20010426 Ver 1_Complete File_20010321

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GoVEIRIVOR
March 9, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office 010426
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
?D
VA
l
GFa
LYNDo TrnPETr
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 Application for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek, in Chatham County.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1176(3), State Project No. 8.2521301,
TIP No. B-3135.
Dear Sir:
This document serves to update and thereby replaces the application, dated 20 October
2000, (COE Action ID# 200120389) requesting that the Corps of Engineers authorize
this project under a Nationwide Permit 23. The project now requires the construction of
temporary rock work pads (causeways) to provide construction access, part of which will
need to remain in place to stabilize eroding stream banks. Construction of the proposed
causeways is depicted on the attached drawings (Sheets 3 and 4 of 5). Please find the
enclosed project site map, permit drawings, PCN form (Appendix A), Cape Fear shiner
information (Appendix B), PCE document (Appendix One), federally protected species
information (Appendix Two), and NRTR document (Appendix Three).
PROPOSED PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace
Bridge No. 426 over Bear Creek (DWQ Index # 17-43-16) a Division of Water Quality
"Class C" Waters of the State. The project involves replacing the current bridge with a
new bridge on existing location. The new structure will be approximately 140 feet in
length and 30 feet wide. Bents for the bridge construction will be placed outside of the
stream channel on the stream banks. The travelway will include two 12 foot lanes with 8
foot shoulders. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway and
installing guardrails where appropriate. The total project length will be approximately
910 feet. During construction, traffic will be detoured along existing area roads
NC Hwy 902, US Hwy 421, and SR 2333.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.DOH. DOT.STATE. NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by the proposed project. The construction of
the bridge will require the use of temporary rock causeways consisting of Class 11 Rip
Rap with 1.5:1 slopes. The resulting temporary surface water fill will be 200 yd3 (0.01
acres). No permanent surface water fill will result from the subject activity. Reference
elevations are available for the area of proposed placement of the rock causeways. The
equipment to be used during project construction will likely include a rotary track
backhoe and a track crane.
Bridge No. 426 has three spans totaling 127 feet in length and is composed entirely of
concrete. Both the bridge rails and the substructure will be removed without dropping
them into Waters of the United States. We do not plan to drop any material from the
bridge demolition. However, should there be an unplanned event, the resulting
temporary fill associated with the concrete deck and girders is approximately 63 yd3.
RESTORATION PLAN
The project schedule calls for a let date of 17 July 2001 with an estimated date of
availability of approximately 41 days later. It is expected that the contractor will choose
to start construction of the rock causeways shortly after that date. The temporary surface
water fill resulting from the construction of the causeways will probably be in place for
less than twelve (12) months.
The portion of the rip rap used for the construction of the causeways which results in
temporary surface water fill will be removed after its purpose has been served. Any rip
rap placed in or near the natural channel will be removed and pulled back, out of the
natural channel. All remaining causeway material located outside of the stream channel
will be left in place for stabilization of the stream banks. The choice to stabilize the
banks with rip rap was a last resort decision. Bio-engineering techniques for stablization
were evualted and determined to be in-effective due to the location of the eroded areas,
directly under the bridge. The stream bank areas surrounding the bridge are stable,
having abundant ground cover and no signs of erosion. Therefore, additional erosion
areas resulting downstream of the bridge because of the use of rip rap, is unlikely.
After the temporary causeways are are no longer needed, the contractor will use
excavating equipment to remove the portion of the causeways within the stream channel.
All of this removed causeway material will then be re-distributed amongst the remaining
causeway material, which is to remain on the stream banks for stabilization.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 26 February 2001,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists four federally protected species for Chatham
County (Table 1). The Biological Conclusions for each of these species remain valid.
Information regarding the 06 February 2001 Section 7 Consultation field meeting for the
Cape Fear shiner is included in this application.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Chatham County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus T No Effect
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E * Not Likely to
Adversely Effect
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
har erella Ptilimnium nodosum E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"*" see attached Section 7 Consultation and Biological Conclusion information (Appendix B).
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the tempoary causeways will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and Dewatering).
Therefore, the NCDOT is requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
construction of the temporary causeways. All other aspects of this project are being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b). Therefore, we request that those
activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (65 FR 12817, 12899; March 9,
2000). We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of this application to the North Carolina Division of Water Quality,
for their review.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mrs. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
r= Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/hwm
cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Bill Rosser, P.E., 8 Division Engineer
Ms. Robin Young, P.E., Project Planning
1 ,
CF
421 ?o^ a0
a
rcx / - Bonlee 0. w 6
.v
40 _ o
70 O 0
o
QO
a` l --
'` \so ps ` \ so? ?/
G?
O
B?
l18
BEGI PROJECT Greek
,L ` . _ 60
90 l\ J
2311 S
VICINITY MAP
75
21
,

? /

-
2 v
90
al 2178

2187

?G D 2181 2182
'
O

EO O
_a
A
??
NI
y
90
O
SO ( ?
,
go
2129
1
.00
• 2j • So , ?, -
421 1 c? C?2eK/

Z 00 1
END PROJECT RaCwar n
-
`
.3.0o 2300 '
GOLDSTON (
POP. 336 a i o
?? I p
o

2303 -- 421

05
Aft DETOUR ROUTE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2i21501 (B-3135)
BRIDGE NO. 426 ON SR 1176
OVER BEAR CREEK
5HEF,T -_t_ OF 5
LEGEND
----WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
L
WETLAND
L
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
SED PIPE CULVERT
PROPO
WETLAND
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUC TURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
Fj'Tff?/ DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
?
DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
ROOTWAD
WATER
*
¦ DENOTES MECHANIZED

• r r r CLEARING

?- ?-- FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB
?- TOP OF BANK
WE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
__
- - EDGE OF WATER O OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
- -C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
--?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - V- - - - WATER SURFACE
X X X LIVE STAKES
X X
C2D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2521301 (B-3155)
BRIDGE NO. 426 ON 5R 1176
OVER BEAR CREEK

I

t A 47 ?

x ?ce

® z
®
w z
w
o
X ?, I = F
t3,
'-+ ti
O U

Q
Q
o m U') w
A U
o I/,
' g
o
U Q ca
cn =
d1 co
? I W I
I o
m
w a UW
I X J

N

k?- L l
co k??
i
f°

cn o
Y
a
a I c? 0 0
i ?n N CL 3

Y N 3 F--
?
' I
Q

, I O
? I U W =
? ?1

1
' Q

?
- _ l(Y SOIL D. / -{ d
_ '
I I ? ?

!a
?
I
C
i
co
I
x \?
v
ll o V)
?o
l? a co
r d N

I1
11
1 1
1 1

1 `

? \
I \

? 1
I \
W
?, o I
`
l
® <
\
J I
\ Z
N I \
I
0
W 1 -
I \
Q j In 1
O In 1
I
U Q 1

N I ?
I U \
I \

V I \
I
@1 I Ln \

O I - \
\

I LC)
Qj
- - - `
J - I I \
I ? I I
CV
? Q
? o I I
I I
+
r-
I I

Q
IT Z

Q
W

I L - - - - - - - - - - -
F
-
() _1
W W
Y
N In I I

1 I -

Ln
?j1 I I
I I
I I
I I
I
1 I U')
I I
I
I 1
I '
I1 - /
L /
II - /
IQ /

w /
p I ? r ?
Q 1 / c

0
11 /
p
W 1 t
1 Q ?? C
V) 1
/
a_ u
I r
(D 1 / L
1 cD
Z r
r
/
I /

N / un
/ Lf) O
C

Q
/ Q V
Lr,

CL
a?
? U
?
oO
?
= N
V?
V)
a
J In
Z
O 3
w O
J
? w
J CO
O
Ql
M
Y
U
O l/1
rr o
a
r a
c
00
w
Ln
00
rn

rz ,

z x o
o ? ?
F o
00
o z
O
w > U rx 0

U
z
v)I
w
T
W
W
x
O
O
00
O
O
ti
O
0
CD
4
w ?
tx
O U
C6
H vJi

I I G
y Q, V I I I
? z V
U ? i I
Q G
a
? G
0 N
Z:
W l
LL
ZI O
to
v
C
O _
N I
Y
o w

N C W
u
_
? U
U L t7 ?
.JU ?w
(D (;7

O
I O Z
O W
Q
l
U 0
l G
= co
U
o ? (7
a
C U Z 2 cn
` T Z

N ?m?? ?O F O

U .x L a
w 0 E W Z Q

S v
00

a U F-

ii
0

o
o
o a > U O
w z
w? ?W
O 0

w a
E (0
Z w 0
a ?
m

w
I o tl
0

LL

M V) a

C
:: O VO
a

W
U1 w
S
y En
3 o

z

O
Qc N m-
C
C
G 0
L aa) L fV0

fn S
~ o

U U
a w
°

Q IL

?
C m
' w m

2 Z w

w =°
LZ c
F
? ? I I I
?

Vl
_ ( I ( I IJ
ii
3

? CO

V N
2 ?? O In

t!) ,n o
W
K

c
N

J I
I ?

u

I I T
c ]? , L I I
-
APPENDIX A
Appendix A of B
010426
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):NWP 23 & 3:
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT/Project Development & Environmental Analysis
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
1548 Mail Service Center
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC
SUBDIVISION NAME:
ZIP CODE: 27699
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE): Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): [phone]
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Chatham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Bear Creek
1
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
Bridge No. 426 over Bear Creek is located on SR 1176 (Old US Hwy 421).
Bridge No. 426 is found approximately 15.0 miles Southwest of Pittsboro,
near the community of Bear Creek. Bridge No. 426 is located
arDvroximately 0.7 mile east of NC Hwy 902 from the NC Hwy 902 / Old US
Hwy 421 intersection.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Bear Creek
(DWQ Index # 17-43-16)
RIVER BASIN: Cape Fear
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[X]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
no wetlands are located within the project site
2
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
10b. 1) STREAM
(IF RELOCATED,
LENGTH BEFORE:
WIDTH BEFORE (
N/A
N/A
N/A
CHANNEL
PROVIDE
N
oased on
EXCAVATION: N/A
OTHER: N/A
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT
DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
normal high water contours): N/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Construction of temporary rock work pads resulting in 0.01 acres
of temporary fill.
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): see attached cover letter and drawings
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Public Transportation
3
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS):
N/A
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [X] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [X] NO [I
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [X] NO [I
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21, 26,
29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE PROPERTY
MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS 50 FEET OR
1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? rural
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
DATE
5
APPENDIX B
Appendix B of B

STATE 01- NORTII CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
MEMORANDUM TO
ATTENTION:
FROM:
February 20, 2001
John Williams, P.L., Acting Unit Head
Bridge Unit
Robin Young, Project Manager
Tim Savidge, Environmental Specialist
LYNDO TtPI'[°rr
SIA RETARY
SUBJECT: Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the Federally
Endangered Cape Fear shiner, relating to
Proposed Replacement of Bridge # 426 Over Bear Creek,
Chatham County, TIP # B-3135..
REFERENCE: Summary of February 06, 2001 Section 7 field meeting,
February 19, 2001 prepared by Robin Young.
The reference memo listed the "Environmental Commitments" discussed and
agreed to at the Section 7 Consultation field meeting held on February 06, 2001.
NCDOT will adopt these commitments during the construction of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
Not Likely to Adversely Affect
If provisions mentioned in the referenced report are strictly adhered to, it can be
concluded that construction of this project is not likely to impact the Cape Fear shiner.
cc: File B-3135
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: K W ..DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

MICIIAF.L F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
February 19, 2001
MEMORANDUM TO
STATE, OF Nowri-I CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Judith Johnson*
David Cox
Tom McCartney
David Rabon*
Dale Suitcr*
Fclix Davila*
Eric Alsymeyer
Stephen I Tali
Jeff Renn*
Omar Azizi*
Tracy Averette*
Lee Moore
Marc Shown*
Ron Ilancock*
Tim Savidge*
Heather Montague*
LYNDO TINT" I I
SECRETARY
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
NC Wildlife Resources Commission
US Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
US Fish & Wildlife
Federal Highway Administration
US Army Corps of Engineers
NC Natural Heritage Program
NCDOT - Roadside Environmental Unit
NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
NCDOT - Structure Design Unit
NCDOT - Roadway Design Unit
NCDOT - Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT - Area Bridge Construction
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
* These people attended the meeting.
FROM: Robin C. Young q1C
PDEA, Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Section 7 Meetings for the Cape Fear Shiner
Project B-3135
Section 7 consultation meeting for the Cape Fear Shiner was held in Chatham County at
the subject bridge site on February 6, 2001.
The attendees agreed upon the following.
B-3135 Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek (Let Date = April 17, 2001)
No Clearing or Grubbing from November 15 to April 1.
If any rip rap is placed in or near the natural channel, it will be removed and pulled back,
out of the natural channel.
High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed concurrently
with clearing and grubbing operations, and properly maintained throughout project construction.
This is an Environmentally Sensitive Area (ESA).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.D0H.D0T.STATE.1VC. US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE.
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
February 23, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letter of February 20, 2001, requesting comments or concurrence from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the biological assessment for the Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas) in the vicinity of Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek,
Chatham County, North Carolina (TIP No. B-3135). This report is provided in accordance with
provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service considers this report to be an accurate representation of the survey and results for the
Cape Fear shiner, and its habitat. Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that
this project, implemented as described, will have "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the Cape Fear
shiner.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of the
report. Should additional information become available relative to the referenced species,
additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this document. Please advise us of any
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom
McCartney at [phone], Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:02/23/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\B-3135.esp
9pl/11-pGFO1
()10426
APPENDIX ONE
Appendix 1 of 3
TIP Project No. B-3135
State Project No. 8.2521301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1176(3)
q
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek in
Chatham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 47.3 meters
(155 feet) long and 9.1 meters (30 feet) wide at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will include
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with
2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total
project length will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet). Traffic will be detoured
along NC 902, US 421, and SR 2333 during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 426 has a sufficiency rating of 18.5 out of 100. The structure is a two
lane bridge with 6.1 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design
standards specify a width of 9.1 meters (30 feet). The bridge is posted for 21 tons for
single vehicles and 25 tons for truck tractor semi trailers. "Do nothing" is not a
practical alternate because it would require the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the a
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
r
a. Installing ramp metering device
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 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.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
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 will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be
installed prior to clearing and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project
construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 550,000
Right of Way $ 30,000
Total $ 580,000
I
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1200 VPD
Year 2020 - 2500 VPD
TTST - 7%
DUAL - 18%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1 meter (3 feet) on the bridge
2.4 meters (8 feet) on the approaches
Design speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 8 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the
bridge in place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during
construction.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must
be completed. If the project consists =Ly of Type I improvements, the
following checklist does not need to be completed.
4
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
I
(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? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of _
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely -- ---
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)?
(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
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the -.
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? 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? i X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC 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
i
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
r
6
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
I
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? j? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 17 X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(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, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1l X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action. X ?,
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
7
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
refuges, historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined x
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act - of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for I X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 2:
A Biological Conclusion of Not Likely to Adversely Effect was rendered for the
endangered species Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). This conclusion was
based on the commitment that High Quality Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be
installed prior to clearing and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project
construction.
8
G
CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3135
State Project No. 8.2521301
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1176(3)

Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek in
Chatham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 47.3 meters
(155 feet) long and 9.1 meters (30 feet) wide at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will include
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with
2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total
project length will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet). Traffic will be detoured
along NC 902. US 421, and SR 2333 during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE 11(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/-/5-9 ?
Date
Date
Date
W
Projec-
Planning Unit Head
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9

is 2175 8
2227 •4
Bonlee 4 5 2120 'S 2179 2180 2.2 2187
2207 U
2126
7 p
F
w 902
2178
3
.
Shady Branch e, 7 2182 \
Ch. 2207 2181
a ll
2125 ,? `tT \ P 2129
`

1141
1167 ! 2128

142 0 .6
-9.o. G?

P
P
`r

2181
? s
1 139 ,.
•4 2109
9

v 1.0 •5
1.0 .9 1143 4
,
? 2128 211
0
1 165 ' Bear ?
Creek . $¢
1141 6
m 2333 a
1136 1139 2189
421
1176

°' 1 L
/
301 zo
ti `r -
2300/
•
1 144 4 .
902 3.0
?r
+ai
6

1141 ,
,E a
2300 GOLDSTO
N
G{a 1009# earOt:r. POP. 353 1: ,o `•i
•y ?. 2303 c::. EP 9J..y
5 2311 •5 2335

.•s+ •
3
23 12
I
P
9

2305 r?
2306 z
- ?_ - -r o 2
paarrin o
MMMMMM"""""" Crutchfield %rds ?`I n'`
Bilk Mope ? Vi ?Fanintton. 11
IS /
r

3.5
?• [
1
of ? ? Bynum
t r Siler City ?- ' Pitisbosg J- on'L
yt t / + c? eon tlw.
C u'\\ A . ?^ A ?. ?Bons
ar
Vernon Springs 12 ,g .Marry Oaks
ita Bonle 3 4e. '01 npurr 26 ?!
Bea a L I
Cree ®j `?. ood
Goldsla 9 . Core
m"
Bennett C? uum?
0, Gu\ , Ca, tong > <
42 ,
•
?zno 1 l
Studied Detour Route
ndw+n
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 426 ON SR 1176
OVER BEAR CREEK
8-3135
kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
a Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

ATTN: Mr. Jeff Ingham
4
;y
1998 Z?
,
?Cl1f C:F 2 C.
l ?q
??G??YRV1E??
SUBJ: Bridge Replacement No. 426; TIP No. B-3135, over Bear Creek; and Bridge
No 170; TIP No. 3133, over Bear Creek in Chatham County
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your December 16,
1997 and December 17, 1997 technical reports for the above-referenced
projects over Bear Creek, Chatham County, North Carolina. Our comments are
provided in accordance with Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973,
as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
Based on North Carolina Department of Transportation's adherence to the
project commitments which include High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion
Control Measures, to protect the Cape Fear Shiner, the Service believes that
these two projects are not likely to adversely affect the Cape Fear Shiner,
or any other federally-listed species, their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for federal listing under the
Endangered Species Act, as amended.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have been satisfied.
We remind you that obligations under Section 7 consultation must be
reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals impacts of this identified
action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner
that was not considered in this review; (3) a new species is listed or
critical habitat determined that may be affected by the identified action.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
ohn M. H( ne r
Field Supervisor
ENT OF
a?M ? ; tiF
N
cC
4gCH 3 ?e
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 14, 1998
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:1-14-98:919/856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\B170-426.NE
,. 5rATt ,
hJeL +? I{? D
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
August 29, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 426 on SR 1176 over Bear
Creek, Chatham County, B-3135, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-1176(3), State Project 8.2521301,
ER 97-7070
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
/V_ 1VF
SEP G 51996
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
August 8, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Jeff Ingham of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on August 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, the only structure over fifty years of
age within the project's area of potential effect is Bridge 426, which was built in
1925. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the
bridge for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us. We recommend
no further historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no recorded archaeological sites in the immediate project area. However,
areas of high probability are present. We recommend that an archaeological survey
be conducted for this project unless the bridge is to be replaced at its existing
location with an off-site detour.
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 27601.2507 ???
,olas L. Graf
.gust 29, 1996, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
ZDAavid Brook

Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: " H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett
Fcdcral Aid n t7lz7--- 11?lo 3 TIP m 313.* County GHATW&0
CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description VWL ce, Jap_ivGE No. 426 9r-1 Sr_ u-na ovee FEA2 CP-6.el_
On ?Jsl/• 14 1'Mfo, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Hieh%vay Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Ochcr
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
0thcr
All parties present asrccd
there :t:rc no':prouertics over fim• years old within the project's arca of potential cFccts.
? the: c arc no properties Icss than fifty rears old w•liich are considcrcd to meet Criterion
Consideration G within ffic project's area of potential c ccts.
? the-c are procc.;ics over fifty ,-c= old (list artached) within the project's area of potential efFects,
but `-cd on the historical information available and the photcuraohs of each property, properties
idcntific,d as laf iCCrE nlo. 4tfo arc considered not eligible
for National Rc-ister and no further evaluation of them is nccessarti .
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's arca of potential cfIec;s.
Siencd:
/t/14/'74,
Represcna?L. ?CDOT Date
FHNv,K/for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, S4HPO - I D
(o

Statc llii?toric Preservation Officer
Datc
Ira sun-c:.- report is prepared, linal caov of this fcnn zwd the atucLcd list \cill he included.
APPENDIX TWO
Appendix 2 of 3
',. STAR +
s3 yr lt'+_? ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES Q. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARL\N1) B. GARRETT )R.
GovcRNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 5[CRETARI
December 15, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the Federally
Endangered Cape Fear shiner, relating to Proposed
Replacement of Bridge # 426 Over Bear Creek, on SR
1176, Chatham County, State Project # 8.252130 1, TIP #
B-3135.
REFERENCE: Section 7 Field Meeting Minutes, September 10, 1997
prepared by Jeff Ingham
The referenced meeting minutes summarized the construction provisions
discussed and agreed upon at the field meeting held on September 09, 1997. These
environmental Commitments will be adopted by NCDOT during the construction phase
of this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
If provisions mentioned in the referenced report are strictly adhered to, it can be
concluded that construction of this project is not likely to impact the Cape Fear shiner.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File Section 7 Aquatic species issues
File B-3135
(9
September 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: Jeff Ingham
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Section 7 Meetings for the Cape Fear Shiner
Projects B-3133, B-3134, B-3135, B-3136
Section 7 consultation meetings for the Cape Fear Shiner were held in Chatham
County at the subject bridge sites on September 9, 1997.
The following people were in attendance:
Eric Misenheimer
Ellis Powell
Tim Johnson
Fred A. Sykes
Abdul Rah mani
Steve Smallwood
Jon Loughry
Tim Savidge
Jeff Ingham
Bridge Construction
Bridge Construction
Division 8 Construction Engineer
Division 8-Resident Engineer
Hydraulics
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following was agreed to upon the by the attendees:
B-3133 Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creels
High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to clearing
and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
Bents in the river channel will be cut off at the river bed. If possible, new bents will not be
located in the river channel.
Removal of the bridge deck will be done from the top down.
B-3134 Bridge No. 425 on SR 1176 over Tick Creek
High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to clearing
and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
B-3135 Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek
High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to clearing
and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
B-3136 Bridge No. 405 on SR 1713 over Haw River
High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to clearing
and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
Construction of the new structure will require a temporary rock causeway located upstream
of the existing bridge. The causeway will be used for construction equipment access to the
structure area. The causeway must be constructed before the spawning season for the Cape Fear
shiner (May 1 to June 30). It can remain in place during the spawning season without any adverse
effects to the shiner.
Normal waterflow in the Haw River will be maintained by the use of porous rock and/or
appropriate piping for the causeway.
During the bridge deck removal, the slab will be sawed into sections and the slurry
contained.
Turbidity curtains will be placed around piers during in-stream construction activity
following pier removal.
If removing piers from the top is impossible, they will be moved to the causeway and
hauled away.
?yTAII w
` ICE: ?`r s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 15. 1997
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot. Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: Jeff Ingham, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Protected species surveys relating to Proposed Replacement
of Bridge # 425 Over Tick Creek, on SR 1176, Chatham
County, State Project # 8.2521301. TIP # B-3135.
The federally endangered harperella (Ptilimnhun nodoszun) is listed for Chatham.
Areas that meet habitat requirements for this species were surveyed by NCDOT
biologists Tim Savidge and Marc Recktenwald on October 09, 1997. Surveys were
performed by wading in the stream and visually examining streambanks and rocky bars.
No harperella was found.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
Given the survey results, it is apparent that harperella is not present in the project
area. It can be concluded that project construction will not impact this species.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D.
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File B-3135
(5
APPENDIX THREE
Appendix 3 of 3

.r,
nical Report
1(
r r
y P, 'PSI
lo. B-3135
Project No. 8.2521301
2roject No. BRZ-1176 (3) ?'!,

Ir

Y.l? f ? r

SX ' KYI'b>. - ...

r +

All
ared for
ffl ???I?'L??'f ( ?3 1f fI? ;?Jf' r?lf r
, '?
r J
trod ft(rl : _r
7
by. _I,

NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
FOR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 426 ON SR 1176
OVER BEAR CREEK, CHATHAM COUNTY
TIP NO: B-3135
STATE PROJECT NO: 8.2521301
F.A. PROJECT NO: BRZ-1176 (3)
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Prepared by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
January, 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ............................. ».................... ............. ............................................................. 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .................................................................................................................1
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY ..................................................................................................4
1.3 METHODOLOGY ..............................................................................................................................4
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR ..................................................................5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...............................................................................................................6
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ...................................................................................................6
2. 1.1 Soils ........................................................................................................................................6
2.2 WATER RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................7
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ....................................................................................7
2.2.2 Water Quality .........................................................................................................................7
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts of Water Quality ....................................................................................7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES » ............ .......................... »...................................... ..................................... 9
3.1 INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................... 9
3.2 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ..................................................................................................... 9
3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................11
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ..................................................................................11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .........................................................................................................13
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ............................................................................................13
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................................................13
4.1.2 Permits .................................................................................................................................13
4.1.3 Water Permits .......................................................................................................................14
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ..............................................................................................14
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................................15
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..........................................................19
5.0 REFERENCES ....................... »........................ ................... ............. ............................................... 21
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Photographs
Appendix B - Alternate Plans Including Proposed Impacts
U
LIST OF FIGURES AND TABLES
Figure 1 - Vicinity Map .................................................................................................................2
Figure 2 - Location Map ................................................................................................................3
Table 1- Summary of Community Impacts per Alternate ......................................................12
Table 2 - List of Federally-Protected Species in Chatham County ......................................... 15
Table 3 - List of Species of Federal Concern and Special State Status .................................. 19
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report outlines the findings of both the literature review
and a field investigation of the natural resources identified mithin the project area f6r the proposed
replacement of bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over Bear Creek, B-3135, in Chatham County. The
findings of the report, including any anticipated impacts to the surrounding environment as a result
of the proposed project, will be included as part of the environmental documentation required under
the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally funded transportation projects. In
addition, general avoidance and/or mitigation recommendations are provided for each environmental
resource described in this report.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Initially built in 1925, Bridge No. 426 over Bear Creek, B-3135, is being considered for replacement
by the NCDOT (see Figure 1, Vicinity Map and Figure 2, Location Map). The bridge is located on
SR 1176, approximately 1.0 kilometer (0.6 miles) southeast of the intersection of SR 1176 and SR
902. Currently, there are three proposed alternates for the project. These alternates consider either
replacing the bridge within the same location or a new location. The alternates are as follows:
Alternate 1:
Under this alternate, the existing bridge would be replaced with a new bridge approximately
47 meters (155 feet) in length at the existing location and with the same roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. Traffic would be maintained during construction using an on-site detour to the east
of the existing bridge. The detour will require a bridge approximately 30 meters (100 feet) in length
with a roadway elevation approximately 1.0 meter (3.0 feet) lower than the existing bridge.
Alternate 2:
This alternate would require that the existing bridge be replaced with a new bridge
approximately 47 meters (155 feet) in length at a new location to the east of the existing bridge. The
road will be realigned to improve the design speed. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
structure during construction.
Alternate 3:
For alternate 3, the existing bridge would be replaced with a bridge approximately 47 meters
(155 feet) in length at the existing location and with the same roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads during construction.
juridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over
Bear Creek, Chatham County
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
\ C :' ,-nt,•;1F ? ?1. -? 1 ? ,r e _ ? /y n f} ,,
_...+?? ?''? ? I. rJ•, _ R / LD.- \ trl 'r- F;IC'n?r?6 a .ic? ', ? ? C? r r (c-!
1 ?` ? { .,.lit. Tf I.e:?nc? F., ^1 t ! ? t r ? ^ `^? t 1
+ Fr cr.,. °? ? ?. ti•. ? '? .iUf.lr,E?tr,7- 1 ??
' .;Gr?F? i?tSBr3,y; err
1-7
E7 D L
j-- L'C NT Tfl-"
ale
4111t e
r, ``??? •ll is , F
? ?3- Orrr ?f<? F si? , - ----J ? F t , `?r----? -- ._-'- •-?
--., rr+.r., \\- 1 "151'3 riCF'O ?? - _ t,,,?C. 1-•I _ 1` Ik?? f•:
1
j ! 1 (? - . . •? ? .., r.• :_? .. .- ice. at! •:, ' r'?" -
7? \ _•f, 'c_t '? ? :..}J ? _ ?r. aGt,?C?f ?-- .?? ? 1 tir ??,1_ ? `
+ f
?/ r ? 1\ ti r 1rE??. '?C't.i??•l `l ? 7``:.S?rtlC?u/? ; / i - ? ? h.l;.
0 N.1
F7, r
-Al
1 it
2
Bridge No. 426 on SR 1176 over
Bear Creek, Chatham County
Figure 2. Location Map (Bynum, NC Quad)
3
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of natural
resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the proposed right-of-way
limits along the full length of each alternate alignment. "Project vicinity" is defined as an area
extending 1.0 kilometers (0.6 miles) on all sides of the project area, and "Project region" denotes an
area equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5 minute series United States Geological Survey
(USGS) Quadrangle map, ie., 163.3 square kilometers (61.8 square miles).
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of environmental resources throughout the project area included reviewing existing
data and literature as well as conducting a field investigation. Data and literature sources were
reviewed prior to conducting the field investigation. Project specific information reviewed included
the United States Geological Survey quadrangle map (Siler City, NC), United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) map (Siler City, NC), National
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) soils map, North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) aerial photography, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data base of rare
species and habitats, North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) water resource
information and proposed critical habitats for aquatic species.
The field investigation considered the area encompassing the limit of disturbance for all three
alternates. Within these limits, terrestrial and aquatic habitats were examined. Evidence of wildlife
was noted and when possible, species were identified (excluding fishes). A review of adjacent
landscapes and land uses was conducted to evaluate the relationship and the ecological connectivity
between the project vicinity and the project area. The review considered approximately 1.0
kilometer (0.6 mile) radius from the project area.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the USFWS list of protected and federal species of concern and the NC Natural
Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible,
and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhenick (1991), Potter, et aL (1980), and Webster, et aL (1985). Vegetative communities were
mapped utilizing aerial photography of the project site. The accuracy of the aerial photography
relevant to vegetation and communities was verified through the field investigation.
Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria as described in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and
"Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental
Management, 1995). Wetlands were classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al.
4
(1979). Wetland determinations included identifying the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils and hydrology as well as hydrologic indicators.
On December 16, 1996, Brian Bernstein and George Swearinger conducted a field investigation of
the project area. The investigation focused on flora, fauna and overall habitat structure. The flora,
including dominant species per stratum, were identified and recorded. In addition, the relationships
between strata (primarily limited to forest habitat) were evaluated for overall plant dynamics (i.e.
competition, percentage of native species verse non-native, age and size), value as wildlife habitat
and general level of biodiversity. A separate review of the vascular flora associated with floodplains
was conducted along Bear Creek as part of the wetland determination process.
The investigation also considered the fauna observed throughout the project area. Techniques used
to identify the presence of species included direct visual/audible observations and indirect
observations such as the presence of tracks, cavities, nests, fecal material, carcasses, etc.
Investigations for aquatic species included sampling from a number of micro habitats throughout
portions of Bear Creek. Techniques included performing random kick seining from riffles of
different depths, substrate types and velocities. In addition, coarse particulate organic matter
samples were evaluated from different locations along Bear Creek. From these samples, general
species diversity, including general trends in population richness and evenness, was recorded. No
formal methodology was followed for the collection and evaluation of aquatic species.
Special emphasis was placed on identifying potential habitat suitable for protected species.
Primarily, species included the red cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and the bald eagle
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus). Concern for these particular species is discussed in greater detail under
Section 4.3. A separate evaluation of the habitat throughout the project area for these two species
was conducted. The evaluation consisted of comparing known ideal habitat conditions (i.e. type of
vegetation, size, age, nesting) for each protected species to the existing habitat within the project
area.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPLE INVESTIGATOR
Name: Brian Bernstein, Senior Environmental Scientist/Ecologist
Education : M.S. Ecology/ Environmental Studies, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore,
Maryland; B.S. Biology, Botany/ Ecology concentration, Towson State
University, Baltimore, Maryland
Experience: 12 years experience with ecological consulting firms, contractual work with
Maryland Department of Natural Resources, board member on a number of
environmental committees and councils
Expertise: Plant ecology, wildlife habitat conservation/restoration, environmental planning
5
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
A general description of the regional characteristics, including geology, topography, soils, primary
land use and major watershed is provided under this section. In addition, more detailed information
is provided on water resources including water characteristics, potential impacts and overall water
quality.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Chatham County is centrally located within the state and is situated in the Piedmont physiographic
province. The Piedmont is characterized by rolling topography with rounded hills and long, low
ridges. Elevations vary within the county depending on locale, ranging from 92 to 214 meters (300
to 700 feet) above mean sea level, but follow a general trend of increasing to the north and west.
The entire county is contained within the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear River has its
origins at the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers, which combine to drain the majority of the
county.
Current land uses in the vicinity of the project include forest cover and agriculture. Of agricultural
land uses, poultry and cattle production predominate.
Elevation of the project area is approximately 122 meters (400 feet) above mean sea level.
2.1.1 Soils
According to the NRCS, mapping of soils in the project area has not been completed. Preliminary
maps were used to identify soils that have been mapped in areas similar to that of the project area.
Stream valley and floodplain soil units were targeted and those that were identified include
Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (3A,5A) and Riverview silt loam (13A). Both soils are associated
with floodplains and are assumed to be present in the project area.
Of these soils, the Wehadkee component of the Chewacla and Wehadkee soils is classified as a 2B3
hydric soil by the NRCS. A 2B3 hydric soil is defined as a poorly drained or very poorly drained
soil with a frequently occuring water table less than 0.46 meters (1.5 feet) from the surface for a
significant period (usually 14 consecutive days or more) during the growing season, if permeability
is less than 15 centimeters (6 inches) per hour in any layer within 50 centimeters (20 inches.)
It is also noted that the Riverview silt loam contains hydric inclusions that typically form in
floodplain depressions. These inclusions of hydric soil have also been classified as 2B3 hydric soils
by the NRCS.
6
1-1
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Streams and tributaries within the project region are part of the Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape
Fear River Basin is further subdivided into distinct drainage areas. Bear Creek is assigned to the
Deep River Drainage Area and it is assumed that any impacts to Bear Creek may potentially impact
Rocky River which lies downstream of the project area.
Based on Best Usage Classification, Bear Creek (DWQ Index #17-43-16) is considered a class "C"
stream from its source to the Rocky River. Class "C" streams are those defined as best suited for
propagation and survival of aquatic life, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
The Best Usage Classification for Rocky River (Index #17-43-(8)) from the dam at the lower water
supply reservoir for Siler City, NC to a point 2.3 kilometers (1.5 miles) downstream of NC-87 is also
considered a class "C" stream.
2.2.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an ongoing ambient water
quality monitoring program which studies long-term trends in water quality. The BMAN program
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed
monitoring sites. Benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality and
therefore can be used as indicators to evaluate the overall health of stream systems.
The most recent sample taken in proximity to the project area was conducted in July 1990 on the
Rocky River at NC151501. That sample received a BMAN bioclassification of "Good". No point
source dischargers were identified during the field visit within the project area or immediate
surrounding area during the field visit. A review of point source dischargers, permitted through the
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System Program (NPDES), was conducted. No
dischargers were identified within the project vicinity.
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality
All three alternates have the potential to impact water quality. However, with erosion and sediment
control measures set in place, impacts can be reduced to a negligible level. Minimal disturbance to
existing vegetation, especially forest cover, will reduce water quality impacts as well. From an
ecological perspective, alternate 3 is the preferred alternate, primarily due to the limited
amount of clearing and grubbing required compared to the two other alternates. Clearing,
grubbing, and filling activities in the floodplain and adjacent upland forest cover will increase the
potential for erosion and subsequent degradation of water quality. In addition, potential impacts
7
may occur from the removal of stable vegetation along the streambank. Mature trees and shrubs
with well established root systems are effective in armoring streambanks. Loss of this type of
vegetation creates the potential for both short and long-term erosion.
Alternate 3 proposes to replace the bridge within the same location and, therefore, would require
only minimal clearing on either side of the bridge. Alternates 1 and 2 require impacts to the
streambanks, floodplain, and forest cover. Alternate 1 proposes a temporary detour while the,existing
bridge is replaced in the same location. Alternate 2 results in the most impacts, especially to forest
cover. Under this alternate, the bridge is replaced in a new location upstream of the existing bridge.
Both alternates have the potential to clear approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of
streambank and floodplain vegetation along Bear Creek.
With each alternate, total long-term impacts to water resources and aquatic communities resulting
from the proposed project are expected to be negligible, given that proper erosion and sediment
control measures are taken. In addition, the size of the project and typical construction methods
required pose minimal large scale or long-term impacts.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced during the actual construction of the project
when vegetation removal and the addition of fill material on the site will cause the soil to be
exposed. After project completion, prompt revegetation and restoration of the disturbed area to its
original condition will reduce the potential for erosion and water quality degradation. However,
sedimentation guidelines should still be implemented and strictly enforced throughout the
construction period to reduce the potential for excessive soil erosion and the degradation of
downstream water quality. In order to minimize potential impacts, NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction
phase of the project. This would include:
1) Installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms to control runoff during
construction.
2) Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce runoff and
decrease sediment loadings.
3) Reduction of clearing along streams.
Non-point source runoff from agricultural and residential areas is likely to be the primary source of
water quality degradation in the project vicinity. Water quality in North Carolina is significantly
influenced by nutrient loading and sedimentation from urban runoff. Long-term impacts on streams
as a result of road construction are not expected.
8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the biological components and communities identified as part of the field
investigation. Communities are divided into either terrestrial or aquatic systems. The flora and
fauna identified for each community is provided as well as fauna likely to be present based on
vegetation and habitat.
3.2 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The field investigation resulted in the identification of four terrestrial communities. These include a
riparian forest, an upland forest, roadside shoulder and maintained lawn. The riparian forest and the
upland forest meet the definition of a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and a Dry-Mesic
Oak-Hickory Forest, respectively (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). The roadside or lawn areas are not
listed as a natural communities based on Schafale and Weakley's descriptions.
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community encompasses an area of approximately 20
to 30 meters (50 to 100 feet) on either side of Bear Creek. In general, the dominant canopy species
are sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua) and tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera). This is
especially true on the western side of Bear Creek where adjacent forest properties are devoid of an
understory. This is most likely due to the presence of livestock. However, sections along the creek
and the floodplain are dominated by a number of bottomland and/or mesophytic tree species such as
hackberry (Celtis occidentalis), willow oak (Quercus phellos), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
box elder (Acer negundo) and Ailanthus (Ailanthus altissima). Oak species present include water
oak (Quercus nigra), red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba) and southern red oak
(Quercus falcata). Dominant trees average between 30 to 45 centimeters (12 to 18 inches) in
diameter at breast height (DBH) and are approximately 30 to 60 years in age.
Flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and box elder saplings are
the dominant understory species. Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense) is prevalent throughout the
forest community and serves as the dominant shrub species. Viburnum (Viburnum spp.) and witch
hazel (Hammelis virginiana) are evident as well. Microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common chickweed (Cerastium arvense), asters (Aster spp.), wild
oats (Uniola latifolia) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) are the primary herbaceous species
and/or groundcover species identified throughout the lowland forest community.
The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest extends along the northeast portion of the project area and is
dominated by a mix of loblolly (Pinus taeda) and short leaf pine (Pinus echinata), sweet gum, and
red and black oak (Quercus velutina). Other canopy species include red maple (Acer rubrum), black
cherry (Prunus serotina) and sassafras (Sassafras albidium). The pines account for approximately
30 to 40 percent of the forest with loblolly pine serving as the dominant conifer. The density of trees
9
L
is high with trees averaging 15 to 30 centimeters (6 to 12 inches) DBH and 10 to 30 years in age. A
shrub layer was sparse, most likely as a result of the tree density. Common herbaceous species
evident this time of the year were crane fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), spotted wintergreen
(Chimaphila maculata), and violet (Viola spp.).
The roadside shoulder consists of a periodically mowed buffer approximately 3.05 meters (40 feet)
wide between the road and the forest edge. The dominant species is fescue (Festuca sp.) but a variety
of native and non-native early successional herbaceous species are evident, especially along the
forest edge. These species include Indian grass (Sorgastrum nudans), purple top (Tridens f lava),
Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), and late fall asters
(Aster spp.). Various coniferous and deciduous saplings are also evident. The maintained lawn
portion of the project area is limited to periodically mowed fescue.
In general, the wildlife identified throughout the field investigation tend to be generalists that utilize
a variety of habitats. Wildlife observed throughout both types of forest cover include common edge
dwelling avian species such as tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), northern junco (Junco hyemalis),
chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), eastern bluebird (Sialia sialia), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) and northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other generalist species observed were American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), white tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and white tailed deer
were present. Boring of trees by yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius) and other
woodpecker species were present as well. A turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) carcass was also
identified.
The forest cover within the project area serves as part of the ecological connectivity along the Bear
Creek riparian corridor. With large parcels of forest throughout the project vicinity as well as along
Bear Creek, the corridor is likely to serve as important foraging and breeding habitat for a diversity
of wildlife species. Wildlife known to associate with the amount and type of forest cover within the
project area, vicinity and region would include a diversity of songbirds including migratory species,
forest interior dwelling birds, raptors, amphibians and reptiles as well as mammals such as: red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), shrew (Sorex
spp., Blarina spp., and Cryptotis spp.), mice (Peromyscus spp.), voles (Clethrionomys spp. and
Phenacomys spp.) and eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus). However, nesting and breeding
opportunities appear limited within the project area, especially for forest interior dwelling species.
Snags, an important habitat element used by an number of animals for either foraging or nesting,
were absent through the project area. For forest interior dwelling species, the project area primarily
serves as edge habitat and would typically not be ideal habitat for these species other than for
foraging purposes.
10
3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
The only aquatic community identified throughout the project area that will be impacted by the
proposed project is Bear Creek, an uvegetated, upper perennial stream. This section of Bear Creek
is characterized as a slow moving stream with an average depth and width of approximately 0.3
meters (1.0 foot) and 4.5 meters (15.0 feet) respectively. A number of pools have formed along the
stream as a result of several large fallen trees. However, overall, the streambanks are stable with
vegetation covering more than 50 percent of the banks.
Based on a random but qualitative sampling along portions of Bear Creek within the project area, the
diversity of aquatic macroinvertebrates was high, especially for the time of the year. Organisms
found and identified include the following: caddisfly larvae (Order Trichoptera), mayfly larvae
(Order Ephemoptera), cranefly larvae (Order Diptera, Family Tipulidae), stonefly larvae (Order
Plectoptera), blackfly larvae (Order Diptera, family Simuliidae), midgefly larvae (Order Diptera,
Family Chironomidae), dragonfly larvae (Order Odonata, Suborder Anisoptera), riffle beetle larvae
(Order Coleoptera, Family Elmidae), and leech (Class Hirundinea). Of these organisms, caddisfly
and midgefly larvae dominated the sample.
Based on a general assessment and habitat and water quality, it can be concluded that a number
of species of fish would typically inhabit the Bear Creek. Some of the common fishes that occur
in similar Piedmont streams are: golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), whitefin shiner
(Cyprinella nivea), spottail shiner (Notropis alborus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides),
silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), Eastern silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), tesselated
darter (Etheostoma acuticeps), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus) and margined madtom (Noturus
insignis).
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the subject project may have several impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 1
summarizes potential quantitative losses to these communities. Impacts were determined by using
the entire proposed right-of-way width for each alternate. Impacts may, in reality, be less depending
on final sequence of operations.
Anticipated impacts to the biotic communities in the project area vary depending on the alternate
selected. However, alterations of the current environment will be temporary if the affected areas are
revegetated and returned to their original state as quickly as possible. The existing forest cover
within the project area serves mainly as edge habitat. Once construction is completed, common edge
11
L
and/or pioneer species and conditions are likely to reestablish quickly. The aquatic community may
be more sensitive to the effects associated with the construction process. As described in section 2.3,
protection of water resources is critical to ensure that any impacts are minimal, short term, and
localized.
Based on the proposed impacts, alternate 3 is the preferred alternate, primarily due to the limited
amount of clearing and grubbing required compared to the two other alternatives.
In particular, alternate 3 would minimize disturbance to move sensitive biological communities such
as the Piedmont/Low Mountain alluvial forest than alternates 1 and 2.
Alternate 3 proposes to replace the bridge within the same location and, therefore, would require
only minimal clearing on either side of the bridge. Alternates 1 and 2 require impacts to the
streambanks, floodplain, and forest cover. Alternate 1 proposes a temporary detour while the existing
bridge is replaced in the same location. Alternate 2 results in the most impacts, especially to forest
cover. Under this alternate, the bridge is replaced in a new location upstream of the existing bridge.
Both alternates have the potential to clear approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of
streambank and floodplain vegetation along Bear Creek.
Table 1. Summary of Community Impacts per Alternate
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Piedmont/ Low 2,469 meters 2,023 meters 1,538 meters
Mountain Alluvial (26,572 square feet) (21,780 square feet) (16,553 square feet)
Forest
Dry-Mesic Oak - 405 meters 971 meters no impacts
Hickory Forest (4,356 square feet) (10,454 square feet)
Roadside Shoulder 728 meters 971 meters 526 meters
(7,840 square feet) (10,454 square feet) (5,663 sqaure feet)
Private Lawn no impacts 324 meters no impacts
(3,485 square feet )
Bear Creek 121 meters 121 meters 121 meters
(1,307 square feet) (1,307 square feet) (1,307 square feet)
Total Impacts 3,723 meters 4,411 meters 2,185 meters
(40,075 square feet) (47,480 square feet) (23,522 square feet)
12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important state
and federally regulated natural resource issues, "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected
species.
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States," as
defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33
CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a frequency
and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of
vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate and/or determine whether wetlands are jurisdictional include evidence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics during the
growing season.
As described in Section 2.1, the soil survey has not been completed by the NRCS for portions of
Chatham County including the project area However, soil classifications both up and downstream of
the project area include hydric soils and hydric soil inclusions. Based on the December 16, 1996
investigation, hydric soils were not present. The dominant types of vegetation were classified as
facultative to facultative upland species. Species classified as facultative are equally likely to occur
in wetlands or nonwetlands. Facultative upland species are more likely to occur- in nonwetlands than
wetlands. A review of the NWI map did not identify any wetlands in the project area, with the
exception of Bear Creek which was classified as a riverine, lower perennial, stream with an
unconsolidated bottom. The hydrologic regime is considered permanently flooded. It is possible that
adjacent floodplain wetlands were present in the past and that land uses may have altered the
hydrology. Currently, wetlands within the project area are confined to Bear Creek. No jurisdictional
wetlands were evident.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. Jurisdictional surface waters are present in
the form of Bear Creek which will be crossed and likely to be impacted by the proposed project. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be
required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." For the proposed project, a Nationwide 23 Permit will be required.
13
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States 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 that, pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act;
(1) 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) 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 required prior to the
issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide #23. Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be
temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulations.
4.1.3 Water Permits
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 issuance of a CAMA or Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior to the
issuance of the Nationwide permit. 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 to the "Waters of the United States".
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect
a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state
laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened M, Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
14
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 23 August 1996, the USFWS
lists the following federally-protected species for Chatham County (Table 2). A brief description of
each species characteristics and habitat follows.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed no
recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the project area. A search for each
potected species and critical habitat, with the exception of the Cape Fear shiner, was conducted on
December 16, 1996. The methodology used to determine the presence of each protected species
included direct audible observations and comparing known habitat conditions for each species to
the existing habitat within the project area.
Table 2. List of Federally-Protected Species in Chatham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened (T)
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner Endangered (E)
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella Endangered (E)
Note: Endangered (E) is defined as a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range.
Note: Threatened (T) is defined as a species likely to become endangered within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Species Descriptions
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
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 of the RCW is black and white
with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks.
The RCW has a large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine (Pinus
palustris), 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 contiguous with pine stands at least 30
15
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 meters (12-100
feet) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 meters (30-50 feet) high. They can be identified by a
large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed
no recorded occurrence of this Federally-protected species in or near the project area. A search
for the protected species and critical habitat was conducted by Brian Bernstein on December 16,
1996. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species included direct
audible observations and comparing known habitat conditions for each species to the existing
habitat within the project area. The search did not result in the identification of either protected
species or critical habitat.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large, dark brown bird having a characteristic white plumed head and tail as
well as a heavy yellow bill. Immature birds lack this characteristic plumage but can be
recognized by blotchy white plumage on the underside of the wings, belly and tail. These large
birds can achieve a size of 69 to 94 centimeters (27 to 37 inches) with a wingspan of 1.8 to 2.3
meters (6 to 7.5 feet). Bald eagles range across North America but restrict themselves to areas
dominated by large bodies of water. Nesting sites are generally situated within one-half mile of
the water with the stick nest, up to three meters across, constructed in the largest living tree in the
area. The breeding season begins in December or January and results in two to three white eggs
being laid. Diet is representative of their habitat, mainly consisting of fish, but small mammals
and other birds are occasionally taken. Bald eagles readily scavenge and are known to steal fish
from hunting osprey (Pandion haliaetus).
Dramatic decreases in population accompanied increased use of powerful pesticides. These
poisons accumulated in the food chain and led to wide spread reproductive failure. The
regulatory action banning the use of such pesticides has led to a slow increase in the populations
of the bald eagle and the bird is once again inhabiting portions of its historic range. In some
instances, man's alteration of the landscape has aided in the bald eagle's recovery. The creation
of large reservoirs, such as Jordan Lake, has increased potential habitat and food stocks. Bald
eagles were not known to occur in Chatham County, prior to the construction of Jordan Lake.
16
Presently, one pair of breeding eagles has nested along the shores of Jordan Lake and others are
known to feed and roost in the vicinity of New Hope Audubon Wildlife Observation Area.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed
no recorded occurrence of this Federally-protected species in or near the project area. A search
for the protected species and critical habitat was conducted by Brian Bernstein on December 16,
1996. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species included direct
audible observations and/or comparing known habitat conditions for each species to the existing
habitat within the project area. The search did not result in the identification of either the
protected species or critical habitat.
Biological Conclusion: NO EFFECT
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), described by Snelson in 1971, is a small (rarely
exceeding 5 centimeters/2 inches in length), moderately stocky minnow. The fish's body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its side. The fins are yellowish and
somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar along its margin.
The lateral line is complete but dips slightly from its head to below the dorsal fin. The round eye is
moderate in size and is located on the side of the head. It is distinguished from all other Notropis by
having an elongated alimentary tract with two convolutions crossing the intestinal bulb.
The Cape Fear shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrate, and it has
been observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, log jams, and slow runs often associated with water
willow (Justicia americana) beds. In these habitats the species is typically associated with schools
of related species, but it is never the numerically dominant species. Juveniles are often found in
slackwater, among large rock outcrops in mid-stream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Lands
associated with this riverine habitat are primarily second and third growth mixed hardwood and
softwood forests (oak-pine), some limited croplands (corn), pasture, and rural residential. Rocky
boulder riverine habitat is important for the species, and it appears that loss of this habitat has
reduced the species' range. The Cape Fear shiner schools with other Notropis species. The
interactions with these species are likelyto be important for the Cape Fear shiner.
The Cape Fear shiner may always have existed in low numbers. However, its recent reduction in
range and its small population size increases the species' vulnerability to a catastrophic event. Dam
construction in the Cape Fear system has probably had the most serious impact on the species by
inundating the species' rocky riverine habitat and altering stream flows. A review of historic
collection records, along with recent survey results, indicates that the Cape Fear shiner is presently
restricted to only four populations.
17
IJ
Of the four remaining populations, only the one located around the confluence of the Deep and
Rocky River in Chatham and Lee Counties (inhabiting a total of about 7.3 river miles) appears
strong. The second population in the Rocky River, above the hydroelectric facility, was the source of
the type specimens used to describe the species. Historic records reveal that collections of the 15 to
30 specimens could be expected in this stretch of the Rocky River (State Route 902 or Chatham
County Road 1010 Bridge) during a sampling visit in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Recent
samples (1985 and 1986) were taken from the Rocky River throughout this reach with only one
specimen being collected. The reason for apparent decline in this population is unknown.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed
one recorded occurrence of this Federally-protected species in or near the project area. A search
for the protected species was not conducted.
Biological Conclusion: UNRESOLVED
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella)
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Date Listed: September 28, 1988
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, having fibrous roots and erect to spreading
stems. Stems are green and often have a purplish color at the base; branching occurs above mid-
stem. Leaves are hollow and quill-like with bases that are broadly clasped. Its small, white
flowers occur in five to fifteen umbels and resemble those of Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus
carota). This species is known to inhabit two distinct habitat types. The first being an
intermittent pineland pond habitat and the second being a riverine habitat characterized by gravel
shoals or on the margins of clear, swift flowing streams. Populations occurring in pond type
habitats flower beginning in May, while those in riverine settings flower in late June to July and
continue to bloom until the first frost. This species ranges in height from 0.15 to 1.0 meters (6 to
36 inches). Harperella is relatively prolific and localized populations can achieve high densities.
Harperella requires saturated substrates and is toleratant of periodic, moderate flooding. This
type of water regime may serve to reduce or eliminate competitors for these habitat types.
Populations may be declining due to alterations of these water regimes. Impoundments, water
withdraw, and drainage/deepening of ponds all contribute to hydrologic disruptions. Additional
factors such as siltation, pollution and shoreline development are known to adversely affect
harperella populations.
Historically, harperella ranged from Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Alabama, and the coastal plains of South Carolina and Georgia. It is now restricted to a total of
ten populations and has been eliminated from over half of its known range. North Carolina has
two known populations of harperella, one in Granville and the other in Chatham County.
18
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species revealed
no recorded occurrence of this Federally-protected species in or near the project area. A search
for the protected species and critical habitat was conducted by Brian Bernstein on December 16,
1996. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species including direct
observations and comparing known habitat conditions for the species to the existing habitat
within the project area. However, the survey was limited due to the time of the year. Additional
surveys may be necessary during the growing season.
Biological Conclusion: UNRESOLVED
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 6 species that are listed as Federal Species of Concern (FSC). Federal Species of Concern
are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. FSC species are defined as organisms which are vulnerable to extinction although no
sufficient data currently exist to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered
or Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal species
are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state protected
species does not apply to NCDOT activities. Table 3 lists federal species of concern and the species
state status (if afforded state protection).
Table 3. List of Species of Federal Concern and Special State Status
Scientific Name Common Name State Status
Aimophilia aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater SC
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe SC
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly Sc
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel SC
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort Sc
Special concern species (SC) are any species which are determined by the Wildlife Resources
Commission to require monitoring but which still may be legally taken.
A review of the database of the NC Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique habitats was
conducted prior to field visits and revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
19
species in or near the project area. Brief surveys for these species were conducted during the field
investigation, however, none of these species were observed.
20
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Plant Species of North Carolina." North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Collins, Henry Hill. 1981. Harper and Row's Complete Field Guide to North American
Wildlife. Eastern Edition. Harper and Row, Publishers. New York.
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet and Edwart T. Laroe. 1979.
Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. US Department of the
Interior, Office of Biological Services, Fish and Wildlife Services: Washington, DC.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1995. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina." NCNHP. Raleigh.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhenick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1988. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) Water
Quality Review 1983-1986. NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality
in North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertebrate Data Base and Long-term Changes in
Water Quality, 1983-1990.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1983. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North
Carolina River Basins." Raleigh, Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCWRC. 1990. "Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina." Raleigh, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission.
Pennack, Robert W. 1989. Fresh-Water Invertebrates of the United States. Protozoa to
Mollusca. New York, John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Peterson, Roger Tory. 1980. Eastern Birds. Boston, Houghton Mifflin Company.
Plant Conservation Program. 1991. "List of North Carolina's Endangered, Threatened
and Candidate Plant Species." Raleigh, North Carolina Department of Agriculture.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
21
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, Fred C. Arndt, Rudolf G. Linquist, David G. Parnell, James F. 1994. Freshwater
Fishes of the Carolinas, VA, MD, & DE. The University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of
Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Snelson, F.F. 1971. Notropis mekistocholas, A New Cyprinid Fish Endemic to the Cape
Fear River Basin. North Carolina. Copeia 1971: 449-462.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Natural Resource Conservation Service. North Carolina
Agriculture Experiment Station. Chatham County Soil Survey Mapping 1996.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States., U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas. Virginia
and Mi , land. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.

22
APPENDIX A
PHOTOGRAPHS
Photographs
Bridge No. 426 over Bear Creek
Chatham County
Photograph I - View of bridge and adjacent vegetation looking north.
Photograph 2 - View of stream and bridge profile.
Photographs
Bridge No. 426 over Bear Creek
Chatham County
north.
Photograph 3 - View of western side of bridge and adjacent vegetation looking
Photograph 4 - View of bridge and adjacent vegetation looking south.

#?
1

ii
1i
I
??
? ?
i i ? ? ?

i
i
I?
j

?

t I
??
I
i
? - .
j 4 ?

?
a
r
? ? ,

? ,
? ? I

?
????? r wi: Y t
?
r 3i rt 77Sk%
'1 ir
pp a u
{

? ? ! i - 2 ?
?? ? I ?dJ 3 t ? r }t Kt13
?i
!
t
t s i i •? :' ?? Jti ?7?tf
3 yrf,;

. J?
? L ? ka-'I
1f i f

i
L,
L1
3'a
Sr
TI
71
1
4.
V
Q.
E
ZON
.C
m
E
E
/O
V
4-
O
E
E
0
cn
y?

o

O
4 -A
CO

4. Op V
of
?Y
?V M

CD cx
r LL
J
N
c?
CL ? a
cit
p
C4 M e!'

M ` LO
M LO
15 8 cd
C
1^
N
?
E Y?
0 0
Q E co

N LO E E
LO ? 0 0
?Q y-+
C LL
cu 2:1
O
5
0 cu
-C
O0- 0
U) -j
O
O
-0 (D
00 CD 0
C
J
N
a.
LL. O
? k
•
Q O
3"
O 3 a
O ? .Q+ v
0
M
N ^
c'
04
CL
2-
Q
T)
C
N
C
O
N
co
-C2
Y co
am
U Q-
? E
m