20000647 Ver 1_Complete File_20000511

on 1 ? 1997
?NtriRntiM?+ur
ALSG? cC S
. a, a.• C)o CO STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA LA tDEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 8, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Ms. Cyndi Bell
DWQ - DENR
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for the following projects:
Project T.I.P. County Bridge No. State Route Planning Engineer
B-3267 Wilson No. 29 ni SR 1653 ill Goodwin
B-2110 Brunswick No. 62 N NC 21,1 ill Goodwin
B-3365 Richmond No. 33 SR 1124 ill Goodwin
t
B-2951 Davidson No. 135 NC 109 ennis Pipkin
B-3322 Cumberland No. 36 1-95B/US 301B ill Goodwin
B-3179 Guilford No. 459 US 29 Dennis Pipkin
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets and location maps for the
subject projects. The purpose of this information 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 projects. Scoping meetings for these projects are scheduled for
r"7"in the Planning and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470).
These scoping meetings will be held back to back beginning at 9:00 A. M. for B-3267 and
B-2110. The remaining project meetings will begin at 9:30 A. M. in the order shown above.
These meetings typically last 10 to 15 minutes per project so all attendees should plan to arrive at
the beginning of thl-0 r 9:30 A. M. session as applicable. You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting, mail them to us prior to the meeting, or e-mail them to
[e-mail] prior to the meeting.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If there are any
questions about the meetings or the scoping sheets, please call the indicated Project Planning
Engineer, at 733-3141.
HFV/bg
Attachments /? n ui S,)/ 2 S-{lW'C- f ?? w ?/e or C J V Vf

1
401A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. aox 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID McCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 31, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 O 0 0 6 4 7
Asheville, NC 27609
Attention: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Guilford County, replace Bridge No. 459 on SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek.
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-2526.(2), State Project No. 8.2493901, T.I.P.
No. B-3179.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the deck
of Bridge No. 459 on SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is an
estimated 18.3 in (60.0 ft). No additional ROW will be acquired. The existing cross section is a
two lane shoulder section and the proposed cross section is a two lane bridge deck replacement.
The existing structure is a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced concrete post and beam bents
built in 1961. The proposed structure type is a bridge deck replacement. The bridge will retain
the present 34 ft. travelway width. Traffic will be detoured onto other existing roads during
construction.
This project involves only deck replacement. The existing bridge will remain in place.
The entire bridge, including deck, superstructure, and substructure, is composed of reinforced
concrete. There is no asphalt surface on the deck, so it will not be necessary to remove any
asphalt before replacing the deck. The railings are also concrete, but will not be removed. There
will likely be incidental discharge of fill into Reedy Fork Creek as a result of breaking up the
existing concrete deck. In the worst case scenario, the amount of fill that could be dropped into
the streamis 40 cubic yards. No wetlands will be impacted by the proposed work. Bridge deck
replacement over Reedy Fork Creek is scheduled to be let to construction on October 17, 2000.
,ye ? STA/j a?
?V y
?q Ww ??

The Categorical Exclusion document prepared for the project includes.the environmental
commitments for this project. The NCDOT commits to implementing all standard measures to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts. The NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters" shall be adhered to.
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has recommended that no historic or
archaeological surveys be performed on the subject project. As stated in the CE, the project will
not affect any structures/properties eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places or any archaeological remains important to history or pre-history.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). A copy of this document has been attached to this letter.
The NCDOT does not anticipate requesting a Section 404 Individual Permit but proposes to
proceed under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 in accordance with 33 CFR 330
issued by the COE. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations
will be followed in the construction of the project.
The NCDOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. A copy of the CE document has also been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their
review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Ms.
Shannon Simpson at ext. 332.
Sincerely,

William D. Gillmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analyses
WDG/sls
Enclosure
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
T
I
DEM ID:
00064T.
CORPS ACTION ID:
4/5/2000
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 23 and 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NC Dept. of Transportation; Project Development and
Environmental Analysis
2. MAILING ADDRESS: Post Office Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT
FROM MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore , P.E., Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Guilford NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Greensboro

2
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 459 on SR 2526 over Ready Fork Creek
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Reedy Fork Creek
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ J NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ J NO[XJ
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
No
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ) NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND: NA

9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
0 acres
3
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING: OTHER:
DRAINAGE: TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: 60.0 FT AFTER: 60.0 FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): 35.0 FT
WIDTH AFTER: 35.0 FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: 2.0 FT AFTER: 2.0 FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: See cover letter for details.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND?
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See cover letter for details. The deck of Bridge No. 459 will
be replaced. The existing bridge will not be removed.
.t
4
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge Replacement
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
Project is water dependent. Minimization efforts are outlined in
Attached cover letter.
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: see CE (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER.
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: See CE
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [) (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [ ] NO [X]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [ ] NO [X]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].

5
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR
1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
?C - f&4 T )J .',t- G w,- 4D/iE
OWNER S/AG S SIGNATURE (AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
i
r

TIP Project No. B-3179
State Project No. 8.2493901
Federal Project No. MABRZ-2526(2)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace the deck of Bridge No. 459 in Guilford County.
Bridge No. 459 carries SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek. The bridge will retain the
present 24 foot travelway width. Traffic will be detoured onto other existing local
roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
The sufficiency rating of the existing bridge as a whole is 75.0 out of 100.0.
However, the deck is deteriorated and needs to be replaced. Rehabilitation of the
existing deteriorating deck is neither practical nor feasible.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
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
c
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
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
d. 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.
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.
2
1 1. 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 qualify for a
CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of
alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
C. Special Proiect Information
Construction Coordination:
In order to provide for efficient detours of traffic, the construction times for
projects B-3179 and R-984B (US 29) will be coordinated to ensure that there is no
time overlap.
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. The NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters" shall be adhered to.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $500,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 12,500
Total Project Cost $512,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 4,300 VPD
Design Year (2025) - 6,900 VPD

, r
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The bridge and its approach roadway will retain the present dimensions.
Traffic will be detoured onto other existing local roads during construction.
Design Speed:
The design speed will not be changed as a result of the deck replacement.
Posted speed is expected to remain at 45 mph as currently posted.
Functional Classification:
SR 2526 is classified as a Rural Major Collector facility in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports road closure and detour of traffic off-site,
provided that the construction times for projects B-3179 and R-984B (US 29) do
not overlap.
E. Threshold Criteria
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? ? X
(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
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures X ?
to avoid and minimize wetland 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? ? X
4
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? ? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
-
regulatory floodway? F
1 X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? ? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ? 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
5
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? F-1 X_
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,

therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
-
volumes? 1 X
F
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
-
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? x F
1
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge ?
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
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 and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? ? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ? 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 refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ? X
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
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F-1 X
6
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
In reference to Threshold Criteria No. 29, The State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) has recommended that no historic or archeological surveys be
performed.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
B-3179
8.2493901
MABRZ-2526(2)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace the deck of Bridge No. 459 in Guilford County.
Bridge No. 459 carries SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek. The bridge and its
approach roadway will retain the present dimensions. Traffic will be detoured onto
other existing local roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE INA)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
T7 -?? 9? O
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
9e, V) ?J! f 11
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
r
7 2
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
N
40000
Studied Detour Route
domi North Carolina Department of -
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development & Environmental
\?a Analysis Branch
Guilford County
Bridge No. 459 on SR 2526, Over Reedy Fork Creek
Replace Bridge Deck
B-3179
Figure 1
S%* 0

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 16, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #459 on US 29 over Reedy Fork Creek,
Guilford County, B-3179, Federal Aid Project
MABRZ-2526(2), State Project 8.2493901, ER
98-7698
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project or.
November 4, 1997. However, Debbie Bevin met with Dennis Pipkin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on December 2, 1997, to discuss
the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
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.
104 Enst Jones Street • Ra'ei_h. C?rohna 2-7601-=507
Nicholas L. Graf
December 16, 1997, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: " . F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
you have questions
Gledhill-Earley, environmental
Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 459
on SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek
Natural Resources Technical Report
TIP No. B-3179
State Project No. 8.2493901
Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-2526(2)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Natural Systems Unit
Shannon Simpson, Environmental Biologist
29 January, 1999
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .................................................................... ...................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................. ...................................1
1.2 Definitions ............................................................................ ...................................1
1.3 Purpose ............................................................................... ...................................1
1.4 Methodology ........................................................................ ...................................2
1.5 Investigator Credentials ....................................................... ...................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...................................................... ...................................2
2.1 Soils ..................................................................................... ...................................3
2.2 Water Resources ....................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources ............................. ................................... 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .............................................. ..................................4
2.2.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .....................................................................5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................. ..................................5
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ........................................................ ..................................E
3.1.1 Mixed Pine Hardwood Fores'L ..........................................................................6
3.1.2 Riparian Fringe ..........................................:................... ..................................7
3.2 Aquatic Community .............................................................. ..................................7
3.3 Impacts To Communities ........................................................................................ 8
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES ..................................................... ..................................g
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands .......... ................................10
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States ..................10
4.1.3 Permits .......................................................................... ................................10
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation .............................. ................................10
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 . ................................13
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................ ................................13
TABLES AND FIGURES
List of Figures
Figure 1: Project Location
Figure 2: Waters of the United States
List of Tables
Table 1: Soils in the Project Area
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Report is to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the subject project. Water resources, biotic resources
and jurisdictional issues such as wetlands and federally protected species are included
in this report.
1.1 Project Description
This project involves replacing Bridge No. 459 on SR 2526 over Reedy Fork
Creek in Guilford County (Figure 1). The existiing right-of-way (ROW) is an estimated
18.3 m (60.0 ft). No additional ROW will be acquired. The existing cross section is a
two lane shoulder section and the proposed cross section is a two lane bridge deck
replacement. The existing structure is a reinforced concrete deck on reinforced
concrete post and beam bents built in 1961. The proposed structure type is a bridge
deck replacement. The total length of the project is approximately 152.4 m (1200.0 ft.)
(Alt. 2) to approximately (900.0 ft.) (Alt. 3). Three alternates are proposed for detouring
traffic:
Alternate 1: The bridge deck will be replaced with traffic detoured on other local roads.
Alternate 2: The bridge deck will be replaced with traffic maintained by an on-site
detour using US 29.
Alternate 3: The bridge deck will be replaced with traffic maintained by using a
temporary bridge to the west of the existing bridge.
1.2 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed ROW 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.
1.3 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. In addition, this
report 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.

0000*
10
??of NOR7H Cg9O North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Of TA1,
Guilford County
Bridge No.459, Rehabilitate Bridge Deck
on SR 2526 over Reedy Fork Creek
B-3179
Fi,,ure One
, VI
.5 4'?-g
110
0
IUN
J ?- _'? p 1
?13 r I'
a ? 75 vA ?? ?? /???li ? ? ,??? . it ?, •? , ? ?1 V ?. ..
679
l?
> ?_ ? ! Sao ` '
738
/ .
??? ??? ° /' \ /??' ?• `'' • 1. •..I _
l
,
???? _ ?- r ? ( I
lat_,Grav011; ?? ? `"?; ? r , i. -_ .• ?'. , -:.. ? ,! 'I
`? /F "OflTry c NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
0 ?'??1?? TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
?I C?j 0 cif ?11? ?, •? C?? ?TORJANgQ / PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
848
GUILFORD COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 459 ON SR 2526
OVER REEDY FORK CREEK ( l
TIP PROJECT B-3179
FIGURE TWO
1.4 Methodology
Information sources used in pre-field investigation of the study area include: US
Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Brown Summit), NCDOT aerial
photographs of the project area (1:1200), and Soil Survey of Guilford County (United
States Department of Agriculture, 1970). Water resource information was obtained
from publications of the Department of Environment, and Natural Resources
(DENR,1997) and from the Environmental Sensitivity Base map of Guilford County (NC
Center for Geographic Information and Analysis, 1995). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was obtained from
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected and federal species of concern (15
January 1999) and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species
and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologist Shannon Simpson and Logan Williams on January 7, 1999. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and noted. Wildlife
identification involved using a variety of observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars) and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Organisms captured during these searches were
identified and then released. Terrestrial community classifications generally follow
Shafale and Weakley (1.990) where appropriate, and plant taxonomy follows Radford et
a/.(1968). Animal taxonomy follows Robbins et al. (1966), Men henick (1991), Potter et
al. (1980), Palmer and Braswell (1995), and Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative
communities were mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in the
"Corp of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
1.5 Investigator Credentials
Investigator: Shannon L. Simpson, Environmental Specialist
Education: B.S. Environmental Studies (Natural Resource Management),
University of North Carolina at Asheville (1997)
Experience: North Carolina Department of Transportation Jan. 1998-present
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources which occur in the study area are discussed below.
Soil type and availability of water directly influence the composition and distribution of
flora and fauna in biotic communities.
3
2.1 Soils
Guilford County is located in the Piedmont of North Carolina. The most current
soil survey for Guilford County is dated December 1977. The project is located in the
Cecil-Madison soil association. The Cecil-Madison soil association is characterized by
gently sloping and sloping, well drained soils that have a sandy clay loam, clay loam,
and clay subsoil. It is found on uplands.
There are two soil map units in the immediate project area. Table 1 provides an
inventory of these soils including percent slope and the hydric classification. A brief
description of where these soils occur in the landscape follows Table 1.
Table 1. Soils in the Project Area.
Soil Map Unit Percent Slope Hydric Classificatior.
Coronaca clay loam (CrC) 6-10% non-hydric
Madison clay loam (McE2) 15-25% non-hydric
• Coronaca clay loam (CrC) is a well drained soil found on smooth side slopes.
Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is medium, and the shrink-swell
potential is moderate. Slope, runoff, and moderate permeability are the main
limitations in the use and management of this soil. Seasonal high water table is at a
depth of > 6ft.
• Madison clay loam (McE2) is a well drained soil found on long, narrow upland side
slopes adjacent to streams. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is
low, and the shrink-swell potential is low. Slope, runoff, erosion, permeability, and
mica content are the main limitations in the use and management of this soil. The
seasonal high water table is at a depth of > 6ft.
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 Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources in the project area are located in subbasin 30602 of the Cape
Fear River basin. The only water resource in the project area is Reedy Fork Creek
(Figure 2). The stream is approximately 10.7 m (35.0 ft) wide and 0.6 m (2.0 ft) deep.
The substrate consists of cobble, silt, gravel, and boulder. The creek has a low flow
4
and poor clarity. Bridge No. 459 lies 45.7 m(150.0 ft) downstream of the dam for
Hardys Mill Pond.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ). The best usage classification for Reedy Fork Creek (DWQ Index No.
16-11-(9), 8/3/92) is Class C NSW. Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. NSW
is a supplemental classification designating nutrient sensitive waters which require
limitations on nutrient inputs. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WS-I or WS-11) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0
mi) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management fcr
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. Likewise, benthic macro irive rtebrates are intensively sampled for specific
river basins. Benthic macro i nverteb rates have proven to be a good indicator of water
quality because they are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively
long life cycle, are nonmobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall
species richness and presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of
streams and rivers. River basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in
water quality and to facilitate (NPDES) permit review. A monitoring site is located on
Reedy Fork Creek 8.4 km (5.2 mi) downstream of the project at SR 2728. The
bioclassification at this sample site was recorded as good-fair on 7/13/93.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal
communities. The index incorporates information about species richness and
composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition (DEM 1995).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the
cumulative assessment of 12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by these
metrics are converted into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5 represents conditions
expected for undisturbed streams in the specific river basin or ecoregion, while a score
of 1 indicates that the conditions vary greatly from those expected in an undisturbed
stream of the region. The scores are summed to attain the overall NCIBI score (DEM,
1995). The NCIBI score is then assigned an integrity class which ranges from No Fish
to Excellent. The NCIBI rating recorded on 11/3/93 for Reedy Fork Creek where it
intersects SR 2728 is good.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Service (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. Wysong & Miles Company discharges
from two pipes (Permit No. NCG510125, Date 11/1/93) into an unnamed tributary of
Reedy Fork Creek mjles downstream of the project. Local programs to control non-
point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction may result in a number of impacts to water resources, such
as
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and
toxic spills.
Recommendations:
NCDOT Best Management Practices for protection of surface waters are
recommended and must be implemented prior to construction and maintained
throughout the life of the project.
Non-point sediment sources should be identified and efforts made to control
sediment runoff.
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
between 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.
Community types were identified by NCDOT biologists Shannon Simpson and Logan
Williams during a field visit on September 8, 1998. Dominant flora and fauna observed,
6
or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed. Fauna observed
during the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for
each animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Community descriptions are based on observations of the general vegetation in
or near the project ROW. Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the
project study area: mixed pine hardwood forest and riparian fringe.
3.1.1 Mixed Pine Hardwood Forest.
Mixed Pine Hardwood is found on the upper slopes of the stream bank. The
portion of this community which lies within the ROW will be impacted by the
replacement of the bridge. Dominant woody species observed in this community
include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and sweet
gum (Liquidambar styraciflua). Shrub and vine species include blackberry (Rubus
argutus), box wood (Buxus sp.), multifloral rose (Rosa multiflora), greenbrier (Smilax
glauca) and greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
The mixed pine hardwood community provides forage and nesting habitat for a
variety of avian species. Tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor) and Carolina chickadee* (P.
atricapillus) flock together in mixed decidous forests. White breasted nuthatch* (Sitta
carolinensis), brown creeper (Certhia familiaris) and black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta
varia) forage for insects among the bark of trees. Carolina wren* (Thryothorus
ludovicianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens)* and the ovenbird (Seiurus
aurocapillus) are also common.
Mammals which are found in forested communities include Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon
lotor). The raccoons diet is comprised of fish, crayfish and birds. The southeastern
shrew (Sorex longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), gray squirrel* (Sciurus
carolinensis) and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus) may also be found. In addition, the
red fox (Vulpes vulpes) may utilize open forested areas and adjacent farmlands and old
fields. It forages extensively on rodents for its food, but its diet may include insects and
plants in the summer.
The American toad, fowler's toad (B. woodhousei) and graytree frogs (Hyla
versicolor and H. chrysoscelis) can be expected to occur in this community. Among the
widely distributed reptiles likely to be encountered are the five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), black rat snake, rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and ring-necked
7
snake (Diadophis punctatus). Copperheads (Agkistrodon contortrix), which are
important predators of small mammals, are common in forested areas.
3.1.2 Riparian Fringe
The riparian fringe is located near the bottom of the stream bank. Dominant tree
species include sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), sweet gum, black walnut (Juglans
nigra), black birch (Betula lenta), and silky dogwood (Comus amomum). The herb layer
includes bamboo grass (Microstegium vimineum), wild rye (Elymus virginicus), winged
elm (Ulmus alata), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), calico aster (Aster lateriflorus), brome
grass (Bromus purgans), and love vine (Cuscuta sp.). Vines are prominent and include
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
Mammals likely to be found in this community are racoon, Virginia opossum, and
white footed mouse. Riparian fringe provides habitat for amphibian and reptile species
such as northern cricket frog (Acris crepitans), black rat snake, copperhead, and
eastern hognose snake (Heterodon platyrhinos). Many avian species can be found i?
this community. Cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis)*, yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica
coronata)*, and white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis)' are common in brushy
edge communities and thickets. Ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula)" was also
observed in this community.
3.2 Aquatic Community
Bridge No. 459 crosses Reedy Fork Creek which is a perennial stream. Physical
processes such as flow variability, channel structure and substrate have a tremendous
influence on the ecology of streams. Physical processes in addition to the chemistry
and temperature of the stream water have a profound influence on the aquatic biota
that the stream is capable of supporting.
A perennial stream is a water source that normally flows year round. These
streams are constantly replenished by ground water. Perennial streams like the ones
found in the project study area support a diverse array of aquatic organisms.
Amphibians, in particular, are highly water dependent for completion of larval
stages in their life cycle. Some species are totally aquatic while others are only aquatic
during the larval stage. Totally aquatic amphibians associated with medium sized
perennial streams in the piedmont include three-lined salamander (Eurycea
guttolineata) and northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus). In addition,
green frog (Rana clamitans) and pickerel frog (R. palustris) occur in or adjacent to the
streams. Amphibians, especially salamanders are important predators of aquatic
insects. Common reptiles which are known from this area include the banded water
snake (Nerodia fasciata) and queen snake (Regina. septemvittata). The banded water
snake is known to feed on fish and amphibians.
3
A number of aquatic insect species are well adapted for life in flowing water.
They utilize several different techniques for gathering food including grazing, filter
feeding, shredding and perdition. The major source of energy for medium sized
perennial streams comes from the leaves which enter the stream during the fall.
Leaves are invaded by bacteria and fungi which begin the break down of cellulose into
particulate matter. Grazing insects including mayflies (Stenonema sp.) and
(Ephemerella sp.) feed on the bacteria and fungus growing on the leaves. Shredders
including cranefly larvae (Tipula sp.) also contribute greatly to the decomposition of
leaves into particulate matter. Filter feeding insects observed during the site visit
include net making caddisflies (Cheumatopsyche sp. and Hydopsyche sp.) which
capture detritus from the current with specially designed nets. The insectivorous larvae
of the hellgrammite (Corydalus comutus) is an important predator in the perennia:
stream.
Aquatic insect larvae provide an ample source of food for a number of fish
species. Creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus). tessellated darter (Etheostoma
olmstedi), blue gill (Lepomis macrochirus) and swallowtail shiner (Notropis procne) are
common in medium sized streams in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage. Good habitat
for green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus) also occurs. The diet of green sunfish includes
aquatic insects and small fish.
3.3 Impacts To Communities
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 qualifies and quantifies
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 in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
The calculation of impacts is based on a ROW of 18.3 m (60.0 ft) and a project
length of 274.3 m (900.0 ft) (Alt. 3) to 365.8 (1200.0 ft) (Alt. 2). It is estimated that
approximately 0.04 ha (0.10 ac) of mixed pine hardwood forest and 0.01 ha (0.03 ac) of
riparian fringe will be impacted by this project.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat reduction in the
process of filling, clearing, grading and surfacing during construction. Portions of the
maintained/disturbed roadside community will be completely destroyed during
construction, but will eventually re-establish after construction has ended. This will
9
result in a temporary loss of habitat for small animals and predators that utilize open
areas. The edges of other communities will be taken, thus reducing the total natural
habitat in the project area. This bottomland hardwood area serves an important
function as wildlife habitat and a corridor for wildlife movement.
The calculated impacts given predict only the direct taking of land and
community types during highway construction. There may be a number of indirect
effects which could occur. This damage could potentially include:
- soil compaction and root exposure and injury
- placing fill dirt over tree root systems
- spillage of harmful substances
- skinning of trees by machinery
Precautions need to be taken in order to avoid these potential impacts.
The replacement of a bridge is a potential source of stream modifications. Even
temporary fill into wetlands can cause serious environmental impacts. Extreme care
must be exercised during these activities. It is anticipated that permanent and
temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur from increased sedimentation anc
loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting their abilities to feed
and obtain oxygen. Filter feeders may be covered by the sedimentation, thus
preventing their ability to.feed. Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates
can lead to the smothering of fish eggs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water
column, reduction of dissolved oxgen and alterations in water temperature. Increased
light penetration from removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water
temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen and results in a reduction of aquatic
life dependent on high oxygen concentrations.
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and runoff
pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can seriously reduce
water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally extremely sensitive to these inputs.
Best Management Practices must be implemented during the construction phase
of this project to lessen impacts to aquatic organisms.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," as defined Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register
(CFR) 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
to
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 material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the criteria specified in the
1987 "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered
a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils
(low soil chroma values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of
hydrology, including saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases and surface roots.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by this project. One jurisdictiona,
surface water, Reedy Fork Creek, will be impacted by the replacement of bridge No.
459. Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of this stream is
presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.3 Permits
Encroachment into surface waters as a result of project construction is inevitable.
Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) a Nationwide Permit 33
CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be applicable for the proposed construction. This permit
authorizes any activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency or department has determined
pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, 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 the office of the Chief of Engineers has
been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the CE and
concurs with that determination.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity
which may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. State
permits are administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR).
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The Corps of Engineers (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
(40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and
compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical 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 practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practical in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps tc
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these
steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions.
Practical means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impactec
by the proposed project include
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover
during construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
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.
l.'
Authorizations under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the EPA and the COE. Final decisions
concerning compensatory mitigation rests with the COE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with humans. 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). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened.
Proposed Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act. As of January 15, 1999, one
species is listed for Guilford County (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 1997). The bald
eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) is listed as Threatened. Threatened denotes a
species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A summary of the species' natural
history and distribution follows.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 11, 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 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
Suitable habitat for the bald eagle does not exist within the project area or
vicinity. A small pond lies adjacent to the project but is not large enough to provide
habitat for the bald eagle. The NCNHP database of rare and protected species does
13
not list any populations of bald eagle within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project area. This
project will not affect bald eagle.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which
may or may not be listed in the future. These 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. No FSC are listed for
Guilford County.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database on September 4, 1998
revealed no populations of rare or protected species within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of 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, J.L.and A.S. Weakley. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
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 North
Carolina mammals. Raleigh, N.C. Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr. H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. 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 Ill. 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Fresh Water Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. Wildlife
Resources Commission, The Delmar Company, Charlotte, N.C.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Trees Eastern Regon. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
14
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North
American Wildflowers Eastern Region. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
National Audubon Society, Inc. 1979. The Audubon Socie Field Guide to North
American Reptiles and Amphibians. Alfred A. Knopf. New York.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in North Carolina
Streams: Benthic Macro invertabrate Data Base and Long Term Changes in
Water Quality. 1983-1990.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The Univ. N.C.Press.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun, and H.S. Zimm. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification Birds of
North America. Golden Press. New York.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakiey. 1990. Classifications of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program. Div. of Parks
and Rec., NC
Dept.of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service. 1984.
Webster W.D., J.F. Parnell, W.C.Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland.The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.