20001401 Ver 1_Complete File_20001030

l
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
October 20, 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
SUBJECT: Wake County, Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049 over Poplar Creek;
Federal Aid No. MABRZ-2049(1); State Project No. 8.2405401;
TIP No. B-3056.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion 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 with another
bridge on the existing alignment, Wake County. The new structure will be a 36.6 meters
(120 feet) long bridge with a clear roadway width of 9 meters (30 feet). There will be no
deck drains on the bridge. 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 bridge 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.
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.
Poplar Creek is the only jurisdictional surface water that will be impacted by the
bridge replacement. The best usage classification for Poplar Creek is C NSW. Class C
refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient
Sensitive Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs. Surface
water impacts to Poplar Creek will not extend beyond the proposed right-of-way of 80
feet (40 feet from the centerline on either side of the bridge), approximately 0.03 acres.
Impacts to the surface waters are likely to be less than the 0.03 acres, because bridge
construction will not need the entire right-of-way. Wetlands located within the project
right-of-way will be impacted. The calculated wetland impacts on the project total 0.04
acres. These impacts are detailed in a project drawing located in the permit application.
Bridge No. 232 is located on SR 2049 over 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,
41- C,
r William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Domey, 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, NCWRC
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS
N I
? w I l
a a I _.
1 I
M N N
O C; Li I
U U Q
LL- a a
N Ln
Ln v O , I f ti
up i:z
o 0 0 / ?,
00
LL.
- N LL.. N I W ti
0:: Of N N LL. ti I ?? >
? LW?. O n co I o /' ` `` to
LL LL N f- I 2
m co d co
W Q F-
s
w w < CC
z °-
v a s ° Li-
z L)
w ° ? I '-
a
Z Z Z J U N ? N z m
<1 F-Ii
W W F- J O / N U? ? LLJ
N
3 U z W U Q z Q
°? `? I Q
m m a z z? co
Of Q? > Q W
Q -? ~
L) N N I, W
x W
? N N U J
(V• W Z
,I
"
9 ' :'
W co
Q U ,` F
O O `?? " Ii '? rL
\A vi
a C;6- .. I
o Z ? c? I
Q Ia
? g I
w w I
3 3 iOtt
m
I
y ?,, < N
N N I ? ?
Ul U4
IL LL
LL b
7 ?
t? t412
BRIDGE SURVEY & HYDRAULIC DESIGN REPORT
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
HYDRAULICS UNIT
RALEIGH. N. C.
6DrIl
I.D. No. ___B=3056____ Project No. ____8.2405401 Proj. Station ______17+45 =L-
-------------
County ----WAKE --------------Bridge over -__-POPL. R_-CREEiS----------------. Bridge Inv. No.___232-----
0 On Highway ------ Sft_2049------------- Between -------- and ------ Sft_25Q9_____________________
---------------------
'
Recommended Structure 2 Q 60' (21" CORED SLAB) BRIDGE OAL = 120', (HIGH STRENGTH CONCRETE)
-------- ---- ----- ---- --- ----- -- ---- ------------ --
---------------------------
ar ---N°_ pcc k?fl?is C)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
6 Width of Roadway -----24--------------------------------------------- Skew --- Q*_________------
0
z
Recommended Location is (Is, At 07a?) Stream from Existing Crossing. ------------------------------------
U
o Nearest Shipping Point KNIGHTDALE On _____NORTHWESTERN 5.5
R.R., Miles From Bridge
L
CL
Bench Mork is ----- R _SPIKE_ IN _A _ 32"_RED _OAK_ TREE _116' RT _OF___L =_ STA 18+08.45
?' ---------------------------------------------------------- ------ Elev. __1-87-.04-3 --- Datum: ---- NAD------------
o:
''); Temporary Crossing ----- NOT__REQU------IRED
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
m;
? ;/? o? ?L? f rPf
0
z
M
0
z
C
(U
L
U]
zt?
L.(
QJ
Q
Q_r
nQ
"`-4
E
0
y
L
t
V)
9 IA'
i
LA
r? to t. ???nt $ $ ? _-
-
k •.'1 r ti,..?'? ?? x'/'311. •..•{ 1
Designed by: DAN__C._DUFFIELD_______________________
Assisted by: _ STEPHEN__J._SYKES
Project Engineer: ___DAN C. DUFFIELD
Reviewed by: ---------------------------------
Date _I _ 451C ------
v I0 Der- z4z.
ft2 f1. C[r,p I
'7-1,510C Pk(_

e
L ?
v
yet `
_ I I
I
?

,-
? ??
I t

_ IIl
l
I
I

I

I ` i
I i C7
I, I( I
I I .
I- - I I I
I I t I I I I ?i I ;r ; .. I ;. ;
r
O Q
O

-i

m l_ 1

f I- I- }
I
--

,
I ,
-f I I I

_
--;- Ir7j ir_T
_I.ID.
? I

1 1 ?I:

_
I I
_l=oi I

I

-
- I. I / I ;- + I I

; G I I I

a.
---------- - - -
IT
44

1 1
: _
I I
O .- x 1 1 ! - ! ' I i-A. r
.

?-+ ...___ m

_._:_. <--1? .?

- •I--

--.-?

._

--? •

--II-

-

-1- --

-

I
:
;--; I , I
?

''-'_' ' -- I _
C) I 1-
A-1

I?
.

-

; I -?

I

I

l II
-
__1A1 di - - - -
?
1

< (? .. .
i 1

1 I
f
1 I I
: I 1 i
0
- - - ( - - t 1._ _
W p
_ _. ? - 1 rt
? {
1
'
I
r1

,

I b-I-
-;
I

f Ih -
w
_

_ Li
-, +
-I
-
-; -
-
I -
Z 1 I I I i
?
h
I
I
I _ I
?
I
F T
?
I
j
I

I -

I

p
C

,
I

i I i r- ; r
t
i I

-
, I

-
T+
L

-?? ' !
- -

'

ice; I

I ? i I
? CA

I
, I
l

X
/ N-

.

I
-- cn r•,) .,m 7
co I_

,

ai
,
l I,I
I
1.
I < ul

-+
L'
L-Ld l
T\) no

I I I I
-
I 1_ • - -
- - ?1 I

_ r
f _ ?, - -- ! -

? 1 I
- -j 1- -1-I-?7?_'_ !
-r -

1
im1
1- 1._1_4
- -

'
? I
r

r
J I
I - C? 4
j7
--
'
L 1

a
? ?

1

I
?

?o

O
-- - N `\` I
r - ? I
r I o l `? ClJ'r- N
- Lj - '_Ir _+,mi i
?Ll It -
U' _.
I
,
y I
I I

i

0 I

i

-,
r7-
A.

i

j
_ - J
•

.
I
r { I I

I
; - I I i

(!1 I IJ
I -} I f _ml_ai n n!
' I I- I I - I 1 -?
I _. lJl -
I I__I -tl .?._ I - _I
... I I _ _ r_.
i 1- i' 1- I I --

--
' --
-
?
-
-'
- --
- --
-
-
-
-
-
I-
- - `?-
_
I?
-------------
I
ILD
t
r

r1_i -{
_I_I:_
-
-
-
-
-?
- -
-
- I
- -
-
-
- 1
-_I --?
_I,
?i !
z 1 ? 1 - C
a I -,
I I-I i_1_
'

I
I
I
_ G

N. -- - - -
- -

r - - 1 -• i -
I t -

r

I a I
•r J

O .. '
. ;
( j I I. I 1 = 1 n. r D; j I j I, G.
.... . t ? I o?
I '
i -+
J I
I I

1 I
, I I
{
I I 0. A

I
. 1 CID
mo{ 1-,
1
_
_ _
._ _ _

-
I
4400 Li
-
?. .
... . ... . . o

w 1

I
--
,

I
- m
-

=

I

-

-

-....

-a m. - ......

_4 'Tr
A
O

•:
'D
L

-i_ - -b- -
- ?.__

'.i 'L 1, 1$1 SYS TIMES, I 1 II.
V•t1$$It I JXI1 I B IDGN,11 I'll IVIA t-'F57'L'I.t
S9 I' 9. USF F tlC,MF I I.1. I
Y
/
L
I
Q
2
N
y
n
y
m
0
m
I
0
rn
I
y
O'
o*
O
O
O
11-1
m ?
A
o o
`m;
yZ
?D
n<
?Z
A N
Om
oD
N A
D
mmP
O A T
Z ONA
+0Z
cZ?
n n D
Z 0Z°
NA Gl
=pA
O W
"Z
Z
Z
O
H
°Zs
2°n
D;4,
2%T
000
y
r j K
N A A
00
nn
~O
=m
n?
I N
°
DI 1
m
Z
O
NE
~ m
Z m
(1 3
m0
_N
ZK
A
n ;
m?
Do
T °
m
O
?s W
Z" I
m0 A
r f O
pn ?
z m G)
O
K
Z pO
Z C
A? o
Ia
(\ O Original Form Approved: 1/93
O V Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
A.
B.
C.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
B-3056
8.2405401
MABRZ-2049(l )
Oct, The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049 ove7`Pepla.;, :'
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).
Project Description:
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 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 1/94
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes).
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
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.
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements)
when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which
there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
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 r
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army
Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
DEHNR's Stream Relocation Guidelines for projects with "Minor
Relocations" (less than 100 feet) will be applied in the design of this project.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 400,000
Right of Way $ 42,000
Preliminary Engineering Costs $ 40,000
Total $ 482,000
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments: The Division concurs with the proposed action.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type Il
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? ? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? F-1 X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
-
X
F
1
(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 wetland takings been evaluated? ?
X

(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
F-1

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? 1-1 X
4
s
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? F-1 X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F] 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)? F-1 X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F] X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F1 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? FX1
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F] X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F-1 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 r
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? F-1 X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
-
and/or land use of adjacent property? 1 X
F
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? D X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ?
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project?
X ?
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? F1 X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
6
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.
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
Project Description:
B-3056
8.2405401
MABRZ-2049(1)
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 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 will raise the 6% and 2%
approach grades (40 mph design speed) enough to accomplish a design speed of
100 km/h (60 mph).
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
z-17-98 Wzy,,"e_ E//,'off
Date Project Planning Unit Head
2-M,910 v?? I ?'?
Date Pr ject Planning Engine r
For Type II(B) projects only:
O2? 114 (?. -//?
Date /P4_ 45ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
111111)?J>
CAP, p?'
\ NON
?Q?oF'ESS/60%
SEAL 7r
: 0225W
y P??\
?r
S 4 ??
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 J. 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 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??V
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Spcerely,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw/
cc: F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
Wake County Historic Preservation Commission

N
L
?. I
I ?
I
I
I
I ?
? I
L
1007
2av_ 1m7
m
d
• eed
1117
1119
w
W
1101>> No. 232
- a r 4-9 Bridge is
If ?i
J
1.10
All+
- o
? 'inur?.nr'
I
Z-'*!

+007
a"
V29
<`icr E ... STUDIED
-W DETOUR ROUTE
Q 3 n,
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
Figure 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.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can 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
Cops 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 BMP'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 Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal 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
r t:L wi
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
Gowr,NOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201
26 March 1997
NIE`1OILANDI'M TO:
F11ON1:
SUBJECT:
ATTENTION:
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Matt K Smith, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Replacement of Bridge No. 232 on SR 2049 over Poplar Creek.
Wake County; TIP No. B-3056; State Project No. 8.240540 1,
Federal Project No. h1ABRZ.-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 project. 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 m by
2.7 m (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 ill (80 ft). Project length is 152
ill (500 ft) to the east of the bridge and 183 ill (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. Information sources include. U S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Clayton), National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), NCDOT aerial photographs of
the project area ( I :1200), Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS), formerly known as
Soil Conservation Service, general soil neaps (\\'ake County, 1970), N C. C critcr for Geographic
Inhlllllatloll and :analysis Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Wake County (1995), U.S. Fish
e
and Wildlite Service (FWS) list of protected species and N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
database of rare species and unique habitats.
Field investigations were conducted by NCDOT biologists Mark Hartman on 20 August
1996 and Matt Smith on 28 February 1997 to assess natural resources at the project site. Water
resources were identified and described. Plant communities were surveyed, and wildlife
populations were predicted using general qualitative habitat assessments.
Water Resources
The project study area lies within the Neuse River Drainage Basin. One water body is
crossed by the proposed project, Poplar Creek [DEM Index no. 27-35, 5/1/88]. Poplar Creek is
9 m (30 ft) wide and the varies up to 0.6 m (2 ft) as it flows through the study area. The substrate
is composed primarily of sand and gravel with woody debris present. Tile stream exhibits no
obvious signs of organic enrichment and has low turbidity.
Poplar Creek has been assigned a Best Usage'Classification by the Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), formerly Division of Environmental Management (DEM), which denotes water
quality conditions and potential resource usage. The best usaue classification for Back Creek is C
NSW. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary -recreation and agriculture. The supplemental classification NSW (Nutrient Sensitive
Waters) refers to waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN), managed by the DWQ, is
part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long term trends in
water quality. The program monitors ambient water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected
benthic macroinvertebrates organisms, which are sensitive to water quality conditions. Samples
are evaluated on the number of taxa present of intolerant groups [Epherrneroptera, Plecoptera,
Trichoptera (EPT)] and assigned a taxa richness value. Samples are also assigned a biotic index
value that is a summary measure of tolerance data for all species in each collection. Tile
bioclassification and taxa richness values primarily reflect the effects of chemical pollution and are
a poor measure of the effects of such physical pollutants as sediment. BMAN data is currently
unavailable for Poplar Creek.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ.
All dischargers are required to register for a permit. The DWQ NPDES report lists two permitted
dischargers into Poplar Creek and its tributaries north of SR 2049. All permitted dischargers
listed in Table I are located upstream of the proposed project.
Table I. NPDES dischamers for Poplar Creek
Name Distance from Volume Type of
project km (mi) (MGD) discharge
CWS/Ashley Hills Subdivision WWTP 3 (2) 0.21 Domestic
CWS/Kinks Grant WWTP 0.6(l) 0.25 Domestic

Impacts to water resources are anticipated from project construction. Potential sources of
impacts to water resources include: instream construction, grading, vegetation removal,
pay anent installation, and construction related vehicular tragic. 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 i\'lanagement 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-II) 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
Tile 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 (Gerarriirrn carolinianimrr), wild onion (Allium
canculrnsis), henbit (/annum anilVexicaule), plantain (PlawaLro sp.), mouse-ear chickweed
(('erasiimn sp. ), fescue (/ eslrica spp. ), white clover (l rifolinnr relwiry), and fox tail grass
(Alol)ecurus• caroliriiaims). Less frequently disturbed portions of this community also contain
Japanese honeysuckle (Lotticera.jol)oi ica), tag alder (Alms serrulula), and red maple (Acer
rnhrirnr).
Permanent residents of this community are limited to those species which are highly
adaptive and extremely hardy. Tile 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 (PalWiir lroilus), silver-spotted
skipper (1%: )argtreus clarus), and golden northern bumble bee (Honrhrrs fervitlus). Some higher
vertebrates are also found in this community. Permanent residents include: song sparrow
(1?1tlnslri?a 1100tli(I), mourning dove (7_eliahAr nracri ura), and eastern harvest mouse
(ReillrrocMntonlt•s irnnuilis). Many 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,
hunting,, and as a migration corridor.
Alluvial Forest Conunurlity
The alluvial forest community is located on the banks of Poplar Creek and throughout its
floodplain. The canopy in this community is dominated by sycamore (Phila? us occhle?Ilali.v),
sweetgutl (I,icl?riclun,hur .cly?crcijlrnr), river birch (Bella ?rigr•cr), loblolly pine (Pilimv laeclcr), and
red maple. The herbaceous and shrub lavers in this comlrlunity are frequently disturbed by
flashtloods and overbank flooding associated with large rain events. The herbaceous and shrub
layer observed in the study area is composed of privet (Ligusl?•rrrn.virrerrse), honey suckle, tag
alder, and saplings of canopy species.
A diverse assemblage of wildlife can be found utilizing habitats in alluvial forests. Muskrat
(U?rck??rlrcr zihelhicvr.v) and raccoon (Pi-oc yun lolvr) search for crayfish (1'rncunrbcn rr,v .y?l?.) along
stream banks. Belted kingfisher (Alegiic•el-Vle crll oti) and green heron (Nrrlc?ridle.v .vlr•icmts) feed
on small fish in the stream channel. Wood thrush ([ tvlociclrla ??nr,vlelina), shrews (l3larimi
and ground skink (,?cirrcellcr lalerali.v) can be heard scurrying through leaf litter on the forest
floor. White-tailed deer (Oclc)coilerr.v vii-gi?ricrnn.v) forage in the shrub layer and bed down in
patches of dense vegetation. Species found in this community are likely to utilize habitats found
in other communities on a regular basis.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Impacts to terrestrial conlnlunities will result from project construction due to the clearing
and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community area. Table 2
summarizes potential losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Calculated
impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each community present in the
study area. Estimated impacts are derived based on the project lemall 335 m (1 100 ft), and the
entire proposed right-ot=way width of 24 nl (80 tl). However, project construction often does not
require the entire right-of=way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Estimated area impacts to terrestrial communities.
Community Impacted Area ha (ac)
Disturbed Community 0.29 (0.72)
Alluvial Forest Community 0.53 (1.3)
Total Impacts: 0.82 (2.0)
Tile projected loss of habitat resulting from project construction will have a minimal
impact on populations of native fauna and flora. Construction will impact the disturbed
community and the edge of the tloodplain alluvial forest community which is already altered from
its natural state. Plants and animals found in this community are generally common throughout
North Carolina and are well adapted to persisting in disturbed areas. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities should repopulate areas of suitable habitat following project
completion. Narrow zones along the edge of the forested community may be impacted by project
construction, Which would reduce tile amount of suitable habitat available for interior species and

increasing opportunities for edge species. If forested tracts become too small in area, interior
species will not repopulate.
Indirect effects on wildlife populations are anticipated to be minor. While, mortality
among 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 a`:ainst 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 communities of Poplar Creek include habitats such as flowing channels,
shaded pools, and sandbars. These habitats provide habitat for a variety of fish and invertebrates.
Invertebrates found in Poplar Creek include: Asiatic clam (Corhicula luinhieci) and crayfish..
Piscivorous species likely to occur in Poplar Creek include: redfin pickerel (h,sox unicricnncis),
bluegill (Lepotnis mc7crochirns), largemouth bass (?Wicrc?p?err?.? .?uh»nich.?), yellow bullhead
(, I i,temi-its num//.s), and pirate perch (Aphrech) lerres sati•(rncts). Small fish such as shiners
(No1ro1)is.,p1).) are also likely to occur in this stream.
Aquatic 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 organisms 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 eggs, 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 recommended
that instream activities be kept at a minimum.
Waters of 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 323.3.
Wetlands, also defined in 33 CFR 323.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface
or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction ofthe U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) under section 404 of the Clean Water
Act KAVA), 33 U.S.C 1344. ,
Wetlands are located within the proposed right-of=way of the subject project. These
wetlands occur in the floodplain of Poplar Creek and are part of the alluvial forest community.
The Cowardin classification for this wetland is Palustrine Forested Broad-Leaved Desciduous
Temporarily Flooded (PFO I A). This wetland is located outside of the existing slopes and is
unlikely to be affected by project construction. In order to avoid impacts to wetlands located
within the proposed right-of-way it is recommended that BNiP's be implemented.
Permit Requirements
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (223) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another
Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined the pursuant to
the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act:
• (1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and.,
• (2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water certification for
any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge into waters of the United
States. The issuance of a 401 permit from,-DWQ is a prerequisite to the issuance of a CAN/IA or
Section 404 Permit.
Projects authorized under Nationwide permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation according to the 1939 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE. However, final permit/mitigation
decisions rest with the COE.
Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Four federally
protected species are listed for Wake County by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) as of 23
August 1996 (Table I ). A brief description of these species and habitat requirements follow.

Tahle 1: Federally protected species for Wake County.
-('omInorr Mime Sciewt fic,• Name 11'eclei-til St wuv
bald eagle Haliticenrs leucocrlVialits Threatened
red-cockaded woodpecker l'icoicles• hnr•ecrlis Endangered
dwarf wed,-,e mussel A/ ismiclonla helcroclon Endangered
Michaux's Sumac K/rrr.v miclrarrxii Endangered
Note:
•"Endangered" denotes a species that is in danger of extinction throughout ail 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.
ller/iarr?rrs /cucocehha/rrs (bald eagle) Endangered
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: I I March 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. Tile only major nesting
population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas of Louisiana,
Mississippi, and South Carolina. %91grants and rare nesting pairs do occur elsewhere in the
southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their lane 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 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that atTect* an eagles 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 NHP 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 prt?ject construction

Picoicle.v hoi-etili.v (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 13 October 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to southern
Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky, Tennessee, Arkansas,
Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal states of its historic range and
inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations
occur in tine sandhills and southern coastal plain. Tile few populations found in the piedmont and
northern coastal plain are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back ofthe RCW is
black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside ofthis woodpecker are white
with streaked flanks. The RCW has a lai-e white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape,
and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (!Mils
holusu-is), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least 50% pine, lack
a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW.
These birds nest exclusively in trees that are ?60 years old and are conti<,uous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This
acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that are
infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from
3.6-30. 3 nn (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 nn (30-50 ft) high. They can be
identified by a large incrustation of running, sap that surrounds the tree. The large incrustation of
sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW against possible predators. A clan of
woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from previous years. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number
from 3-5 eggs. All members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers
feed mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Forested communities found in the vicinity of the proposed project are dominated by
hardwood species. No stands that contain greater than 50% pine species that are contiguous with
other pine stands are found in the study area. A search of the NHP database of rare species and
unique habitats shows no RCW colonies located in the vicinity of the proposed project. No
impacts to this species will result from project construction.
Alaslniclowi.7 lielel-oclon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 14 March 1990
A1(imilicl)iIIu helel-ocloli formerly ranged from the Petitcodiac River, Canada to tile Neusc
River, North Carolina. In North Carolina populations are found in the Neuse River Basin and in
the upper Tar River Basin.
The dwarf wedge 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 suggests that it is either an anadromous or
catadromous species. This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants
and requires a stable silt tree streambed with well oxygenated water to survive.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Cursory surveys for freshwater mussels were conducted by NCDOT biologist Mark
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 NF P database of rare species
and unique habitats shows no populations of native mussels as occurring in poplar Creek.
Therefore, construction of the proposed project will not affect the dwarf-wedge mussel:
Rhus nrichutibi (Nlichaux'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. Tile narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-
lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 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. Tile flowers are,reenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop
from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to 0 mm
across.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of
disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in association with basic soils
and occurs on sand or sandy loams. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight
and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle that it is often
associated with.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
The approaches and outer till slopes to the existing bridge provide suitable habitat for
michaUX's su nac. A search of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats gives no
records of this species as occurring in the project vicinity. A survey for this species will need to
be conducted during the spring or sunnner when individuals are most easily identified.
cc. V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-3056
i
/
-1
}- aXQ' uies?W?, -
?" ^y• •?Mt Ski \SOl1e R?3rJle -1

# • /
u0wr ? /
./ 1?

t
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES 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 Savidge, 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 ivlichaux*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
AIN
DM SU1Z o?
JAMES B. HUNT JR
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C.27611-5201
October 25, 2000
Memorandum to
Attention:
From:
Subject:
Reference:
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head Bridge Unit
John Williams, Project Manager
Logan Williams, Protected Species Coordinator
Environmental Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Protected Species Survey Results Pertaining to TIP No. B-3056
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. This site was revisited on October 25, 2000 by NCDOT biologist Clay Willis and
Elizabeth Lusk to investigate the presence of the same species in the potential impact zone. These areas
were visually examined to provide 100% coverage. Michaux's sumac was not located in the project area
during any of the site visits.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Given the survey results it is apparent that Michaux'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 Resource Supervisor
File: Section 7 Issues
File: B-3056