20000188 Ver 1_Complete File_20000225

s.. srN=°?
w
?a??? Q0018?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 2761 1-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
SECRETARY
February 16, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615

ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 104 over Polecat Creek on
SR 2101, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2101(1), State Project No.
8.2571601, TIP No. B-3023.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion Action Classification Form (PCE), the Natural Resources Technical Report
(NRTR) and a Protected Species Update for the subject project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 104 on existing
location with a single span bridge with no piers. Since the PCE was completed, the
length of the proposed structure has been decreased from 43.0 m (141.0 ft) to 36.6 m
(120.0 ft). The width will be 8.4 m (28.0 ft). The existing and proposed right of way are
approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft). Traffic will be detoured along existing secondary roads
during construction. There will not be any work done in the stream. No jurisdictional
wetlands exist in the project area.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 104 in 1963. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface
on a precast prestressed concrete channel deck system. The bridge has reinforced
concrete caps on timber piles for both the bents and end bents. The bridge is 36.9 m
(121.0 ft) long and 7.6 m (25.0 ft) wide. Polecat Creek is approximately 10.7 m (35.0 ft)
wide at the bridge crossing. There is the potential for two of the concrete caps and one
span of the bridge deck to be dropped into the water during removal of this bridge. This
would result in 29 cubic yards of temporary fill into Waters of the U.S. All temporary fill
material would be removed from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge
removal process.
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
20 December 1999, the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists two federally protected
species for Randolph County, Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). The NRTR rendered Biological Conclusions of
"No Effect" for these species in October 1996. Since the completion of the NRTR, an
additional survey was conducted for Schweinitz's sunflower. The Protected Species
Update, dated 7 February 2000, maintains that the Biological Conclusions of "No Effect"
are still valid for Schweinitz's sunflower and Cape Fear shiner.
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, the NCDOT does not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose
to proceed unde}r.a Nationwide Permit 23 [33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)].
B}y cppy of this letter, the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification is requested
from the Noah Carolina Division of Water Quality. If you have any questions or need
additional inforrritition, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith at [phone].
Sincerely,
I/ C.
William D. Gilmore, P.E.
Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/als
w/ attachment
Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/out attachment
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Wayne Elliott, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
e"?SLVfu?
W? ? A
Y N „
STATE or NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 . DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
February 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
SECRETARY
,A] Iry
FROM: Lynn Smith, Natural Systems Specialist rd-1-
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species Update for the replacement of Bridge No.
104 Over Polecat Creek and approaches on SR 2101,
Randolph County, State Project No. 8.2571601, TIP No.
B-3023, F.A. Project No. BRZ-2101(1).
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), dated
12 November 1996, prepared by Michael J. Baranski, a
Consulting Biologist from Catawba College
This memo serves to update the previously submitted NRTR, with respect to
Threatened and Endangered Species. As of 20 December 1999, the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) lists two federally-protected species for Randolph County, Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus
schweinitzii). No new species have been added since the completion of the NRTR.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. A
Biological Conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for Schweinitz's sunflower in the
referenced NRTR; however, due to the length of time between completion of the NRTR
and applying for environmental permits, an additional survey was required.
Suitable habitat in the form of full sunlight or light shade in clearings is present in
the project study area. On 14 September 1999, NCDOT biologists Bruce Ellis, Heather
Williams, and Lynn Smith conducted a survey for Schweinitz's sunflower for the subject
project. Prior to surveying the site, a known population was visited to study the
appearance of Schweinitz's sunflower. No specimens were found to exist in the project
study area. Due to the absence in suitable habitat in Polecat Creek, in the form of aquatic
vegetation, an additional survey was not conducted for the Cape Fear shiner. In addition,
a review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database on 1 February 2000
indicated that there is no known occurrence of these species within the project study area.
Therefore, this project will not affect Cape Fear shiner or Schweinitz's sunflower.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me at
[phone].
Cc: Bruce Ellis, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: B-3023

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.: B-3023
State Project No. 8.2571601
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-2101(1)
A. Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 104 on SR 2101 over Polecat Creek in Randolph
County. The bridge will be replaced with a 43 meter (141 foot) long bridge at the existing
location. The new bridge will have a 8.4 meter (28 foot) clear deck width which will
provide a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway with a 1.0 meter (3 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 104 has a sufficiency rating of 19.0 out of 100. The deck of Bridge
No. 104 is only 7.3 meters (24 feet) wide. The existing bridge is posted at 20 tons for
single vehicles and 20 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. For these reasons Bridge No.
104 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)

2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of grade
separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour repair,
fender systems, and minor structural improvements
® Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of right-
of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a street with adequate
capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and ancillary
facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required and there is
not a substantial increase in the number of users.
2
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
D.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
4. High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures will be
implemented and strictly maintained throughout project construction.
Estimated Costs:
Construction
Right of Way
Total
$ 550,000
$ 46.000
$ 596,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 800 VPD
Year 2018 - 1700 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 6.6 meters (22 feet) wide with at least 1.8 meter
(6 foot) shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased to at least 2.1 meters (7 feet) where
guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
65 km/h (40 mph)
A curve immediately east of the existing bridge, which currently has a horizontal
design speed of 50 km/h (30 mph), will be improved as part of this project. This
improvement increases the project cost by approximately $50,000 over simply replacing
the bridge in place. To improve the design speed farther would require significant
additional realignment and/or extending the curve onto the proposed structure. A design
exception will likely be required due to this curve not meeting a desired design speed of
80 km/h (50 mph).
Functional Classification:
SR 2101 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed detour route.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be
completed. If the project consists or vl of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not
need to be Completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? 11 X
4

(3) I-- -,
Will the project affect anadromous fish? I
_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 to avoid and minimize -_X __i
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
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) 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? j l 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)? I A X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? L] _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? Ll X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? L -1 _X
5
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or - -'
land use for the area? L-- X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business? L?J X
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? _X
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control? f _ I X
(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of any adjacent property? X_
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local l
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? -J X ---
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in - -?
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X

(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? _X
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X _-
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
CULT URAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or
listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges ,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
6
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent to a
river designated as a component of or proposed for inclusion in j
the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? u X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached as necessary.)
None.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: B-3023
State Project No. 8.2571601
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRZ-2101(1)
Project Description : (include project scope and location)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 104 on SR 2101 over Polecat Creek in Randolph
County. The bridge will be replaced with a 43 meter (141 foot) long bridge at the existing
location. The new bridge will have a 8.4 meter (28 foot) clear deck width which will
provide a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway with a 1.0 meter (3 foot) offset on each side.
Traffic will be detoured on existing secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X- TYPE II (A)
TYPE II (B)
Approved:
I -23 -9?
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
1-23-77
Date Project Planning Unit Head :? ,c : u?; ,• ?' `?
?

Date Project Planning Engineer
J
G V
x'
"
11,11111110
For Type II (B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
` i
r?
I
R
1
,
I
lion
•Ifl?:
t-4 - . - - --
1
Colei;. /.
X22 1 '
i

t ? J.2dt? I ? ?'' .3tf7
40 u 4
7
76 [
1101 .
w ? ] u ? ` .? 131 1ZL6
•
?
a b
?
: Y h 7?I67•
d2 fAS d- "
lzs
Q
>
>>c2 a N. .s
•

t7
_
1 ?.
o
?
n 32. 7717 u
7
1007 1 J
nc
f?1 L7 a r ° r Imae
401
-I d
/

O M IlL L4.j J ti L o 71 C9
_
?c^ ,, ? ® 7106 .7
4
1 7106 I7

22A' l O 1109 _7717
`7 1J 2297 Ol .2 21af
?r y 211 L9 .J Q0. q 'i
? y L12
? 711 1 .
' i
11 1}i I CZ p
t
:. r J
G 1
l = 2111
\?
1969 Y ?'` / 2114
U D
7106 1.2
F'.7
a 11
V i 1 S ?5
Y?4 n?i
_ Z 2116
1]1l 7 fps .s
Branch ° ?
7791 -
?
-23 71. 2115 2116 IS 211
L6.
dew
ket
LINE' 7710 -
New i
t?S Salem `
? - 7140
a 1 e
v b 3n1 1 Ll 1
?d
?..".f 7176
Y
S
UNDL EMAN 1 w
.%r ;
f
Sophia f7J ?S fOf.2.176? 7119 u jiffs 7 7176 y

Studied Detour Route

Hof" "`"c,,\ North Carolina Department of
/w t,, Transportation
m ='
Division of Highways
A Planning & Environmental Branch
Randolph County
Replace Bridge No. 103 on SR 2101
Over Polecat Creek
B-3023
Figure One

t
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 24, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #104 on SR 2101 over Polecat Creek,
Randolph County, B-3023, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
2101(1), State Project 8.2571601, ER 96-9033
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 on June
26, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) on July 9, 1996, to discuss the project and view the project
photographs and aerial.
In terms of historic architectural resources, there is one house over fifty years of age to the
northeast of the bridge. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT
evaluate the house and any other structures over fifty years of age within the project's
area of potential effect and report the findings to us.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the project area. Based on our
present knowledge, it is unlikely that National Register eligible sites will be affected by the
proposed replacement. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological survey in connection
with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
.?' David Brook
??''Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
r
DB:slw
cc: kl . F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 g??
9
1)0018,F
Replacement of Bridge No. 104
over Polecat Crook on SR 2101
Randolph County
TIP No.: B-3023
F.A. Project No.: BRZ-2101(1)
State Project No.: 8.2571601
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3023
Michael J. Baranski
consulting Biologist
Department of Biology
Catawba College
Salisbury, NC 28144
November 12, 1996
MICHAEL J. BARAIISKI
Academic Background
B.S. in biology and chemistry. West Liberty state College, W.Va., 1968.
Ph.D. in botany and ecology (minor work in wildlife biology, forestry and
genetics). North Carolina State University, 1974.
Professional Experience summary
currently Professor of Biology at Catawba College in Salisbury, N.C., where
he has been since 1974 and served as Biology Department chair from 1986-89. He
has held visiting faculty appointments at North Carolina State University
(1973/74, 1982), Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (1975), Duke University
Graduate school of Forestry and Environmental Studies (1978, 1979), University
of North Carolina-Charlotte (1988), and the Highlands Biological station (1996).
He has taught a wide range of courses, including biology, general botany, field
botany, plant taxonomy, ecology, conservation of natural resources, environmental
science, and genetics, and he has sponsored many undergraduate research projects.
special interests are in vegetation ecology, floristics, dendrology, wetlands,
natural heritage, and environmental education; a large number of reports,
presented papers and published articles have resulted from his work and that of
his students. From 1986-93, he founded, developed and served as first director
of the 120 acre Catawba College Ecological Preserve (wetlands creation involved).
He was a review panelist for the National wetlands Plant List Inventory for the
U.S. Fish and wildlife service in 1984. Instructor in a Plant Identification
Workshop for U.S. Fish and wildlife service personnel at UNC-charlotte (1988).
Training course on Functional Assessment of Wetlands (WET II) in 1990.
Past president of the Association of southeastern Biologists (1994) and the
Southern Appalachian Botanical Society (1990, 1991). Numerous offices in the
North Carolina Academy of Science (1980-89). Professional affiliations with
other organizations, including the Ecological society of America and American
Society of Plant Taxonomists.
Service on several state-level advisory committees and panels, including:
Natural Heritage Advisory Committee (1985-87), Governor's Advisory committee on
the crystalline Rock Nuclear Repository (1986), North Carolina State Parks System
Study Committee on Biological Resources (1987), Low-Level Radioactive Waste
siting Review Committee (1988), Nongame and Endangered Species Advisory Committee
of the N.C. Wildlife Resources commission (1986-present). Board of Trustees of
Highlands Biological Foundation (1995-).
Biological consultant since 1982. Biological surveys for wastewater
treatment facilities (Section 401 projects), municipal airport, proposed
hazardous waste treatment facility site; wetlands assessments for industrial
developers. subconsultant for RUST Environment and Infrastructure (formerly BAKK
Engineers) since 1988 for projects in North Carolina, completing biological
resources assessments and conceptual wetlands mitigation plans for the us 64
relocation from Tarboro to Robersonville (1989) and the Ahoskie Bypass from
Powellsville to Winton (1994). Natural area reconnaissance surveys for the
Nature Conservancy (1985). Completed natural areas inventories for the
conservation Trust for North Carolina for the Yadkin River corridor in Davie,
Davidson and Rowan counties (1993) and for Rowan County (1994). Beginning in
1994, contract work for the N.C. Department of Transportation, conducting natural
resources investigations for small highway projects.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ............................................................ 1
1.1 Project Description ............................................. 1
1.2 Purpose ......................................................... 1
1.3 Project Area .................................................... 1
1.4 Methodology ..................................................... 2
2.0 Physical Resources
2.1 Geology .........................................................
2.2 Physiography and soils ..........................................
2.3 Water Resources .................................................
2.3.1 Waters Impacted .........................................
2.3.1.1 stream Characteristics ..........................
2.3.1.2 Best Usage classification .......................
2.3.1.3 Water Quality ...................................
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts .......................
3.0 Biotic Resources
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types ................................
3.1.1 Natural Mature Communities ...............................
3.1.2 Natural Successional communities .........................
3.1.3 Maintained communities ...................................
3.1.4 Developed Land Types .....................................
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna ...............................................
3.3 Aquatic Life ....................................................
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts .............................
3.4.1 Terrestrial systems .....................................
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems .........................................
4.0 special Topics
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States ......................
4.1.1 Permits .................................................
4.1.2 Mitigation ..............................................
4.2 Rare and Protected species ......................................
4.2.1. Federally Protected species .............................
4.2.2 Federal species of concern and state Protected species ..
2
2
3
3
3
3
4
4
5
6
6
7
8
9
10
10
12
13
13
15
15
15
16
16
17
17
18
5.0 References ............................................................ 19
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is produced to provide
environmental input on natural systems to assist in the preparation of a
categorical Exclusion for a federally-funded project.
1.1 Project Description
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 104 which carries SR
2101 (Branson Mill Road) over Polecat creek in Randolph County (Fig. 1). Project
planning information indicates that replacement of the bridge in-place is most
likely, and no other alternate was presented. The planning information also did
not indicate whether an off-site detour would be used. The stud corridor
covered an area approximately 192 m (630 ft) long and 29 m (95 ft) wide along an
alignment as shown in Fig. 2. The total area covered in the corridor was
approximately 0.6 ha (1.4 acres).
SR 2101 is a paved rural road. The pavement is 6.7 m (22.0 ft) in width,
and the berm varies from 2-3 m (7-10 ft) in width. The road is elevated on
short, approximately 9 m (30 ft) long, fill sections at each end of the bridge.
The bridge is carried on wood pilings and is 8 X 37 m (27 X 121 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe and inventory the
natural systems occurring within the project area and to evaluate probable
impacts to these systems. Recommendations on ways to minimize these impacts are
also presented.
1.3 Project Area
The project area is defined as the land including the study corridor and
the areas immediately adjacent to the corridor. The project vicinity is defined
as a larger area, more or less about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project
area. Project region is the area more or less the size of a standard 7.5 minute
quadrangle sheet.
The project region is located in the Central Piedmont Ecoregion (Omernik
1987) in north-central Randolph county, North Carolina (Fig. 1). Randolph county
is a mostly rural county with a population of 106,546 (1990 census). Asheboro,
the county seat, has a population of 16,362 and is located about 21 km (13 mi)
south of the project area. The nearest incorporated town is Randleman
(population 2,612), about 8.9 km (5.5 mi) south of the project area. Level cross
is an unincorporated crossroads community about 2.2 km (1.4 mi) west of the
project area. It should be noted that the character of the project region is
undoubtedly influenced by the large cities of Greensboro and High Point, lying
to the north and northwest in Guilford County.
The project vicinity is mostly forested, with low to medium density rural
residential development of middle to high quality. There are a few larger
"estate" type residences on large tracts. Toward the west of the project area
near Level cross, there is a high density modular home development. Agriculture
is not especially important; one dairy farm and two beef operations were noted
2
in the vicinity. Much of the open land consists of pastures for horse ranching.
Lawns, gardens, and maintained grass fields comprise the rest of the open area.
A church and a few cottage businesses are present. Active logging does occur in
the vicinity; one saw mill is located north of the project area. A large power
transmission line traverses the northern part of the project vicinity.
The project area is in a narrow valley of Polecat Creek. A forested slope
covers most of the west side of the project area; the east side is open land.
A natural gas line runs through the study corridor on the south side of the
bridge.
1.4 Methodology
Project planning information and aerial photographs were provided by the
NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior to the site visit.
Relevant sources of site information included soil survey field sheets provided
by the Natural Resources conservation service, hydric soils lists (soil
Conservation Service 1991), USGs 7.5 minute topographic map (Pleasant Garden
quadrangle, PR 1982), geologic map of N.C. (N.C. Geological survey 1985), and
U.S. Fish and wildlife service and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (Amoroso and
Weakley 1995; LeGrand and Hall 1995) data for rare and protected species. Stream
classification and water quality data were obtained from various reports of the
Division of Environmental Management of the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
The project area was investigated on October 20, 1996. Field methodology
involved reconnaissance survey and evaluation of the biota, natural communities
and physical resources present in the area. The entire area that included the
study corridor and adjacent areas was walked and inspected, and probable impacts
due to construction were assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were developed, and communities
were mapped. Wetlands were classified and determined following standard
procedures (Cowardin et al. 1979, Environmental Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988).
With a few exceptions, plant names follow Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Animal
names follow treatments in Martof et al. (1980); Pennak (1978); Potter, Parnell
and Teulings (1980); Rohde et al. (1994); and Webster, Parnell and Biggs (1994).
Godfrey (1980) provided useful information on expected animal occurrences.
Common names of birds follow Rogers (1992).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Geology
The project area lies within the Carolina Slate Belt. This is an area of
contact between intrusive rocks and metamorphic rocks (uwharrie formation). The
intrusives are metamorphosed granitic rocks, locally containing hornblende, lying
to the northwest. To the southeast, the rocks are felsic metavolcanics and
metamorphosed dacitic and rhyolitic flows and tuffs, interbedded with mafic and
intermediate metavolcanics, meta-argillite, and metamudstone. The presence of
extensive geologic contacts can have a great influence on vegetation and stream
characteristics.
3
2.2 Phvsioqraphv and Soils
The project vicinity in Randolph county is located in the Piedmont
physiographic region in central North Carolina. The landscape is hilly to gently
rolling, with steep slopes and narrow ravines around many of the streams and with
mostly gently sloping, moderately broad ridgetops (Fig. 3). Drainage is
dendritic and highly irregular. Floodplains are mostly very narrow to non-
existent, but in a few places they are broader, but gently sloping. The only
wide and generally flat floodplains occur just south of the project vicinity on
Polecat creek. The elevational range is from 204-241 m (670-790 ft).
A modern soil survey has not yet been published for Randolph county, but
the soils of the project vicinity have been mapped on field sheets. Much of the
project area is in floodplain over the Riverview loam soil series. The Riverview
series develops on loamy alluvium, on 0-28 slopes, and it is frequently flooded.
This soil is deep, well drained, and moderately permeable, with the seasonal high
water table between 0.9-1.5 m (3-5 ft). Most of the remainder of the project
area (slope on the western side) is underlain by Mecklenburg loam soils, 15-258
slopes. The Mecklenburg series is an upland soil forming in residuum from mafic
rock. They are deep, well drained, slowly permeable soils on steep slopes. A
small part of the study corridor on the eastern side lies over a Badin-Tatum
complex soil on 15-258 slopes. These are upland soils forming in residuum from
Carolina slates and other fine-grained rocks. They are deep and well drained
loams with moderate permeability.
There are no hydric soils mapped in the study area. However, the Riverview
series is listed as potentially having inclusions of the hydric Wehadkee soil on
the outer edges of the units.
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 waters impacted
The project vicinity lies in sub-basin 03-06-09 in the Deep River drainage
area of the Cape Fear River Basin. The water resource Index No. for the affected
stream reach of Polecat creek in the project area is 17-11-(1) (NCDEHNR 1993).
The project area is aligned perpendicular to Polecat Creek. All drainage
from the project area is directly into Polecat Creek and, ultimately, into the
Deep River, a major tributary of the Cape Fear River. Polecat creek joins the
Deep River approximately 13 km (8 mi) downstream. Flows are in a generally
south-southeasterly direction. There are no perennial or intermittent small
tributary streams in the project area. Polecat Creek will receive all of the
runoff from the roadway and construction activity.
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics
Polecat creek is a typical moderate-size low-gradient Piedmont stream.
Fish (1968) describes only the lower reach of this stream near the Deep River,
classifying it in his "catfish-sucker" category. This type of stream is over 3
m (10 ft) in width, with moderately deep pools, minimum flows of 5 cfs, varying
turbidity, and substrates of silt, rubble, and boulders.
4
In the project area, Polecat creek is approximately 7.3 m (24.0 ft) in
width. At the time of the site visit, the average depth was about 20-30 cm (8-12
in), varying from 5 cm (2 in) over sandbars to some holes 0.6-1.2 m (2-4 ft)
deep. The channel width within the banks is about 12 m (40 ft). The banks are
2-4 m (7-12 ft) in height, relatively steep and mostly vegetated, but eroded in
some places. A large bank slippage area occurs on the south side of the bridge.
The floodplain is narrow on the west side against the slope and broad on the east
side. substrates are mostly sand and gravel, with small areas of cobble and
small boulders. There is great variation within the stream, including rocky
riffle areas, sandbars, long pools, and deep holes. The waters were very clear
on the day of the field study, and current speed was generally slow, except for
riffle areas and one deep swift hole.
The stream is relatively clear of debris from human activity. There are
some jammed areas of logs and leaves. Some ditches carrying surface runoff enter
the stream in the study corridor.
2.3.1.2 Best usage Classification
Polecat creek in the project vicinity is classified as a Class "WS-III"
stream (NCDEHNR 1993). Most of the tributary streams in the region are in the
same classification. [An exception is Little Polecat creek, a tributary joining
Polecat creek about 6 km (4 mi) south of the project area, which is classified
"WS-III HQW" (High Quality Waters rated as excellent for various reasons)]. A
portion of Polecat creek about 8 km (5 mi) downstream of the project area is a
water supply reservoir for the town of Randleman and is Class "WS-III CA"
(Critical Area). The lowest section of Polecat creek from Randleman to the Deep
River is class "C." All unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the
streams to which they are tributary.
WS-III waters are defined as follows: "waters protected as water supplies
which are generally in low to moderately developed watersheds; point source
discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules ... (of
Subchapter 2B of the Administrative code); local programs to control nonpoint
sources and stormwater discharge of pollution are required; suitable for all
Class C uses" (NCDEHNR 1996). Critical Area "means the area adjacent to a water
supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is greater than
from the remaining portion of the watershed" (NCDEHNR 1996).
Class C streams are "freshwaters protected for secondary recreation,
fishing, aquatic life including propagation and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR
1996). This is the lowest freshwater classification; all freshwaters receive
this classification at a minimum.
2.3.1.3 Water Quality
There are chemical and biological classifications [from stations for
chemical and benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings] available for several
stations in the Polecat Creek watershed (NCDEHNR 1989, 1991, 1992, 1994,
unpublished data). There are no monitoring stations in the project vicinity.
There are several monitoring stations in the region. The information on general
water quality status in the region is presented to possibly give some indication
of what the status might be in the project area.
5
A station on Polecat creek about 8 km (5 mi) south of the project area on
SR 2116 was given a bioclassification of Good-Fair in 1983 and Fair in 1993.
Another station on Polecat Creek on SR 2113 was rated Good in 1993. Two
different stations on Little Polecat Creek on SR 2113 were rated, one was Good
in 1986 and the other was Excellent in 1993. A station on the Deep River about
1.6 km (1 mi) southeast of Randleman was rated Fair in 1988. Two stations in
Guilford county near Greensboro, one on Polecat creek and one on a tributary,
were rated Good and Poor, respectively, in 1990.
support ratings are available for some of the stations. These ratings in
the BMAN data give indication of how the best usage classifications that have
been designated for streams are being supported. Two Polecat Creek stations, one
on SR 2113 in Randolph county and the one in Guilford county were rated
"Supporting" overall, with point sources being most important (NCDEHNR 1994).
Little Polecat Creek is also "Supporting" with non-point sources being most
important. A Deep River station near Randleman has a "Non-supporting" chemical
rating and a "Partially supporting" overall rating, with non-point sources
(turbidity) most important.
Water quality in the Deep River drainage area has been extensively studied
by the Division of Environmental Management since 1983. Point source dischargers
are a major problem. There is gradual downstream recovery, with upper sections
being rated only Fair and lower sections rated Good or Excellent. There have
been some upgrades of WWTPs.
sub-basin 03-06-09 in the drainage area includes the city of Asheboro.
Only two WWTPs in the sub-basin have permitted flows greater than or equal to 0.5
MGD. Asheboro and Randleman are permitted at 6.0 MGD and 1.3 MGD, respectively.
Soils in the slate Belt are more resistant to land disturbance. other
Piedmont soils in the region are highly erodible and contribute to major non-
point source problems.
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
water quality data for the region suggest that streams in the project area
are probably supporting their designated uses. These uses can be impacted by
construction activity. significant pollution discharges are possible when roads,
culverts, and bridges are constructed. construction impacts can degrade waters,
with pollutants and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and
chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic
organisms to discharges and inputs derived from construction, appropriate
measures must be taken to avoid spillage, control runoff, and reduce or eliminate
stream disturbances. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control
plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management
measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices
should be employed consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential water resource impacts. The Polecat Creek
bridge crossing is the only water resource that will be impacted.
There should be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, other than those of
the riverine system of Polecat Creek. Even though the project area lies in a
6
floodplain, sites do not meet the definition of jurisdictional wetlands. There
could be potential indirect impacts to downstream offsite wetlands.
Jurisdictional wetlands are discussed in Section 4.1.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of Polecat Creek,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past
construction of the existing bridge. Streams can be crossed effectively with
appropriately designed and placed bridges and culverts. careful design should
avoid the necessity of any stream relocation. Erosion control measures will be
necessary to protect the creek, and all instream activities should be scheduled
during low flow periods. When the old bridge is removed, similar precautions
will be necessary to reduce potential impacts.
Table 1. Water resources potential impacts.
Polecat creek crossing ca 7.3 m (24.0 ft)
0.02 ha (0.05 acre) in study area
There will be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover
that protects streams. Increased light levels, higher stream temperatures, and
changes in species composition will modify affected stream reaches. sediment
deposition will adversely affect aquatic organisms (see Section 3.4.2).
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified ORW
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I (water supplies
in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds). The project does not lie within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are typical of the central
Piedmont Ecoregion. No unusual or especially significant elements were located
during the field investigation, as noted below. Only common names are used in
the discussion below after the scientific name is first introduced.
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types
The natural vegetation of the area may be classified according to Schafale
and Weakley (1990). In the project vicinity, the original vegetation appears to
have generally consisted of Dry Oak--Hickory Forest and Dry-Mesic Oak--Hickory
Forest on the uplands, with narrow strips of Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest on some
of the sideslopes and Piedmont Alluvial Forest fringes along the creeks. Most
of the remaining forests are second-growth, with some scattered pockets of older
growth. In the project area, some of the communities have tendencies toward
basic characteristics, apparently due to the local presence of mafic rocks and
substrates.
r . '?4
7
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. Much of the land surface is no longer
covered in forested vegetation. Many of the communities are successional in
nature or artificially maintained in a low state of succession. Communities and
land types are described below, and acreage estimates for each classification in
the project area are given in Table 2. The vegetated types that will be
potentially most heavily impacted are maintained Roadside [0.14 ha (0.35 acre)]
and thickets [0.13 ha (0.33 acres)].
For purposes of discussion and quantification, fourteen communities and land
types are recognized in the study corridor. These are arbitrarily divided into
four groups: Natural Mature Communities, Natural successional communities,
maintained communities, and Developed Land Types.
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each
species are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing
importance and abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant,
common (frequent), uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare
species are sometimes described as being present only. Each stratum in a
vegetated community is usually treated separately. sometimes, only a general
statement about relative importance is given, e.g., important or not
important.
3.1.1 Natural mature communities
Hesic Hixed Hardwood Forest. Tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) is
clearly the most abundant to dominant canopy species, indicating significant past
forest disturbance. Shagbark hickory (Carva ovata) is common to abundant.
Frequently occurring species are northern red oak (4uercus rubra), southern red
oak (Q. falcata), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), black walnut (Juglans nigra),
and hackberry (Celtis sp.). Species that are only rarely present are white oak
(Q. alba), bitternut hickory (C. cordiformis), and red maple (Acer rubrum).
Common subcanopy species include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), dogwood
(Cornus florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and sassafras (Sassafras
albidum). Mimosa (Albizzia julibrissin) is rare. Transgressives are not
important, but include occasional hackberry and bitternut hickory and rare white
ash (Fraxinus americana) and black cherry (Prunus serotina).
The forest floor beneath the canopy is quite open. shrubs and vines are
not important. Periwinkle (Vinca minor) is dominant in places higher on the
slope and frequent in lower positions. Coralberry (symphoricarpos orbiculatus)
is infrequent. Spicebush (Lindera benzoin) and strawberry bush (Euonymus
americanus) are rare shrubs. Rare vines include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica), trumpet-creeper (Campsis radicans), and common greenbrier (smilax
rotundifolia).
The.herb layer is not diverse. Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides)
is common to abundant, and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) is common.
Species occurring only rarely are ebony spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), oat
grass (Danthonia spicata), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), black snakeroot
(Sanicula sp.), wild onion (Allium sp.), and small white aster (Aster vimineus).
T l
8
Alluvial Forest. Among the canopy species, tulip poplar is abundant, and
white ash and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) are common to abundant.
Frequent species are sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch (Betula
nigra), black walnut, bitternut hickory, red maple, and honey locust (Gleditsia
triacanthos). Hackberry is rare. Ironwood is common to abundant.
shrubs are fairly important in this community. Pawpaw is common to
abundant. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), coralberry, and spicebush are
common. silky dogwood is rare. Japanese honeysuckle is a common vine, and
common greenbrier is rare.
The herb layer includes common Japanese grass, Christmas fern, and river
oats (Uniola latifolia). species that occur only rarely include small white
aster, cinnamon vine (Dioscorea batatas), elephant-foot (Elephantopus sp.), and
wild rye (Elymus sp.).
stream. There is no vegetation in the stream. Aquatic life is covered in
section 3.3.
3.1.2 Natural successional communities
upland sapling Thicket. This is an area of continuing disturbance between
the roadbank and a garden area. some residual trees of an upland forest exist,
but it is mostly a thicket of saplings, shrubs, and vines. Tree-of-heaven
(Ailanthus altissima) and ironwood are common to abundant. Tulip poplar, black
walnut, shagbark hickory, and sassafras are frequent. Rare species include
northern red oak, beech (Fagus grandifolia), black cherry, shortleaf pine,
hackberry, sassafras, red mulberry (Morus rubra), and dogwood. Blackberry (Rubus
sp.), raspberry (Rubus sp.), and periwinkle are common shrubs. Pawpaw is
uncommon. Japanese honeysuckle is common to abundant, and muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia) is common. Chinese privet, forsythia (Forsythia sp.), coralberry,
wild grape (Vitis sp.), and common greenbrier are present.
Powerline Thicket. This area under a small powerline is regularly bush-
hogged or manually cleared. The woody vegetation consists of sprouts and small
saplings of species from the surrounding upland mesic forest, and, additionally,
black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia) and winged elm (Ulmus alata) which are
common and red elm (U. rubra) and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) which are
rare. Blackberry is abundant, and Chinese privet is common. Periwinkle is common
on the higher slope. Coralberry is present. vines include abundant Japanese
honeysuckle, common trumpet creeper, and rare common greenbrier and muscadine
grape. weedy herbaceous species are important. wingstem (Verbesina
alternifolia) is fairly abundant. Common species include frost aster (Aster
pilosus), bush aster (A. dumosus), yellow crownbeard (Verbesina occidentalis),
golden aster (Heterotheca mariana), western rough goldenrod (solidago radula),
lovegrass (Eragrostis capillaris), Indian grass (sorghastrum nutans), and
witchgrass (Dichanthelium sp.). Little bluestem (Andropogon scopariusI and gama
grass (Tripsacum dactyloides) are uncommon. Rare species include mullein
(Verbascum thapsus), thistle (Cirsium sp.), small-head sunflower (Helianthus
microcephalus), wild lettuce (Lactuca sp.), fennel (Eupatorium hyssopifolium),
goldenrod (solidago sp.), and bedstraw (Galium sp.).
9
Alluvial Thicket. The portion of this community type on the north side is
located under a powerline. on the south side of the road, the thicket is
developed over a natural gas pipeline. Tree species are represented by
transgressives, including common tree-of-heaven and rare black locust and
boxelder (Acer negundo). Blackberry, raspberry, silky dogwood, and Chinese
privet are common shrubs. Coralberry is present. Japanese honeysuckle is
frequent, while common greenbrier and crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata) are
rare. Japanese grass is a dominant herb. Yellow crownbeard is abundant. common
herbs include wild onion, asters (Aster spp.), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), cespitose
knotweed (Polygon um cespitosum), giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), wrinkled
goldenrod (solidago rugosa), cinnamon vine, virgin s bower (Clematis virginiana),
Joe-pye weed (Eupatorium sp.), and wild rye (Elymus sp.). Rare herbs include
fescue (Festuca sp.), wingstem, cut-leaf coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata),
tickseed (Coreopsis sp.), hog peanut (Amphicarpa bracteata), chickweed (Stellaria
media), and jewelweed (impatiens capensis).
Kudzu Thicket. This area is almost exclusively covered by kudzu.
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) occurs infrequently throughout the thicket.
Rare herbs poke through the dominant kudzu, including lovegrass, Pennsylvania
smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia),
giant ragweed, goldenrod (solidago sp.), and sida (Sida sp.). Part of this kudzu
thicket is regularly mowed and included in the maintained Roadside category.
Another small part of the kudzu thicket is alluvial and is considered with the
Alluvial Thicket category.
Roadbank. A steep shady north-facing roadbank is regularly cleared. This
is a road cut on the south side from 0.3-4.6 m (1-15 ft) high and 1.5 m (5 ft)
wide at the most. Woody tree taxa include sprouts and seedlings of ash (Fraxinus
spp.), northern red oak, red cedar, dogwood, ironwood, tulip poplar, beech, and
mimosa. Japanese honeysuckle and periwinkle are abundant. Blackberry,
multiflora rose, and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are present. Herbs are
generally sparse, but include frequent Christmas fern and Japanese grass and rare
bedstraw, partridge pea (cassia fasciculata), day lily (Hemerocallis fulva),
cinnamon vine, carpenters square (Scrophularia marilandica), and witchgrass.
Several patches of moss are present.
3.1.3 Maintained Communities
maintained 2zoadaide. This is a mostly vegetated community maintained in
a low state of succession by regular mowing. The berm areas are regularly
maintained during routine road maintenance, while some adjacent areas are
maintained by local residents. The community is variously grass or forb
dominated, depending on the specific location. There are infrequent individuals
of poison ivy, blackberry, trumpet creeper, and Japanese honeysuckle. The
abundant grasses included fescue and crabgrass (Digitaria sp.). other less
common grasses included lovegrass, Japanese grass, purple-top grass (Tridens
flavus), and witchgrass (in spots). Bushclovers (Lespedeza spp.) were the most
abundant forbs. sheep sorrel (Rumex acetosella) and white clover (Trifolium
repens) were common forbs. Infrequent herbs were kudzu, English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), common plantain (P. major), three-seeded mercury (Acalvpha
sp.), and lyre-leaf sage (salvia lyrata). some of the rare species included wild
onion, dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), buttonweed (Diodia sp.), horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense), smartweed (Polygonum sp.), common blue violet (viola
10
papilionacea), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), henbit (Lamium
amplexicaule), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium sp.), goat's beard (Tragopogon sp.),
yarrow (Achillea millefolium), woodsorrel (oxalis sp.), sow thistle (Sonchus
sp.), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), foxtail (Setaria sp.), and dallis
grass (Paspalum sp.).
Grass Field. This grass field is apparently maintained only for landscape
purposes. Fescue is the dominant grass. wild onion is commonly present, and
there are infrequent plants of English plantain and aster. There is a newly
planted pecan orchard in this field, with some of the trees adjacent to the study
corridor.
Pasture. A small portion of a large pasture is included in the study
corridor. The pasture is fescue-dominated, with lesser amounts of dallis grass
and crabgrass. occasional plants of pokeweed and curly dock (Rumex crispus)
occur.
3.1.4 Developed Land Types
Roadway. The paved road covers an area 0.12 ha (0.29 acre) in the study
corridor. This calculation excludes the free-standing portion of the bridge.
Driveway. This is a concrete driveway, part of a landscaped entrance to
an estate. It includes stonework and plantings of pampas grass that define the
entrance. wild species sparsely present along the driveway include crane's bill
(Geranium carolinianum), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), poison ivy, and
blackberry.
Garden. The edge of a large garden falls in the study corridor. The
garden edge includes a large boxwood and a pile of discarded tires.
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an
area without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is
sought through habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds,
tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions
are also important in estimating the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below.
Those taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct evidence was seen
are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
There is a moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area. The
most extensive habitat types in the project area and vicinity are forests;
however, forests occupy only 108 of the study corridor. various kinds of
thickets are the most important habitats in the study corridor. Many of the
habitat types are large and contiguous, though only a small part may be within
the project area. Habitat types as units are generally large and not fragmented,
except for the types directly associated with the roadway.
I&
11
overall., animal diversity is expected to be moderate to high because of the
good mix of habitat types and ecotonal areas. The landscape diversity in the
area is judged to be generally good for birds of a variety of habitats,
particularly those requiring the interiors of large unbroken forests and those
requiring open spaces. However, avian fauna were not found to be abundant,
probably because of the time of year that the site was studied. There were no
farm ponds noted in the project vicinity, hence the distinct array of reptiles,
birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments is not expected to be
important in the project area. However, the stream system provides excellent
aquatic habitat for a number of animals. The generally low to moderate human
development of the vicinity should allow the presence of some species that are
intolerant of human intrusion and that require large expanses of natural
communities.
Based on available habitat, animals are here divided into five general
groups. Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the fifth is
considered somewhat ubiquitous in terrestrial habitats. The specific habitat
groups are as follows: more open areas, consisting of roadbank, maintained
roadside, grass field, and pasture; intermediate habitats, consisting of all
thickets and ecotonal areas; forest; and aquatic habitats associated with the
stream.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (B. woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and
spring peeper (Hyla crucifer). The three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata)
and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) are expected in the moister
forest habitats. Treefrogs (Hyla spp.) should be common, particularly in the
alluvial forest. Ambystomid salamanders (Ambystoma spp.) are not expected
because of the absence of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably
include the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta),
black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake (opheodrys aestivus), earth
snake (Virginia sp.), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix). In intermediate
habitats, likely occurrences include eastern fence lizard (sceloporus undulatus),
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern milk snake (Lampropeltis
triangulum). Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), ground skink (scincella lateralis), brown snake
(storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (s. occipitomaculata), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), and worm snake (Carphophis amoenus).
The expected avifauna of the open areas should include American kestrel
(Falco sparverius), *turkey vulture (Cathartes aurea), killdeer (Charadrius
vociferus), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaidea macroura), field sparrow (spizella
pusilla), *common grackle (4uiscalus quiscula), *American robin (Turdus
migratorius), common starling (sturnus vulgaris), eastern meadowlark (sturnella
magna), grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum), and eastern bluebird (sialia
sialis). Birds in intermediate areas include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia),
brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis),
*northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), American goldfinch (Carduelis
tristis), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis
trichas), eastern kingbird (Tyrannus), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
12
albicollis), and northern bobwhite (Colinus virginianus). Forest species include
various wood warblers (Parulidae), wood thrush (Hylocichla mustelina), tufted
titmouse (Parus bicolor), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), eastern wood peewee
(Contopus virens), eastern phoebe (sayornis phoebe), red-eyed vireo (vireo
olivaceus), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea). species ranging
through many habitats include *red-tailed hawk (Buteo iamaicensis), eastern
screech owl (otus asio), *American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), *northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), *Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
yellow-billed cuckoo (coccyzus americanus), *blue jay (cyanocitta cristata),
rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), *red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens). common flicker
(Colaptes auratus), and *Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis). Green heron
(Butorides striatus) and belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) probably utilize
the riparian area of Polecat creek, and wood ducks (Aix sponsa) are probably also
present on occasion.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew (sorex
longirostris), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frenata), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulus), meadow vole (Microtus
pennsylvanicus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus). Those ranging into
forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-tailed shrew
(Blaring carolinensis), eastern mole (scalopus aguaticus), striped skunk
(Mephitis mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (vulpes
vulpes), white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and eastern cottontail
(sylvilagus floridanus). several species usually shunning open areas, but in the
intermediate and forested areas, include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), eastern
chipmunk (Tamias striatus), pine vole (Microtus pinetorum), golden mouse
(ochrotomys nuttalli), and southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans). Eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus) and red bat (Lasiurus borealis) might be
expected foraging over Polecat Creek and the adjacent forests. Species that
occur mostly in forests include *raccoon (Procyon lotor), *gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), and evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis). Muskrat (ondatra
zibethicus) and mink (Mustela vison) should be common along the stream. Evidence
of white-tailed deer (odocoileus virginianus), a typically mid-successional
species, was not observed in the area, however, deer should be common in this
region.
3.3 Aquatic Life
According to Fish (1968), the fish fauna of Polecat creek is characterized
by the inclusion of suckers (Catostomidae), catfishes (Ictaluridae), and various
cyprinids (Cyprinidae). Fish also reports that the chief catches are bullhead
catfish (Ameiurus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redbreast sunfish (L.
auritus), and crappie (Pomoxis), with lesser numbers of largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides). During the field study, small *shiners and *chubs
(cyprinidae) and some *darters (Percidae) were observed. Some other sunfishes
(Centrarchidae) should be expected.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but the stream and adjacent habitat
should support two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), green frog (Rana
clamitans), and pickerel frog (Rana palustris).
13
Habitat should be suitable for several species of turtles, including
snapping turtles (chelydra serpentaria), yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scripta),
and river cooter (C. concinna). Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), queen
snake (Regina septemvittata), and ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus) are the most
likely water snakes of the area.
*River snails (Goniobasis sp.) were common, and *clams (Corbicula
manilensis) were abundant in gravel bars. Two species of *crayfish (cambarinae)
were noted, and crayfish were abundant.
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource impacts
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems
The land and community types present in the study area and the surface area
of each type that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project
construction are given in Table 2. calculations are best approximations given
the design specifications available and the precision possible in this study.
Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs onto which the study
corridor was drawn, as described in section 1.1, and land and community type
boundaries were mapped.
Developed and maintained land and community types will likely receive the
greatest impacts. with the exception of roadside communities and some thickets
(portions completely destroyed), mostly only the edges of other communities will
be affected. Maintained roadside will likely be most heavily affected
(potentially 0.14 ha (0.35 acre). Impacts to natural communities will almost
certainly be much less. About 10% of the study corridor is mature forest [0.06
ha (0.13 acre)]. Habitat losses should be minimal, with a reduction only in
small part of the total natural habitat in the project area.
The data in Table 2 suggest only the potential direct impacts on land and
community types due to construction. It is likely that the actual impacts to
biotic communities will be less than those indicated in Table 2, because the
calculations are based on study corridor limits, rather than construction limits
(which are not known at this time).
.The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on
how much of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction. There will
no net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that
utilize open areas such as roadsides. There will be a reduction in the available
habitat for animals that require forest and intermediate habitats, the amount
lost depending on the specific construction design. Some of the communities will
re-establish themselves following construction.
other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value
should not change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road
kills should not increase. The riparian zone of the creek is probably an
important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts
natural corridor movement, so bridge replacement will not introduce a
significantly new factor, except during the construction phases of the project.
14
Table 2. Area estimates of community and land types located in study
corridor.
ha (acres)
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.04 (0.09)
Alluvial Forest 0.02 (0.04)
Stream 0.02 (0.05)
upland sapling Thicket 0.02 (0.05)
Powerline Thicket 0.05 (0.12)
Alluvial Thicket 0.06 (0.16)
Kudzu Thicket 0.02 (0.06)
Roadbank 0.03 (0.08)
Maintained Roadside 0.14 (0.35)
Grass Field 0.05 (0.12)
Pasture 0.01 (0.04)
Paved Roadway 0.10 (0.26)
Driveway 0.01 (0.02)
Garden <0.01 (0.01)
TOTAL
0.58 (1.45)
construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/W and
construction limits. such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure
and injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging
substances, and skinning of trees by machinery. with the exercise of proper
care, such damage can be avoided.
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It
appears that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing
roadway boundary.
15
3.4.2 Aquatic systems
impacts on fishes should be minimal if construction is done carefully to
reduce sedimentation and channel alternation and if no barriers to fish movement
are introduced. Any culverts that may be installed to channel streams can cause
behavioral inhibition of movement for some species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will increase stream temperature and
irradiance and will cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources. These
effects will negatively alter the stream characteristics for some aquatic
organisms. Substrate alteration will have negative effects on sessile benthic
organisms and on breeding sites.
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 acutely
sensitive to these inputs. Sediment deposition adversely affects breeding sites
and periphyton communities. Stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate are reduced. Many breeding vertebrates and invertebrates and grazing
benthic invertebrates depend on oxygenated substrates. If construction is done
carefully to reduce sediment runoff, there should be no impact to off-site
aquatic systems.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional waters of the United State.
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking
and by alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater
wetlands are important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and
endangered species; maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support;
nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring;
regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness
in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway
construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under section 404
of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes
and regulations. The U.S. Army corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over
the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands.
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b)
based on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
Surface waters of the riverine system of Polecat creek are the only
jurisdictional waters present in the study corridor, to which construction will
be limited. The amount of jurisdictional waters impacted directly by
construction is very small, amounting to only 0.02 ha (0.05 acre) (Table 1).
These jurisdictional waters would be classified as type R2UB2H (Riverine, Lower
Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, sand, Permanently Flooded) in the NWI system
(Cowardin et al. (1979).
It is determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are associated with the
stream crossing. None of the alluvial forests or successional lowland systems
16
in the project area meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. some
jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream of the bridge site and
potentially will receive inputs from road construction. Small ditches in the
corridor floodplain do not meet wetland tests and are excluded from meeting the
definition of jurisdictional wetlands.
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters,
except for actual takings under a R/W or in a study corridor, until the
particular design requirements are known, but it appears that it will be
impossible to completely avoid impacts in project design and construction. (see
Section 2.3.2 for further discussion)
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill
materials into any jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by
construction. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 (33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23)]
should authorize this project. This permit authorizes approved categorical
Exclusions, i.e., activities "categorically excluded from environmental
documentation" because they fall in "a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment." Because this project is designated as a categorical Exclusion, it
will likely be covered by Nationwide Permit No. 23. Individual or General
Permits are required for situations where the criteria for Nationwide Permits are
not met.
A 401 Water Quality certification from the Water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction
activity in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This
certification is required prior to issuance of the 404 permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
The project will cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface
waters. Any other feasible alternative for crossing Polecat creek at this point
would result in similar impacts. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere
in this report. However, compensatory mitigation is generally not required where
Nationwide Permits are authorized, pursuant to a Memorandum of understanding
between the Environmental Protection Agency and the COE. If an Individual Permit
should be required for the stream crossing, all sites (impact areas of surface
and wetland waters) may have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the COE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all
structures and roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and
appropriate kinds of drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize
impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to be installed to
prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil
stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas
where the soil will be disturbed. Sediment and erosion control measures and
borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands. When the old bridge is
17
removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters from pollution
discharges.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened
(PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered species Act of 1973, as amended. As of August 23,
1996, the U.S. Fish and wildlife service reports two species with one of these
classifications for Randolph County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally protected species in Randolph County, with state
category also given.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E E
Schweinitz,s Helianthus schweinitzii E E
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state).
The Cape Fear shiner is endemic to North Carolina in only a small portion
of the cape Fear drainage in the Piedmont, but somewhat east of the project area.
species in this large genus are very difficult to diagnose. Cape Fear shiners
are small fish less than 8 cm (3 in) in length that can be distinguished from
other shiners in the region by the presence of a dark lateral stripe and a dark
gut that can be seen through the belly wall (Rohde et al. 1994). shiners prefer
sand or rock substrates in pools and runs in a variety of streams from headwater
creeks to small rivers. The physical characteristics of Polecat Creek appear to
be appropriate, but the absence of aquatic vegetation in the project area
indicates that the habitat may not be suitable for the occurrence of the cape
Fear shiner. Some unidentified shiners were observed in the field study. No
known occurrences for this taxon were recorded in the Natural Heritage Program
database for the Pleasant Garden quadrangle. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Schweinitz,s sunflower is a tall perennial composite with a restricted
regional distribution centered in the south-central Piedmont of North Carolina,
having been found in nine Piedmont counties altogether. Extant populations have
been documented within the last 10 years for Randolph county and the surrounding
counties of Davidson, Stanly, and Montgomery. The plant favors open woods and
roadsides, apparently because it was once a component of formerly open prairie-
like communities on basic soils that were common in this region. There are no
known occurrences in the project vicinity reported in the Natural Heritage
Program database. The plant flowers in September-October, but it is recognizable
vegetatively during the summer. No populations were discovered after carefully
searching for this plant in the project area. suitable habitat, consisting of

is
maintained roadsides and powerlines over apparently mafic substrates, does exist
in the study corridor. Another closely related species of Helianthus was
observed in the study corridor. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
It cannot be concluded that construction of this project will not affect
any federally protected animal or plant species. The sunflower will not be
affected, however, it may be desirable to conduct a search for the Cape Fear
shiner during the appropriate season to make a definitive finding of presence or
absence.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected Species
Candidate taxa are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed
as E or T. Cl taxa are supported by sufficient information to warrant listing
as E or T, but they are not yet listed because of the large number of backlogged
Cl taxa. FSC taxa are "federal species of concern," species which show some
evidence of vulnerability and are under consideration for listing, but there are
not enough data to support listing proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened, and special
concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected under
the N.C. Endangered species Act of 1987.
There are three taxa listed as federal candidate species for Randolph
County (Table 4). They are mentioned here for information purposes in the event
they become federally listed in the future. The state listing is also given.
one species listed by the state, but not federally, was found in the study
corridor, and it is also listed in Table 4. None of the taxa are reported for
the area in the Natural Heritage Program database.
The brook floater occurs in several Piedmont river systems and along the
Blue Ridge escarpment of the Catawba River system. It seems to prefer small
streams with strong currents and gravelly bottoms near riffles (scientific
Council 1990). The unsilted substrate of Polecat creek may provide marginally
suitable habitat.
The Atlantic pigtoe inhabits coarse sands and gravels at the downstream
edge of riffles (Scientific council 1990). The unsilted substrate of Polecat
creek may provide marginally suitable habitat.
The Pee Dee crayfish ostracod is known only from the Pee Dee River basin.
It is an external symbiont of certain crayfish. Adams (1992) reports that it has
been documented for a tributary of the Little River in Randolph county, but the
habitat and biology are mostly unknown; it is suggested that there may be water
quality limitations. Crayfish are abundant in Polecat creek, and at least two
species are present.
one state listed species, western rough goldenrod, was found in the study
corridor. This goldenrod occurs in dry woodlands over mafic rocks and has
previously been reported only for Stanly County and wake county (Amoroso and
Weakley 1995).
..
19
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern and some State Listed species for
Randolph county.
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE SJlTABLE
NAME NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY HABITAT
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC T MnTirlal
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia masoni FSC T Mzginal
Pee Dee crayfish Dactyloctythere peedeensis FSC SR Pccsible
ostracod
western rough solidago radula - C Present
goldenrod
FSC = federal species of concern under consideration for listing, but
insufficient information exists to support listing; T = threatened, likely
to become endangered in N.C. within foreseeable future throughout all or
portion of range; SR = not listed but significantly rare in N.C., generally
with 1-20 populations; c = candidate, very rare and likely to merit listing
as E or T if trends continue.
The possibility of the occurrence of some other state listed species cannot
be excluded. The presence of several plant taxa in the project area that are
characteristic of mafic areas indicates that some other rare species could be
expected.
Construction of this project may impact federal candidate species.
5.0 REFERENCES
Adams, W. F. (compiler). 1992. A report on the conservation status of North
Carolinas freshwater and terrestrial crustacean fauna. Scientific council on
Freshwater and Terrestrial Crustaceans. Report to the North Carolina Nongame
wildlife Advisory Committee, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission.
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,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and wildlife
service, Biological Services Program, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech.
Report Y-87-1.
20
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina.
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries,
Raleigh, NC. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-14-R.
Godfrey, M. A. 1980. A Sierra club Naturalist's Guide to the Piedmont. Sierra
Club Books, San Francisco.
LeGrand, H. E., Jr., and s. P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison III. 1980.
Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network
(BMAN) water quality review. 1983-1988, Report No. 89-08. Water Quality
Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1991. Biological
assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: Benthic macroinvertebrate
data base and long-term change in water quality, 1983-1990. Water Quality
Section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental management. 1992. Water quality progress in North Carolina 1990-
1991, 305(b) report. Report No.92-06. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the Cape
Fear River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC. (Reprint
from NCAC: 15A NCAC 2B.0311)
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1994. Water quality progress in North Carolina 1992-
1993, 305(b) report. Report No.94-07. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1996.
Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of
Water Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality
standards Applicable to surface Waters of North Carolina, and 15A NCAC 2B .0300 -
Assignment of Stream Classifications. Division of Environmental Management,
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological survey. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.
omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc.
Am. Geograph. 77(1):118-125.

21
Pennak, R. W. 1978. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, 2nd ed.
John Wiley & sons, New York.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora
of the Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Southeast (Region 2). U.S. Fish and wildlife service, Washington, DC.
Biological Report 88(26.2).
Rogers, R. 1992. The birds of the Carolinas. International Field checklist
series. Clear Fish, Seattle, WA.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Univ. of North
Carolina Press, chapel Hill, NC.
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, Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
scientific council on Freshwater and Terrestrial mollusks. 1990. A report on
the conservation status of North Carolina's freshwater and terrestrial molluscan
fauna. Report to Nongame Wildlife Advisory Committee, North Carolina wildlife
Resources commission.
soil conservation service. 1991. Hydric soils of Randolph County, NC.
Technical Guide, Section II-A-2. U.S.D.A., Soil Conservation Service, Raleigh,
NC.
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and W. C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
riTi rt
1
R;.
i
I
I `el
.ion
.Ines i
1 ?

1
Moon
Gael' 0.40 •
`t
040
??- - W
.` l . t v 1211 .• 1 ? •
4! 1 f = ` 7!42
1111 .i .s •1211 i . 4 t.] ti
62 % .. e
.7 .4
2
41
4w1?`I
Goss
_ 2297
.? 71L. 1.0 J
2LU
MU

•1
r IM
?_. . H7st
a? I - 1`3•
s
.p J710] 71Q i 6 _
210] `f ti 7107' o .2L¢L
! ] S
? Loa t7
110
G 109 ?J
3 1!3
No-
Sal.rn
y O
ti
AN
- 21Lt o
t O? 21Qs
\ O
2112
'T' 1 e 7L2 0
2111 J
a 2114
1.2
4S
2116
?AS
2291H-
i
t.] 7!77 Z?.
.1 1.1 21.11 _
21!7.4
iQ
1 7]34 ]J.1s '? 2-4 _ -
-d 1
e 1.2
s
lli ili4? '
1.7

"North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Randolph County
Replace Bridge No. 104 on SR 2101
Over Polecat Creek
B-3023
Figure One
7Z I y?;?'j`' (i??!? y_Ic.i a:' +- y r?-1??.:,°??.?'?ya ??,^ «?'•f?rrC,?y' _?* g a°R W V "' ?,
?, }??` N ` p ` ?jdW`lW I, 'Ia7?ir J eef +p3 p bU O' Z N M R.r{?"'{ *a'r
': d .. / r l 4Fpy 'S ..
40
? .? a • ?.r ' y L y ,`..? ,..? „ 'Fr 1J+,. ??• ,, _ a4•+4?, '*? ?r yKi+ !?' !:F S/ ? ?r,;*'?'
??+ '.t• ?' ? ? • Mrln'.1"?'t<y,?. "'i-? .i ? "r ? ?`• r ?y(yf'7 J, ?V?'J'.?. K.Y ?'!rfB orP??,W/ ?,?„p , ,
RY ^v:I J v '•.. f i i. ?•,,v?''y",`,,+?v+Iti :?+?gr,, r(?c ?.,?'u'."("??' '}} F,?IA' -'i..,`•? 'r d ?'i. }•,,f ,
?Ars,r "? t f '?,?r JYC' ? {? n 'mil i°M{?•?F' ?ti 9 t''. I?rry' .T.' n ? ); ?(/. •..
t M _y« ~? - - J'?y -7 ? I, ??,\. WY!F fi •` ?. J .fi. r' ,J t,
• ? ? ?.,~t'?` ?+ ? ;' e.F•
• ?. %-`-f. ? ; •• ?y ` ,VM ?? >\\ r l?, t? fir! rr} ?tld ?'.??? ?` Fi ? ?• • ? !a r 1'J t - .1
? r t'%r? ?• ' 11?.? 'W_?P4 ? ? ' ?`? `.?\.t ,?` `, tr?[A'^!(?,Sty?kj•J( C ?bb? : ? ?M1 ? ? ? 1
'4e,`•?'• '?, '; `` ? ,y,,r? , •??G# ' ;%r ?„' ? ,., r.t?'J'??';-' ? } , ? 1
• 1? . ,.. '' !•wx` cl :.+ 'I ?' '?if,r "f' ?? ..' !a NYr??T?,?'F,/+±1 ?'''..y? ' r??l?'
*, ?11\ . r`(• 7 . ' , ^ 1T •: •?l , r `1 k '?,,rj ? ? AY •? •t?? ? •:S.• ...-Y. .. .....e. •`C ..
10
"a t_?', t `: ,' ?• \ F,.,?. y 4• _1' lrYriR.' 1 rty"'' ?f..l/?y +` ,,,?? ?- ?1+! • ? f ? 1 ?r:. f - : ? t.?W"; 4, r Ny •tie b r ?'ti,.
or S.
-?t?"?' `:;?yl.' \. '^_ `%??`??h ? •4•f 't t?1?' r °^ r '1 S ? i.•?, . t'4, r,R. •{•( T ?! .
?•? „!, i. ? ?' •'q Ott ,? ?'?' ?? - - ? ' i a ? ° ? w ?, n r •
A'i
? 1, RM+• ' ??. j? ' 1''1 Y r. J ? ?' 1\ t j,' ?'f l_?, ?" ? ??J '?? .41 _± ?R ,?LtI? ,.
I} v.. t t y .. f. X L e n' x ... d Mali. w. ?' ,ry, . M +-.', M• ..)r,
1 r Jy 1 J ; .?«?Y. ' t??,1 , k r•d } t .'r+?+.JNr „u ?? , .,; Nuy'y, niy`: ??.. ! . {? • r`sh •/ r?PnGtM1°'
r, r rtl a , y 'r' " f?i`.„? Tat+w
`,?,?V.? ? . ? 4 • a . }:l l?' ?? k.?yi1` ' , f,? j '` 1 l ' ?? r• ??"y.' ?,e?}r ? ?},+': ?•.• r? h
Jr , 1.? 1 r-. ? V?' ?` ?. ?•.t?. , ?,., t '.. {. r , ,,?; k4 «? u.u a •• iar'rlNt? nw •r?ywa?'? -, iY ti •w^ 4.x,4 r 1a' i„r?JM?n.h.!
'r• J..` H n tl j ,, y ? ?'? C' r ? ,... T "f''• ' Jµr'J'.?.•? rf ?" fJ!+' * ... ?.4? "` f r Fi A'?, r _.
w t • r. Y 1,, 1 ,e ` M. ?.Y vm•,.4'!cL •rk?..,, ,, , ry"•1.•:, r,-., ,+.}.•i i, 1+ `.? nN d
_M?.1 ,f- i. «, y ? •? , 1 Y ?. "7;w
!h a. ?..: e? -•...t r f Y.'r A ,;,?. vrt 0.("'i.
?', 2 ''• Y ?1?'S. ?w'?,.^ ?.4?. t d?rl. ? e -ti ?,lr•?,r ,.J';f1'•1' 1 " l iJ"i'??? «?? } '?r a itsra+? ''H 4. ` '"'• '' ? ?( i'
I??IVI, J ty,??l,1R, i1? i??L,` ? ?: • 1R ?. " {f• Ire r.,,. .? ,? o. ?vwJ ??? 7 rl A f ,.1? t ?' '.. r t A U.:-i+YN ,?
...J i 5??1*K r• v.r• L ??.G?e ?..??.-...?12???`:? .. .-.? e . adk\?r. 'y{rAal. i'l '?•'r.'.?-.bo.?• ? ,a•?'.7K.'}'; r.. ?Q:?'; _ .?? ?.n..y. i ... t : ?!'1 . , _
?"??µ
*IRM

z
.._ a 311

f
r?_ •i
WC,
fax,
I
?? - /?
00
/.? II I??.. _?ti.? ??? .?`v\ ??•?? -/3437
Y•
:\ (r?
?Z` -?. V I V. ?? ?J , _ 1 / ?' I. ? - I/ ^ C.; I I I I J '? 3976
340z / i _ 1 i I lam/ - ?.
;e
551
//. • ??'?__???,? _?\` .% _. - 62 - 3915
10.
- ?? ? i ?.???;•? ', \J Aso L. w
?tANDO ,1 ? ?? ?; •1i ??? mil' ? ?,, _ _ 34m "' ,(%;"
71
16
3974
?`• ?? ?' - = ?? -ss uI? *':-. -k'_ has,
a 3973
?? ? _ , _ ,\. ,/ Aso ?•? ?18\ ? `? ??y//// ?\,0 ??r/?.---?' 1-? °-.;-;v?-?i; `. ? -,?.
I Trail D6
Park
JIL
d `i r. : /? y' I `? ` _' ?' l'l - -?I • _ - 3972
??
J50
figure 3
2114
220 ??? \ - (?? f \? ._?'1 ?i i I l _ ^ -? - • /?? ~
OLEt4AN 4.6 ML 4i47'30N 610 611 INTERIOR-GEOLOGICAL SURVEY. RESTON, VIRGINIA-1963 ---35' S:
;HEBORO /o m . 612000m{ 79'45'
I MILE ROAD CLASSIFICATION ??s
? 4?I±o
--..?. ??1I1C Ci11'Ji?P.--•
wm? STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
June 19, 2000
ALL CONCERNED PARTIES
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: Randolph County, Replacement of Bridge No. 104 on SR
2101 over Polecat Creek, State Project No. 8.25
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2101(1), TIP No. B-3023
Attached is a list of project commitments that were developed during the pre-
construction phase of the subject project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Lynn Smith at [phone].
VCB/als
Attachment
cc:
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P.E., Traffic Engineering & Safety System
Mr. Johnie E. Marion, Area Roadside Environmental
Mr. Shannon Sweitzer, P.E., Area Roadway Construction
Mr. Ron Hancock , P.E., Area Bridge Construction
Mr. John McDonald, PE, Resident Engineer, Division 8
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD&EA
Mr. Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ, Raleigh
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 104
on SR 2101 over Polecat Creel:
Randolph County
Federal Aid No. BRZ-2101(1)
State Project No. 8.2571601
TIP. No. B-3023
In addition to the Nationwide Permit Nos. 23 & 33 Conditions, General
Nationwide Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional
Conditions, State Consistency Conditions, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have
been agreed to by NCDOT:
Commitments Develoned Throueh Proiect Development and Design
Roadside Ennvironmental Unit, Division 8
High Quality Water (HQW) sedimentation and erosion control measures will be
implemented and strictly maintained throughout project construction.
Commitments Develoned Throueh Permittine
Division 8
No in-stream work will be conducted.
Division 8, Structure Design
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 104.
Contacts:
Lynn Smith, Project Development & Environmental Analysis (NCDOT), [phone]
Eric Alsmeyer, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, [phone] (cxt. 23)
John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality, [phone]
Preconstruction
Page 1 of 1
06/19/00