20010832 Ver 1_Complete File_20010531

i
.10M 59WE o?
M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL. F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 16, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
Dear Sir:
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
'010832,
SUBJECT: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 71 on SR 1736 over South Country
Line Creek and Bridge No. 103 on SR 1736 over Penson Creek in Caswell
County. Federal Aid Project No. MABRZ-1736(2), State Project No.
8.2481001, TIP No. B-3131
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion Action
Classification Form and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion"
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Federal Register: March 9, 2000 (Volume 65, Number
47, Pages 12817-12899, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed during construction of the project.
Both bridges are on SR 1736 (Burton Chapel Road) in Caswell County. Bridge No. 71 is
over South Country Line Creek and Bridge No. 103 is over Penson Creek. The existing bridges
will be replaced with new bridges of 135 ft. and 110 ft. lengths respectively. The total project
length is approximately 1700.0 ft. Traffic will be detoured offsite along other existing roads
during construction.
Jurisdictional Surface Waters. Two perennial streams in the Roanoke River Basin, South
Country Line Creek [DWQ Index No. 22-56-7-(2), (7/1/73)] and Penson Creek [DWQ Index No.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWWDOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
22-56-7-4 -(2), (7/1/73)] are located within the project area. Both streams carry a Best Usage
Classification of Class B. Class B refers to freshwaters protected for primary recreation which
includes swimming on a frequent or organized basis and all Class C uses. Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture.
Both bridges are composed of timber and steel components, with an overlaid asphalt road
surface. The timber and steel components will be removed without dropping into Waters of the
U.S. The asphalt wearing surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into
Waters of the U.S. During construction, NCDOT Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal will be followed. No impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are
anticipated due to project construction.
Jurisdictional Wetlands. No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted due to project
construction.
Threatened And Endangered Species. The James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) has
been added to the list of federally protected species for Caswell County since the completion of
the CE. A survey for this species has not been conducted at this time. The project area will be
surveyed in the upcoming months and results from this survey will be provided to resource
agencies.
Cultural Resources. No historic sites will be impacted by the proposed project. The State
Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended no historic architectural investigations be
conducted (April 29, 1998). NCDOT conducted an archaeological investigation and found no
archaeological sites within the proposed project area. SHPO concurred with this finding and
recommended no further archaeological investigations would be necessary (May 11, 1999).
It is anticipated that these activities will be authorized via a NWP 23 (Categorical
Exclusion). By copy of this application, request is made to the Division of Water Quality, for the
appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Chris
Rivenbark at [phone].
Si cerely,
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
WDG/mcr

cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Garland Pardue, USFWS
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Byron Moore, P.E., Roadside Environmental
Mr. Mike Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin, P.E., PD & EA
l:ASWtLL UUUNTY
-- SR 1736 --
Replace Bridge No. 71
over South Country Line Creek,
and Replace Bridge No. 103
over Penson Creek
-- B-3131 --
i Location Map Figure One
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
A. Proiect Description:
B-3131
8.2481001
MABRZ-1736(2)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 71 and Bridge No. 103 in Caswell County.
Bridge No. 71 carries Highway SR 1736 over South Country Line Creek, and Bridge
No. 103 carries the same highway over Penson Creek. The existing bridges will be
replaced with new bridges of 135 foot and 110 foot lengths respectively. The
bridges will accommodate travelways 22 feet wide, with 3 foot offsets on each
side. The approach roadway will be 22 feet wide with at least a 4 foot grassed
shoulder on each side. Traffic will be detoured onto other existing local roads during
construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
The sufficiency ratings of the existing bridges are only 26.0 and 27.9 out of
100.0. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridges is neither practical nor
economical. For these reasons, both bridges need to be replaced.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including
the installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
9
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median
barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
dO 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
2
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there
is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a
limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a
CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of
alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Proiect Information
Construction Coordination:
Construction of TIP project B-3131 (SR 1736) will be coordinated with
B-3319 (SR 1751) in order to avoid closure of both roads simultaneously.
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts. The NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters" shall be adhered to.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344) a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Water Quality Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $1,000,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 55,000
Total Project Cost (two bridges) $1,055,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 500 VPD
Year 2025 - 800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 22 feet wide with at least a 4 foot grassed
shoulder on each side. Shoulder width will be increased to at least 7 feet where
guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 60 mph.
Functional Classification:
SR 1736 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports road closure and replacement of both bridges
at the existing locations. The Division Engineer also requested that construction of
TIP project B-3131 (SR 1736) be coordinated with B-3319 (SR 1751) in order to
avoid closure of both roads simultaneously.
E. Threshold Criteria
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? ? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures X ?
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
4

(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? F1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ? X
(111) 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? ?
X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? ? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ? X
low-income population?
5
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X ?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness

and/or land use of adjacent property? ?
X_
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? F] X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X ?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? ? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
X ?
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X ?
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? ? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? F-1 _.Y
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? ? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ? X
of 1965, as amended?
6
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
In reference to Threshold Criteria No. 29, The State Historic Preservation
Office (SHPO) requested an archeological survey of the area. An archeological
survey was performed, and the SHPO concurred with the report's finding that no
archeological sites would be affected.

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
B-3131
8.2481001
MABRZ-1736(2)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 71 and Bridge No. 103 in Caswell County.
Bridge No. 71 carries Highway SR 1736 over South Country Line Creek, and Bridge
No. 103 carries the same highway over Penson Creek. The existing bridges will be
replaced with new bridges of 135 foot and 110 foot lengths respectively. The
bridges will accommodate travelways 22 feet wide, with 3 foot offsets on each
side. Traffic will be detoured onto other existing local roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
?K-99 V" /,71',.7?1-
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Required
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

-7
L ASWELL COUNTY
-- SR 1736 --
Replace Bridge No. 71
over South Country Line Creek,
and Replace Bridge No. 103
over Penson Creek
-- B-3131 --
I Locauon Map Figure One

3 ^
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
April 29, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge n71 on SR 1736 over Country Line
Creek, Caswell County, B-3131 , Federal Aid
Project MABRZ-1736(2), State Project
8.2481001, ER 98-8596
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
March 26, 1998. However, Debbie Bevin met with Dennis Pipkin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on April 15, 1998, to discuss the
project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We note there are two archaeological sites in close proximity to the project area,
31 CS4 and 31 CS6. We recommend that an archaeological survey of ,he
replacement area, any temporary detours to be constructed, and any other
construction areas such as lateral ditches and temporary construction accesses, be
surveyed. We further suggest that the two recorded sites be tested to determine
whether they will be affected and whether any mitigation of adverse affects will be
necessary.
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.
Nicholas L. Graf
April 29, 1998, 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.
Siu-prrelly,
%•, Jam, /? r-? .1 J,:/? ,ql?
'flavor Brook"'
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

s.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 11, 1999
MEMORANDUM
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
TO: Thomas J. Padgett, Archaeology Supervisor
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch rMC E O
Division of Highways.
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ?!/ i ?/
Deputy State t1lStoric Preserva on Oftlce
AY 11999
SUBJECT: Archaeological Survey Report, Bridge 71 on SR 2 - o?
Federal :P ?i`IGHWAof ?
1736, Caswell County, TIP B-3131, p -F HIGHWAYS ?PF
AidMABRZ-1736(2), ER 99-8772 0 op OE
r,4 L ANP\jgs??
Thank you for your letter of April 21, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Lee Tippett concerning the above project. We have reviewed the report and would like to
offer our comments.
We note that no archaeological sites were discovered during the survey. No further
archaeological work will be necessary to complete the project as planned.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance With
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: Nicholas Graf
l-William Gilmore
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2807 0
.YFdPµ 5T?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
January 20, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliot, P.E., Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
Chris Rivenbark, Natural Systems Specialist C?-
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 71 over South Country
Line and Bridge No. 103 over Penson Creek, both on
SR 1736 in Caswell County. Federal Aid Project
No.MABRZ-1736(2), State Project No. 8.2481001,
TIP No. B-3131
ATTENTION: Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the project area to assist
in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion. Estimations of impacts likely to occur
to these resources as a result of project construction are provided as well. If you
have any questions, please contact me at 733-9513.
cc:
Phil Harris, P.E., Unit Head, Natural Systems Unit
File: B-3131
(9
Replacement of Bridge No. 71 over South Country Line and Bridge No. 103
over Penson Creek, both on SR 1736 in Caswell County.
Natural Resources Technical Report
T.I.P. No. B-3131
State Project No. 8.2481001
F.A. Project No. MABRZ-1736(2)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Chris Rivenbark, Natural Systems Specialist
January 20, 1998
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION 1
......................................................................................................
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .............................................................................................. . 1
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................... 1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................. 1
1.4 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................... 2
....................................................
2.1 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 2
2.2 SOILS AND TOPOGRAPHY ............................................................................................. 3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ................................... 3
...........................................................
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................ 4
3.2 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................................................ 5
3. 2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities ................................................. 5
3. 2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ........................................................... 5
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ..................................................................................... 6
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ....................................... 7
4 ..........................................
1
1 Permits
. .
................................................................................................................ 7
4.2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................ 8
4.3 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES ........................................ 8
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................10
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. WATER RESOURCES LOCATED WITHIN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ......................... 2
TABLE 2. SOILS OCCURRING IN THE PROJECT STUDY AREA ................................................... 3
TABLE 3. ESTIMATED TERRESTRIAL IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES ............................................. 5
TABLE 4. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES ....................................................... 6
TABLE 5. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR CASWELL COUNTY ....................................... 9
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of bridge No. 71 over South
Country Creek and bridge No. 103 over Penson Creek on SR 1736. Both bridges will
be replaced in their existing locations. The proposed right-of-way is 18.2 m (60.0 ft).
Project length is approximately 97.5 m (320.0 ft) at each bridge. Traffic will be detoured
during construction using other existing local roads.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing design
concepts. If preliminary design parameters change, an additional field investigation
may be necessary.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area denotes the area bounded
by the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area extending 0.8
km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is equivalent to an
area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km (61.8 sq mi)],
with the project as the center point.
1.4 Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project
study area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Anderson), NCDOT aerial photographs of project
study area (1:1200), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats.
A field survey for the project was conducted on November 12,1998 by NCDOT
Natural Systems Specialists Chris Rivenbark, Logan Williams, and Tim Savidge. Plant
communities were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of
observation techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks and burrows).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below.
The availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 Water Resources
Field surveys revealed that two surface waters are located within the project
study area. The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has assigned index numbers for
streams and tributaries in North Carolina. Both streams lie in the Roanoke River Basin.
Table 1. Water Resources Located Within the Project study area.
Name DWQ Index No. Classification Date
South Country Line Creek 22-56-7-(2) B 7/1/73
Penson Creek 22-56-7-4-(2) B 7/1/73
Note:
"B" denotes Class B - freshwaters protected for primary recreation which includes
swimming on a frequent or organized basis and all Class C uses.
Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
At the time of the field visit, neither South Country Line Creek nor Penson Creek
had water in the channel. Isolated puddles approximately 5.1 cm (2.0 in) deep and
1.2 m -1.5 m (4.0 ft-5.0 ft) wide were scattered in the stream bed of Penson Creek.
Penson Creek had an average channel width of approximately 4.6 m (15.0 ft). South
Country Line Creek had an average channel width of approximately 6.1 m (20 ft). The
substrate consisted of sand, silt, and cobble for both streams.
Point sources refers to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch,
or other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located
throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a
permit. There are no permitted dischargers located within1.6 km (1.0 mi) upstream of
the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of nonpoint source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills,
roads, and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing
substances associated with nonpoint source pollution. Others include fecal coliform
2
bacteria, heavy metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed
off the ground or removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects
biological, chemical and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and
planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the
basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinverteb rate
Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Some
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. There are no BMAN sites within the project vicinity.
2.2 Soils and Topography
A Natural Resource Conservation Service Soil Survey has not been completed
for Caswell County. A general description of the soils that are present in the project
study area was provided by the Caswell County Natural Resource Conservation Office.
Both Enon and Mecklenburg soils found within the project form on broad and narrow
ridges and side slopes (see Table 2).
Table 2. Soils occurring in the project study area.
Map Unit Mapping Unit
Symbol Permeability Slope (%) Drainage Hydric
Class
EnB Enon slowly 2-8 well non-hydric
permeable drained
MkB Mecklenburg slowly 2-8 well non-hydric
permeable drained
Caswell County is located in the uppermost center of the Piedmont
physiographic region of the state. The elevation at the project study area ranges from
approximately 140.2 m - 146.3 m (460.0 ft - 480.0 ft) above mean sea level.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
3
4
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are
cited. Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by an asterisk (*) in the text.
Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities, maintained roadside and riparian fringe, exist within
the project study area for both bridges, and will be impacted by the subject project.
The maintained roadside community consists of the highly maintained shoulders
and some less intensively managed areas that grade into the surrounding natural
communities. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with frequent mowing
or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional state. Dominant
plants in the heavily maintained portions of the roadside community include fescue
(Festuca sp.), wild onion (Allium canadense), and plantain (Plantago sp.).
The riparian edge community included herb and vine species such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), Japanese grass
(Microstegium vimineum), seedbox (Ludwigia alternifolia), river oats (Chasmanthium
latifolium), sedge (Cyperus strigosus), bulrush (Scirpus cyperis), green coneflower
(Rudbeckia laciniata), wild rye grass (Elymus virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium
obtusifolium), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Trees found in these
areas include tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis),
black willow (Salix nigra), rose (Rosa multiflora), and sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis).
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexist with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes. The
most common reptiles found in such habitats are eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina) and predators such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis).
Birds likely to frequent such habitats include Carolina wren*(Thryothorus
ludovicianus), white-throated sparrow* (Zonotrichia albicollis), common crow (Corvus
4
r,
brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina chickadee* (Parus
carolinenis), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris). Freshwater fishes likely to be found in creeks such as Penson Creek and
South Country Creek may include bluehead chub (Hybopsis leptocephala), cresent
shiner (Notopis cerasinus), and creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus).
3.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project study area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected.
3.2.1 Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project study area, and thus the loss of
community area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the
relative abundance of each community present in the study area (Table 3). Estimated
impacts are derived based on the project length of 97.5 m (320.0 ft) for each bridge.
The entire right-of-way 18.3 m (60.0 ft) was used for this calculation. Since the entire
right-of-way will probably not be impacted, actual impacts to the communities may be
considerably less.
Table 3. Estimated terrestrial impacts to communities.
Community type Bridge No. 103 Bridge No. 71
Maintained roadside 0.033 ha (0.083 ac) 0.045 ha (0.11 ac)
Riparian fringe 0.145 ha (0.358 ac) 0.134 ha (0.331 ac)
Total each bridge 0.178 ha (0.441 ac) 0.178 ha (0.441 ac)
Total (both bridges) 0.356 ha (0.882 ac)
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental
factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should repopulate
areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is unlikely that
existing species will be displaced significantly from the project study area following
construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project construction, all
cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly after project
completion to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
3.2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-11) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of
5
project study area. However impacts will occur to both Penson Creek and South
Country Creek.
Estimated impacts are calculated by using the width of the stream channel of
Penson Creek and South Country Line Creek [6.1 m (20 ft), 4.6 m (15.0 ft) respectively]
and the entire right-of-way 18.3 m (60.0 ft) (see Table 4). The entire right-of-way will
probably not be impacted, therefore actual impacts to the stream may be considerably
less.
Table 4. Estimated Impacts to Water Resources.
Name Linear Area
Penson Creek 18.3 m (60.0 ft) 0.008 ha (0.021 ac)
South Country Line Creek 18.3 m (60.0 ft) 0.011 ha (0.028 ac)
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary,
some environmental impacts caused by the proposed project will be long term or
irreversible. Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or
extension of culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
- Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction
stage of the project.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two significant
regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected species. These
issues retain particular significance because of federal and state mandates which
regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the impact analyses
required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
6
0
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 (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters are waters used
in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and flow of tides, all
interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such as intrastate
lakes, rivers, and streams. Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters which
have commercial or recreational value to the public.
No jurisdictional wetlands are located within the project study area. However
surface waters are present in the project study area.
4.1.1 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from
various regulatory agencies in charge of protecting the water quality of public waters
resources.
A Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330 Appendix A (B) (23) is likely to be applicable
for the crossing of Laurel Creek. This permit authorizes construction provided the
following conditions are met:
• the width of the fill is limited to the minimum necessary for the actual crossing;
• the fill place in Waters of the United States is limited to a filled area of no more than
0.45 ha ( 1.0 ac);
• no more than a total of 45.7 m (150 linear ft) of the fill for the roadway can occur in
special aquatic sites, including wetlands;
• the crossing is culverted, bridged or otherwise designed to prevent the restriction of,
and to withstand, expected high flows and tidal flows and movement of aquatic
organisms, and;
• the crossing, including all attendant features, both temporary and permanent, is part
of a single and complete project for crossing of Waters of the United States.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality 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 Waters of the United States. Section
401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of
the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the
DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
k
7
4

4.2 Federally 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 Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under
provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended. An endangered species is considered to be a species that is in danger of
becoming extinct throughout all or a significant portion of its range. A threatened
species is considered to be a species that is likely to become an endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
As of 14 May 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) does not list any
federally protected species for Caswell County. Therefore, this project will not impact
any federally protected species.
4.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Burke County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future.
These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration
for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern
(SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) 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 listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 5 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the
existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is
provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in
the future.
8

Table 5. Federal Species of Concern for Caswell County.
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat Status
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort No C
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil Yes C
Note:
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats
on January 12, 1999 did not reveal any records of North Carolina rare and/or protected
species in or near the project study area.
9
r
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Fish, F.F. 1969. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commision. The Graphic Press, Inc.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare animal
species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
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.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
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, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
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.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species
and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill and London.
10