dogwood (Corti us florida) and downy serviceberry (Amelanchier arborea) comprise the
understory.
Native shrubs such as blueberry (Vaccinium sp.) and witch hazel (Han:amelis virginiana)
and herbs, including Christmas fern (Polystichium acrosticoides) and New York fern
(Thelypteris noveboracensis) are present within this community type. Virgin's bower (Clematis
virginiana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans) comprise the vine layer.
Terrestrial wildlife
These communities provide habitat for an assortment of birds and mammals. Birds often
associated with these communities include red-winged blackbird (Agelaius phoeniceus), white-
throated. sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), red-bellied
woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), song sparrow (Xfelospiza georgiana) and northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis). Yellow-tamped warblers (Dendroica coronata) and common yellow
throat (Geothlypis trichas) may also be found in this community. Yellow warbler (Dendroica
netechia). red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus). and mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) may also
frequent this area.
Mammals that may frequent the swamp community include white-tootea mous:
(Peromyscus leucopus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). In addition, white-tailed deer (Oaocoileus
virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may also forage in or near this communit
Amphibians and reptiles are likely to be locally abundant in the riparian edge. Rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta). worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ring-necked snake (Diadophis punctatus) and
queen snake (Regina septemvittata) may be found here as well. The box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) may also be found in these communities.
Aquatic community
Aquatic insects found in this community include the water strider (Gerris spp.), riffle
beetle (Psephenus herricki), crane fly (Tipula spp.), stream mayfly (Ephemeroptera) and black-
winged damselfly (Calopteryx maculata). Gamefish such as bass (Micropterus sp.) and sunfishes
(Lepomis sp.) may occupy the Henry Fork River. Other fishes, such as shiners (Notropis sp.),
golden shiners (Notemigonus crysoleucas), eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia affinis), darters
(Etheostoma sp.), chubs (Semotilus sp.), daces (Clinostomus sp. ), and catfishes (Ictaluridae)
may occupy the Henry Fork River.
Terrestrial community 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. Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting,
feeding, and sheltering habitat for various species of wildlife. Habitat reduction resulting from
road construction concentrates wildlife into smaller refuge areas, thus changing competition
between species and causing increased starvation, predation and susceptibility to disease.
4
f
Aquatic community impacts
Impacts to the aquatic community of the Henry Fork River will result from the
replacement of Bridge No. 16. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and the
overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result in the
following impacts to aquatic communities:
• Inhibition of plant growth.
• Algal blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations.
• Loss of benthic macro invertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased sediment
load.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to Best Management
Practices (BMP's).
WETLANDS AND PERMITS
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 (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlancis,
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). Construction of
the proposed project will not impact any jurisdictional wetlands. Surface water impacts are not
to excede 150 linear feet.
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 section 401 General Water Quality Certification
will also be necessary and obtained prior to issue.
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 Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
5
I
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. An endangered
species is considered to be a species that is in danger of becoming extinct throughout all or a
significant portion of its range. A threatened species is considered to be a species that is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range. As of September 10, 1999, the FWS lists six species from Burke County as
either endangered or threatened (Table 1).
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Burke County.
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Haliaeetus leucocephalus Bald eagle T
Geum radiatum Spreading avens E
Hexastylis naniflora Dwarf-flowered heartleaf T
Hudsonia montana Mountain golden heather T
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled pogonia T
Liatris helleri Heller's blazing star T
"E" Endangered species: a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its ranee.
"T" Threatened species: a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its ranee.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
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 close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of
the surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise
suitable habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January.
Fish are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The project area is not in close proximity to a large water body. In addition, the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed and revealed no records
of bald eagles in the project area. Thus, construction of the proposed project will have no
effect on this species.
6
I
Geum radiatum (spreading avens) Endangered
Plant Family: Rosaceae
Federally Listed: April 5, 1990
Flowers Present: June - early July
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Buncombe, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Stokes,
Transylvania, Watauga, Yancey.
This species is found only in the North Carolina and Tennessee sections of the Southern
Appalachian Mountains. known populations in Burke (,ounty have peen extirpated and
populations in any other counties have shown a serious decline.
Stems of this perennial herb grow from horizontal rhizomes and obtain a height of 2
decimeters. The stems are topped with an indefinite cyme of bright yellow radially symmetrical
flowers. Basal leaves are odd-pinnately compound, terminal leaflets are kidney shaped and much
larger than the lateral leaflets, which are reduced or absent. Leaflets have lobed or uneven
margins and are serrate, with long petioles. Stem leaves are smaller than the basal, rounded to
obovate, with irregularly cut margins. Fruits are hemispheric aggregates of hairy achemes that
are 7-9 min in diameter.
Spreading avens occurs on scarps, bluffs, cliffs and escarpments on mountains, hills, ano
ridges. Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations of 1535-154'
meters (5060-5080 feet). 1723-1747 meters (5680-5760 feet) and 1759 meters (5800 feet). Other
habitat requirements for this species include full sunlight and shallow acidic soils. The spreadim,
avens is found in soils composed of sand, pebbles, humus, sandy loam, clay loam, and humus.
Most populations are pioneers on rocky outcrops.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Known populations of this plant have been found to occur at elevations over 5000
feet. The project area does not contain elevations over 5000 feet. In addition, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed and revealed no records of
spreading avens within the project vicinity. Thus, construction of the proposed project
will have no effect on this species.
Hexastvlis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
Plant Family: Aristolochiaceae
Federally Listed: April 14, 1989
Flowers Present: mid ivlarch - mid May
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Catawba, Cleveland. Lincoln, Rutherford.
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found only in eight northern piedmont counties in North
Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
7
I
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from a
subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds 15 cm in height. The leaves are dark green in color,
evergreen, and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous, jugshaped, and dark brown in color.
They are found near the base of the petioles. Fruits mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent slopes, in boggy
areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby hillsides and ravines. It
grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate. Regional vegetation is described as
upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the southeastern mixed forest.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found within the project area. A
plant by plant survey was conducted by NCDOT biologists. Tim Savidge and Bruce Ellis
on March 19. 1996 . The potential impacts zones were visually examined and only one
species of heartleaf tHexastylis virginica) was found in the project area. In addition, the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed and revealed no record:
of this species within the project vicinity. Thus, construction of the proposed project wi"..
have no effect on this soeci"?.
Hudsonia montana (mountain golden heather) Threatened
Plant Family: Cistaceae
Federally Listed: October 20. 1980
Flowers Present: June (mid to late)
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, McDowell.
Mountain golden heather is a low, needle-leaved shrub that is yellow-green in color. It
usually Brows in clumps 10 cm to 20 cm across and 15 cm high, it sometimes occurs in clumps
that are a 30 cm or more across. The leaves from the previous year are retained and appear
scale-like on the older branches. Leaves are from 3-7 mm long and appear awl-shaped and
thread-like. It forms solitary, terminal, lanceolate flowers that are nearly three centimeters
across. These yellow flowers have five blunt-tipped petals and 20 to 30 stamens. Fruit capsules
have three projecting points at the tips, are roundish, and are found on 1.3 cm stalks.
Hudsonia montana occurs in weathered rocky soils on mountain tops. It can be found on
exposed quartzite ledges in an ecotone between bare rock and heath balds dominated by
Leiophyllunz which merge into pine forest. Plants do live in partially shaded areas, but do not
appear to be as healthy as those found in open areas.
Critical habitat has been designated in Burke County, North Carolina. The area is
bounded by the following: on the west by the 2200 ft contour; on the east by the Linville Gorge
Wilderness Boundary north from the intersection of the 2200 ft contour and the Shortoff
Mountain Trail to where it intersects the 3400 ft contour at "Chimneys"--then follow the 3400 ft
contour north until it reintersects with the Wilderness Boundary--then follow the Wilderness
Boundary auain northward until it intersect the 3200 ft contour extending west from its
8

intersection with the Wilderness Boundary until it begins to turn south--at this point the
Boundary extends due east until it intersects the 2200 ft contour.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, weathered rocky soils on mountaintops, is not found within the
project area. In addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was
reviewed and revealed no records of this species within the project vicinity. Thus,
construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
Isotria medeoloides (small-whorled pogonia) Threatened
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed: September 10. 1982
Flowers Present: mid Mav-mid June
Distribution in N.C.: Burke, Haywood, Henderson, Jackson. Macon, Surr_, .
The small-whorled pogonia was known historically from Maine to Georgia, with tnw
exception of Delaware, along the eastern seaboard and in Michigan, Illinois, and Missouri. in
North Carolina it is found in the Nantahala National Forest, Macon County and near the town of
Flat Rock, Henderson Count.-.
This perennial orchid has long pubescent roots and a hollow stem 9.5 cm to 25 cm tall.
Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical leaves that are somewhat pointed.
Leaves measure approximately 8 x 4 cm. One or two light green flowers are produced at the end
of the stem. Flowers have short sepals that are only 2.5 cm long.
The small-whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or deciduous-coniferous
forests. with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer. it prefers acidic soils.
Flowering is inhibited in areas where there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling
density-.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, open canopy, open shrub layer, and sparse herb layer, is not
found within the project area. In addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
database was reviewed and revealed no records of this species within the project vicinity.
Thus, construction of the proposed project will have no effect on this species.
9
I
Liatris helleri (Heller's blazing star) Threatened
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: November 19, 1987
Flowers Present: late June - August
Distribution in N.C.: Ashe, Avery, Burke, Caldwell, Mitchell, Watauga.
This plant is endemic to high elevation ledges of rock outcrops of the northern Blue
Ridge Mountains in North Carolina. Of nine historic populations only seven remain in existence.
Heller's blazing star is a short stocky plant that has one or more erect stems that arise from a tuft
of narrow, pale green basal leaves. Leaves are accuminate and diminish in size and breadth
upward on the stem. Stems are 4 dm tall and are topped with a raceme of small (7-20 cm)
lavender flowers. Fruits are present from September to November.
This plant is a high altitude early pioneer species and can be found growing on high elevation
ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas where it is exposed to full sunlight. It prefers shallow
acid soils associated with granite rocks..
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat, on high elevation ledges of rock outcrops in grassy areas wnere it
is exposed to full sunlight, is not found within the project area. In addition, the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed and revealed no records of this
species within the project vicinity. Thus, construction of the proposed project will have
no effect on this species.
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species, which may or mr._.
not be listed in the future. Theses species were formerly candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. 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.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR),
or Special Concern (SR) 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; however the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Eleven FSC are
listed for Burke County. Table 2 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 informational purposes as the status of these
species may be upgraded in the future.
10

Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Burke County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC
Status Habitat
Neotoma magister Alleghany woodrat SC YES
Alasmidonta Brook floater T/PE YES
varicosa
Ophiogomphus Edmund's snaketail dragonfly SR* YES
edmundo
Onhiogomphus Pygmy snaketail dragonfly SR YES
hoivei
Speyeria dana Diana fritillary butterfly SR YE:
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5 YES
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C YES
Saxifraga Carolina saxifrage C NO
carohniana
Cephaloziella A liverwor, W2* NU
obtusilobulu
Plagiochila A liverwor. C NO
sullivantii var.
spinrgeru
Plagiochiia A liverwort NO
sullivantii var.
sullivantii
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as
Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world.
`SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
`,W5"--A Watch Category species is a species with increasing amounts of threats to its habitat:
populations may or may not be known to be declining.
"/P-"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened,
or Special Concern, but has not vet completed the listing process.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
11
Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the site visit, nor
were these species observed during the site visit. A review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitats on November 23, 1999 revealed no records of North Carolina
protected species in or near the project study area; however, the Santee chub (Cyprinella zanenta)
of the piedmont population, has been found 0.5 miles to the west of the project area in the Henry
Fork River.
12
N
REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.).
Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M.. N'. Carte. F.C. violet, and E.T. Lakoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepw?!+Pr u-!hitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Grw--nment Printing Office. 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.
Lee, D.S.. J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of Nortl_
Carolina Mammals. North Carolina Museum of Natural History. Raleigh, N.C.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Anim,L:
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer. J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison 111. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of
the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill. The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1994. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Plant Conservation Program. 1999. List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and
Candidate Plant Species. North Carolina Department of Agriculture. Raleigh, N.C.
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.
13
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. Raleigh, N.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.
cc: Hal Bain. Environmental Supervisor
File: B-293:,
14