20001184 Ver 1_Complete File_20000912

001184
lh'Fai,+ a, STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
`bEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
August 18, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
DAVID MCCOY
ACTING SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Wake County, Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049 over Poplar Creek;
Federal Aid No. MABR7--2049(1); State Project No. 8.2405401;
TIP No. B-3056.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on February 1998. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 232 over Poplar Creek on SR 2049, Wake County. The new
structure will be a three-barrel box culvert (each barrel 3.7 x 2.7 meters [12 x 9 feet]).
"Traffic will be detoured along secondary roads during construction. There will be 213
meters (700 feet) of approach work to the west and 243 meters (800 feet) of approach
work to the east. The typical section of the approaches will include a travelway 7.2
meters (24 feet) wide, full depth paved shoulders 0.6 meters (2 feet) wide, and 1.5 meters
(5 feet) of grass to the edge of the shoulder. An additional 1 meter (3 feet) will be added
to the shoulder width where guardrail is warranted. The roadbed of the new culvert will
have a grade approximately 1.2 meters (4 feet) higher than the existing bridge deck. This
raises the roadway elevation at the stream crossing, and improves the 6% and 2%
approach grades (40 mph design speed) enough to accomplish a design speed of 60 mph.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996,
Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241.
4'
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), for their review.
Bridge No. 232 is located on SR 2049 over the Poplar Creek in Wake County. It
is composed of a concrete deck and timber substructure. The concrete deck may
contribute a maximum of 20.4 cubic yards of fill during demolition. All temporary fill
material will be removed from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal
process. The substructure will be removed without dropping into the water. Therefore, the
total possible fill is 20.4 cubic yards. This bridge demolition has been classified as a Case
3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment).
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Clay Willis at [phone], Extension 334.
Sincerely,

William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. J.G Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Mr. Dave Cox, NC WRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
i
A.
B.
C.
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3056 ry 0 "1
State Project No. 8.2405401
Federal Project No. MABRZ-2049(1)
Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049 over Poplar
Creek in Wake County. Bridge No. 232 will be replaced with a three-barrel box
culvert (each barrel 3.7 x 2.7 meters [12 x 9 feet]). Traffic will be detoured along
secondary roads during construction (see Figure 1).
There will be 213 meters (700 feet) of approach work to the west and 243 meters
(800 feet) of approach work to the east. The typical section of the approaches will
include a travelway 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, full depth paved shoulders
0.6 meters (2 feet) wide, and 1.5 meters (5 feet) of grass to the edge of the
shoulder. An additional I meter (3 feet) will be added to the shoulder width
where guardrail is warranted.
The roadbed of the new culvert will have a grade approximately 1.2 meters
(4 feet) higher than the existing bridge deck. This raises the roadway elevation at
the stream crossing, and improves the 6% and 2% approach grades (40 mph
design speed) enough to accomplish a design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph).
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 232 currently has a sufficiency rating of 52.0 out of 100 which is up
from 48.9 in 1995 due to temporary improvements. The bridge has a substandard
roadway width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide. Present standards call for 8.4 meters
(26 feet) of clear roadway width. In addition, the structural condition will require
major repairs within the next four years to keep the bridge open.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/93
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements)
when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which
there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
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."

Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(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? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F-1 X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ? -
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? FX]
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ? X
low-income population?
5
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act x
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 14: Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
The project will require minor channel changes on either side of the new culvert.
However, the changes will be less than 15.2 meters (50 feet) on either side and
will be done according to DEHNR's Stream Relocation Guidelines as stated in the
Environmental Commitments.
oil i 1 G J, //i 427':,3
J?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
October 16, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 232 over Poplar Creek, Wake
County, B-3056, ER 97-7255
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey 1. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 25, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??V
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Wake County
Replace Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049
Over Poplar Creek
B-3056
Fisure One

FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on. North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
o If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Pagel of 3

FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shell Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
• If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BIl1P's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Arnry Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state orfederal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
46.

JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERt`oR
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ME-NIORANDI'M TO:
26 March 1997
FROM:
St113.1ECT:
ATTENTION:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
P.O. BOX 25201. R ALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
,3. S ,
Matt K. Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARL-AND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
Replacement of Bride No. 232 on SR 2049 over Poplar Creek.
Wake County, TIP No. B-3056; State Project No. 8-240540 1,
Federal Project No. NIABRZ.-2049(1).
John Williams, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Unit
This report is to assist in the preparation of a Type II Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
(PCE) for the proposed prvject. This report contains information regarding water resources,
biotic resources, waters of the United States, permit requirements and federally protected species
within the study area.
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 232 at existing location,
with traffic detoured on existing roads during construction (Figure 1). The existing cross section
for the Bridge is a 7.2 in (24 ft) wide bridge. This structure will be replaced with a 3 u, 3.6 in by
2.7 in (12 ft by 9 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The proposed roadway elevation is
approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) higher than the existing bridge. The existing right-of-way (ROW) for
this project is ditchline to ditchline and the proposed ROW is 24 in (80 ft). Project lenvgth is 152
in (500 ft) to the east of the bridge and 183 m (600 ft) to the west of the bridge..
Prior to a site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project area was
obtained and reviewed. Intormation sources include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Clayton), National Wetlands Inventory (NWi), NCDOT aerial photographs of
the project area (1:1200), Natural Resource Conservation Service (MRCS), Iormcrly known as
Soil Conservation Service. general soil maps (Wake County, 1970), N.C. Center for Geographic
lntormation and Analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base flap ofWake County (1995), U.S. Fish

Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential sources of
impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading, vegetation removal,
pay ement installation, and construction related vehicular traffic. These activities can result in
increased sediment loads and the runoff Of toxic substances such as fuel, oil, and tar into lakes and
streams. Impacts are best minimized by limiting earth removal activities and implementing
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project, where applicable.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water supplies (WS-1 or WS-11) or
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 in') of the project study area.
Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial Communities in the study area are described as Disturbed and Alluvial Forest.
These communities are well-defined and there is little overlap of flora between the communities.
The faunal component of this community is dominated by species found in the forested
community that forage in the disturbed community.
Disturbed Community
The disturbed community occurs on the roadside shoulders, till slopes, and utility
easements found in the study area. Large portions of this community are regularly influenced by
mowing and herbicide application. This has stabilized the community in an early successional
state. Other portions of the community experience less frequent disturbance and consequently
support a higher diversity of species. Roadside shoulders are dominated by hardy low growing
herbs and grasses that include: Carolina geranium (Gel-cmium C111,01ilihi unt), wild onion (Allimn
calwcleli.vis), henbit (l.culliunl anll)lerxicmile), plantain (111cmicigo sp.), rt?ouse-ear chickweed
(Cerclsvilem sp.), fescue (1 eslucc1 spp.), white clover (Irifolimn rellrlls), and fox tail grass
(?I1ol1rclu 1/s c111-olillic7r/11s). Less frequently disturbed portions of this community also contain
Japanese honeysuckle (l.oWcera jupot ic•cr), tag alder (Alms serrll/utc1), and red maple (Acer
r1/hrlnll).
Permanent residents of this community are limited to those species which are highly
adaptive and extremely hardy. The greatest potential for diversity is found among the insects,
many of which meet the previously mentioned requirements. Grasses and flowering herbs are an
excellent food source for grasshoppers (Orthoptera), bees (Hymenoptera), and butterflies and
moths (Lepidoptera). Specifically the spicebush swallowtail (l'al)ilio 11•oih/s), silver-spotted
skipper (A• mrg. reu.y c%1rr1s), and golden northern bumble bee (Bombit.vfervichls). Some higher
vertebrates are also found in this community. Permanent residents include: song sparrow
(Meloslliza inelocli(l), mourning dove (7_eimicla ruclcrouro), and eastern harvest mouse
(Reilhroclolaomy.v humulis). I'vlany of the species found in other communities in the project
vicinity will utilize habitats found in the disturbed community on a temporary basis for foraging,
huntinu, and as a migration corridor.

increaslil opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become too small in area, interior
species will not repopulate.
Indirect ellects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While, mortality
anion-, migratory species can be expected from project construction, these effects are anticipated
to be minor since, the existing roadway already serves as an effective barrier against wildlife
migration. In order to minimize impacts to natural communities in the project vicinity it is
recommended that all cleared areas along roadways and embankments be revegetated immediately
following project completion.
Aquatic Communities
Community composition of the aquatic communities is reflective of the physical
characteristics of the water body and the condition ofthe water resource. Terrestrial communities
adjacent to water resources also greatly influence aquatic community composition and structure.
The aquatic conununities of'Poplar Creek include habitats such as tlowing channels,
shaded pools, and sandbars. These habitats provide habitat for a variety offish and invertebrates.
Invertebrates found in Poplar Creek include: Asiatic clam (('orhicrrl(I.Jlumir?eci) and crayfish..
PiscIvorous species likely to occur in Poplar Creek include: redtin pickerel (b.sa' cr?uerica?uo;),
bluegill (Lel)o is macr )chiru.v), largemouth bass (tilicvup?rr?r.v.vcrl???nic%.?), yellow bullhead
(:1 mcirn•rr.v ??uJuli.v), and pirate perch (r1 plrreclc dei-rr.v .szn•cr?n?s). Small fish such as shiners
(;Votrol i.v.,pl,.) are also likely to occur in this stream.
tkquatic Community Impacts
It is anticipated that permanent and temporary impacts to aquatic communities will occur
from increased sedimentation, increased light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation
covers benthic ors-anisms and filter feeders, inhibiting their ability to feed and obtain oxygen.
Increased sediment loads and suspended particulates in the water column can lead to the
smothering of fish eugs, reduced depth of light penetration in the water column, reduction of
dissolved oxygen and alterations in water temperature. Increased light penetration from the
removal of streamside vegetation may also increase water temperatures.
In order to minimize impacts to agautic communities in the project area it is recormended
that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
Waters or the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in section 33 of the code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, also defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place till material into these areas bills wider the
f
v
l'ohle I: i-ederally protected species For Wake County.
Ominoll Mime Ivillnt' / i'clc'1'Q/ .S'!t7/IGS'

bald ea,-, le Huliurelits leuc'ocellhuliv; Threatened
red-cockaded woodpecker 1'ic'oicle's hor'ecllis Endangered
dwarf-%?cdge mussel Alclsnliclotau helcrocloll Endangered
Michaux's sumac R/Ills luic'lzcluxii Endangered
Note:
•"Endangered" denotes a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
*'*Threatened" denotes a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
/luliueents leucocelllrulrrs (bald eagle) Endangered
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: I I March 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of Louisiana,
N'lississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in the
southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their larue white head and short white tail. The body
plumage is dark-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack the white head
plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color with blotchy white on the
underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles can be identified by their flat wing
soar. :Adults range is length from 69-94 cm and have a wingspan ranging from 175-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect' an ea?,Ies selection of a nest site. Eagle nests are
found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the water, in the
largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding land. Human'
disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat. Eagle nests are
approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are the major
food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded ducks. Food may
be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No large water bodies that would provide suitable Foraging habitat for the bald eagle are
present in the project vicinity. Poplar Creek is a small stream with a well developed riparian
canopy. A search of the NI-iP database of rare species an unique habitats showed no occurrences
of this species in the vicinity of the proposed project. Therefore, no effects to the bald eagle will
result from project construction.
rllci.%n iclollw helerocloil (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 Nlarch 1990
.fhtsnniclonru heleroclocl formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to tile Neu,,?C
River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in the Neuse River Basin and in
the upper Tar River Basin.
The dwarfwedge mussel is a small mussel ranging in size from 2.5 cm to 3.8 cm in length.
It's shell is distinguishable by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish
to silvery white.
Successful reproduction is dependent on the attachment of larval mussels to a host fish. It
is not known what the host fish is but evidence su`(gests that it is either an anadromous or
catadrontous species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants
and requires a stable silt free streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Cursory surveys for freshwater mussels were conducted by NCDOT biologist ivlark
Hartman on 20 August 1997. During the course of these surveys no evidence of the occurrence
of native mussels was found in the project vicinity. A search of the NHP database of rare species
and unique habitats shows no populations of native mussels as occurring in poplar Creek.
Therelore, construction of tite proposed project will not affect the dwarf=wedge mussel.-
Rluts miclhcnixii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: 28 September 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower piedmont
of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. This species- is believed to be extirpated in
South Carolina. It is currently known from only 21 populations in North Carolina and Georgia.
In North Carolina populations ofMichaux's sumac still exist in Hoke, Richmond, Scotland,
Franklin, Davie, Robeson, Moore, and Wake counties.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong
lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm ion;,, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute and acuminate. The bases
of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. It bears small flowers in a
terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop
from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to G mm
across.
f

M
?? <?uar Yu,ni

A
. SIA fT.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JANIEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 05. 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: John Williams, Project Manager
FROM: Tim SavidQe, Protected Species Coordinator
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected Species Survey Results Pertaining to TIP
No. B-3056.
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report for B-3056 by
Matt Smith, March 26, 1997
The referenced Natural Resources Technical Report gave a Biological Conclusion of
Unresolved for Michaux's sumac, until surveys at the appropriate season could be
conducted. The subject project was visited by NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge on July 23,
1997 to investigate the presence of this species in the potential impact zones. These areas
were visually examined to provide 100% coverage. Michaux's sumac was not located in
the project area.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that Nlichaux's sumac is not present within the
project area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.. Unit Head, Environmental Unit
Hal Bain. Natural Resources Supervisor
File: Section 7 Issues
File: B-3056