20011531 Ver 1_Complete File_20011019

t?r
IaS? r
J d y-?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
September 21, 20:01
9?0
0/
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
011531
SUBJECT: Davie County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139
over Bear Creek. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1139(1), State Project
No. 8.2610501, TIP No. B-3161.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 11 on SR 1139, over Bear Creek, in Davie County. NCDOT will replace Bridge No.
11 at approximately the same location and elevation with a two lane bridge of 135 foot
length. The new bridge will accomodate a travelway of 24 feet width with 3 foot offsets
on each side. The approach roadway will provide a 24 foot travelway with 8 foot grassed
shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is
warranted. Traffic will be detoured over exisiting secondary roads.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
The project will permanently impact 0.027 acres of jurisdictional surface waters in the
construction of the new bridge. The length of existing channel impacted will be 60 linear
feet with the construction of the proposed bridge. These impacts are based on Right-of-
Way width, which may not all be used in construction of the proposed bridge. There were
no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands inside the project limits.
The existing bridge will be demolished. The existing bridge is composed of timber and
steel components, with an overlaid asphalt wearing surface. The asphalt wearing surface
and bridge rails will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping it into the water.
The timber and steel components will also be removed in their sequence without
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

dropping these components into the water. No temporary fill in the waters is expected.
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed.
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 22 March 2001, the
Fish and Wildlife Service (F) lists one federally protected species for Davie County
(Table 1). The CE (dated: S6ptember 30, 1999) rendered Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" for Michaux's''sumac after a plant by plant survey was done in the possible habitat
areas. To date, habitat conditions have not changed within the study area. Additionally, a
review of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of Rare and Unique Habitats on 21
August 2001 revealed that no known occurrences of Michaux's sumac occur within one
mile of the project area. Therefore, the Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" remain
valid for this species.
Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Davie County
Common Name Scientific Name- Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
Michaux's Sumac Rhus michauxii E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or
a significant portion of its range).
Avoidance / Minimization
The following is a list of the project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization
activities proposed or completed by NCDOT.
¦ Aviodance: NCDOT avoided additional surface water impacts by choosing Alternate
1 over Alternate 2 and Alternate 3. Alternate 2 would have added an additonal.O1
acres and 30 linear feet of surface water impacts. The third Alternate would have
increased surface water impacts by 0.027 acres and 60 linear feet.
¦ Minimization: Best Management Practices will be strictly enforced for sedimentation
and erosion control for the protection of surface waters.
¦ Minimization: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal for
the removal of the existing bridge.
Project Commitments
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be followed.
l'
Summary
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (61
FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). Written notification is not required from DWQ
for 401 WQC General Certification for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. However,
NCDOT will adhere to all conditions of the general certfication for Section 404 NWP
23.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Mr. Jared Gray at [phone] ext. 331.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
VCB/jg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. D.R. Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Tim Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Pat Ivey, P.E., 9 Division Engineer
OCT
1
011531_
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3161
State Project No. 8.2610501
Federal Project No. BRZ-1 1390) OC,,
?9
A. Project Description: ??
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139, over Bear Creek, in
Davie County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location and
elevation with a two lane bridge of 135 foot length. The new bridge will
accommodate a travelway of 24 feet width with 3 foot offsets on each side.
The approach roadway will provide a 24 foot travelway with 8 foot grassed
shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail
is warranted. Traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 11 has a sufficiency rating of only 15.4 out of 100. The
bridge is posted at 21 tons for all vehicle classes. For these reasons, Bridge
No. 11 requires replacement.
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 4111 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

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
30 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
dQ. 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 Project Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $650,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 21.000
Total Project Cost $671,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1700 VPD
Year 2025 - 2800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be 24 feet wide with at least an 8 foot grassed
shoulder on each side. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where
guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 50 mph. A design exception may be required for
the horizontal curve approaching the bridge from the west.
Functional Classification:
SR 1 139 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector facility in the Statewide
Functional Classification System.
t
Division Office Comments:
The Division 9 Engineer's Office supports road closure and replacement at
the existing location.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type 11
actions.
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? F-1 X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project invoives wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takin
s been evaluated?
X ?
g
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
F-1 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
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters 1HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
-
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? F
1 X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? 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" (AECP F-1 X
4

f
f

0 1) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes?
SOCIAL ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(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)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes?
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours?
F-1
7
F-1
YES
X
X
X
X
NO
1-1 X
F-1 X
F-1 X
X F-1
F? X
El X
F] X
X F?
F] X
X El
5

i
1
(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 ' F-1
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-1 X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ? X
important to history or pre-history?
(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)? F-1 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 F-1 X
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Reauired for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3161
State Project No. 8.2610501
Federal Project No. BRZ-1 139f 1)
6

Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139, over Bear Creek, in
Davie County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location and
elevation with a two lane bridge of 135 foot length. The new bridge will
accommodate a travelway of 24 feet width with 3 foot offsets on each side.
The approach roadway will provide a 24 foot travelway with 8 foot grassed
shoulders. Shoulder width will be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail
is warranted. Traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
2-2S-00
I/Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
z-2,9wa /+
Date Project Manning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
2-Z9-DOf?
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Reauired
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

I
`
- N 6 2 --
& ---
_

?
i Center

1 1 52 ?
r
1 151' /
302 `
--
O
- 1149
2
l
l
'? 1 r

S i
1 150 103 v-
p 1116 .,

1
?

1173 rn / 5
4
U `
¢
- MOCKSVILLE

1175
Bridde No. ll POP. 2,637
'
- --
6
_
1180 `t _

3
n
1153 1. C
! 1140 j
' 'f
lp
11 __
1154
1155
r ; 1147
? 4?
v, ` t 6
?:G
. p 1145.
146
` 1139
.?
1-147 ? i

1 - 1144
G
! 1159^
! 1 143 0
i
^? ' 1 139
11 2
m
35' 50'
11
Studied Detour Route

a
of I:OAy "6
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
o Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Of iR,?S
Dade County
Replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139
Over Bear Creek
B-3161
FIGURE 1
MATCH

)t.
j,
r J \"

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Beatty Ray McCain, secretary
January 20, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #11 on SR 1 139 over Bear Creek, Davie
County, B-3161, ER 99-7694
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1999
On December 10, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
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.
In terms of archaeological resources, there are no recorded sites within the
immediate project vicinity. However, until we have information concerning the
location and extent of the proposed bridge replacement and what type of detour
structure is involved, we are unable to evaluate the potential effects of the project
upon as yet unrecorded sites. Please forward this information as soon as possible.
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.
100 East Jones Street • Rn!eiCh. Nc^.? C--:7:'I;^3 2-6ni ^c-
??9
Nicholas L. Graf
January 20, 1999, 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,
David Brook
Deputy State 1-111'storic Preservation -Officer
DB:slw
cc: -N. D. Gilmore ••
B. Church
T. Padgett

h
r
1
' J
r T l
7
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 22, 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Hiehways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brookes
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Study, Replacement of Bridge 11 on SR 1139 over Bear Creek,
Davie County; TIP No. B-3161, Federal Aid No. BRZ-1139(1) ER 99-7694,
ER 00-8007
Thank you for your letter of October 15, 1999 transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Megan O'Connell for the above referenced project.
During the course of the survey, no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located within
the project area. Due to the absence of cultural resources, Ms. O'Connell has recommended that
no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur
with this recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
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.
cc: Roy Shelton, FHWA
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Megan O'Connell, NC DOT
Location
Mailing Address
Telephnne'Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Ralei!_h NC 3617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 37699-4617 ON) 733-4763 • '33-5653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Ralei!_h NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Ralci!_h NC 27699-419 (al`)) -33-7342 715-2671
-.3-h53', • '15-4?1t1
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Ccr%ice Center. Ralei_h NC 1709()_4(,I.1, (Q lu)
i
I R F\' C III 1 I G • c \?. p .i . .i r,1i,i... 'c

9 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commissiong
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Pipkin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: December 16, 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Davie, Iredell, and Orange counties,
North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3161, B-3350, and B-3497.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
. Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridae deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.

Bridge Replacement Nlemo 2 December 16, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to oricyinal around elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, «-h-.n using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidce should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This ?z'ill allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
r
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 16, 1998
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3161 - No special concerns.
2. B-3350 - Hunting Creek is known to contain smallmouth bass. To prevent
interference with spawning, we request that there be no in-stream work
between May 1 and June 30. We also specifically recommend that this bridge
be replaced with another bridge and not a culvert.
3. B-3497 - This stream supports a normal Piedmont stream fishery. Although
good populations of centrarchids are present, we do not recommend a seasonal
exclusion. There is the potential for federally listed mussels in the vicinty of
this project. Therefore, we recommend that Tim Savidge be contacted and the
appropriate surveys be preformed. If mussels are located, we recommend an
on-site meeting to discuss strategies to minimize adverse impacts.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement. of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects. _
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3161. Davie County
Bridge No. 11, on SR 1139
Over Bear Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1139(1)
State Project 8.2610501
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental - -
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridae Demolition: The existing bridge is composed of steel and timber
components. Therefore, the bridge will be removed without dropping any
component into Waters of the U.S. -during: construction. The asphalt, wearing
surface will be removed prior to demolition, without dropping into the water.
During construction, Best Management Practices for.Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
February, 2000
t
a"a5?4
,ten
`? wow vow`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 1, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
FROM: Jared Gray, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139 over Bear
Creek in Davie County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1139(1), State Project No. 8.2610501, TIP No. B-3161.
ATTENTION: Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimates of
impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected species is also
provided. Please contact me if you have any questions.
C: File: B-3161
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139
over. Bear Creek in Davie County
TIP No. B-3161
Federal Aid Project: BRZ-1139 (1)
State Project No. 8.2610501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3161
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Jared Gray, Natural System Specialist
November 1, 1999
f
1.0 Introduction ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................ 1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................ 1
1.3 Methodology ......................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator ............................................................................... 3
1.5 Definitions ........................................................................................................... 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .................................................................................................. ..4
2.1 Soils ............................................................................................................ 4
2.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .......................................................... 5
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ............................................................................ 5
2.2.3 Water Quality ............................................................................................... 6
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................. 7
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................. ..8
3.1 Terrestrial Communities .................................................................................... ..9
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Community ............................................................. 9
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed Community ................................................................. . 9
3.1.3 Dry Mesic Forest Community ...................................................................... 10
3.1.4 Fauna ............................................................................................................. 10
3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................ 10
3.3 Summary ofAnticipated 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 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 14
4.1.3 Permits ......................................................................................:.................... 14
4.1.4 Mitigation ..................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ............................................................................................ 15
4.1.4.2 Minimization ......................................................................................... 15
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ........................................................................ 16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ........................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ....................................................................... 16
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............................. 16
5.0 REFERENCES .................................................................................................................. 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Topographic Map .........................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities .......................................................11
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Davie County .................................................17
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Davie County ................................................. 18
1.0 Introduction
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist
in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The
project is situated in southwest Davie County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project is situated in southwest Davie County, and calls for
the replacement of Bridge No. 11 on State Route (SR) 1139 over Bear Creek
(Figure 1). The existing 40 m (131 ft) long, two-lane shoulder section, open Deck
Bridge was built in 1973. The right-of-way along Bridge No. 11 measures an
estimated 18 m (60 ft).
The NCDOT is considering three alternatives for the project (Figure 2). All
three alternatives incorporate a proposed right-of-way of 18 m (60 ft). Alternate
1 requires replacing the existing bridge in-place with a new, two lane shoulder
section bridge. Traffic will be detoured onto other local roads during construction.
Under Alternate 1, project length of the new bridge is approximately 39.6 m (430
ft). Alternate 2 involves replacing Bridge No. 11 on existing alignment with a
temporary bridge to the south. Under Alternate 2, project length is approximately
213 m (700 ft). Alternate 3 involves constructing a bridge on new alignment to
the south, and maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
Under Alternate 3, project length is approximately 366 m (1200 ft). Once the
bridge on new location is completed, the NCDOT will tear down and remove the
original Bridge No. 11.
The bridge has a 4" asphalt wearing surface over steel plank deck on
steel I-beams. The substructure is made up of entirely timber. The bridge is 40 m
(131 ft) long and 9 m (28 ft) wide. The asphalt wearing surface and the bridge
rails will not be allowed to enter the water, these will be removed prior to
demolition. There is no potential for parts of the bridge to fall into the water. The
bridge is composed completely of timber and steel, therefore it will be removed
without dropping any component into Waters of the United States during
demolition.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe
the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This
report also attempts to identify and estimate the probable consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures, which will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and
estimates are relevant in the context of the existing preliminary design concepts.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need
to be conducted.

' 50' - - „?' MOCKSVILLE
_ 1 1144 ?•?
! 1143• ?. _.. Z
i,
^? •` '' 1139
o
?i 11 2 `?•?•..
3S

1175 _
Bridge
No. U '. POP. 2,637
a
1 180
.2 ? .

1153 ! 1140 ;

_ 1155 0 v i..__
115a 1
'

t1a7
p 1145.
1 a6 1139
x.3,147 t

N
Center
11=2 1151' G 1149 ! 1302\. 1
O \ 2 `? `
to3 .. -
$ 1150 p 1 1 10 l 2. )? 1
/ 64
1173 rn ?J
Studied Detour Route

SOATAF
North Carolina
y? Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Of TR??S '
Dade County
Replace Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139
Oyer Bear Creek
B-3161
I F I GURE 1

MATCH
1.3 Methodology
Published information regarding the project area was consulted prior to a
field visit. Information sources used in this pre-field investigation of the study
area included U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Cooleemee),
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map
(Cooleemee), and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (DEHNR, 1996) and
from the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental
Sensitivity Base Map of Davie County, 1995). Information concerning the
occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and
species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of
rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by
NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge and Jared Gray on May 10, 1999. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife
identification involved using one or more of the following observation techniques:
active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), and identifying
characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional
wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation criteria prescribed in
the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigator
Investigator: Jared Gray, Natural Systems Specialist, NCDOT.
Education: BS Environmental Science, Morehead State University
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science.
Experience: Environmental Engineer, Enviro-Pro Inc., September 1994-May
1997.
Environmental Technician, Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A.
October 1997-May 1998
Natural Systems Specialist, NCDOT, October 1998-Present.
Expertise: Water quality, wetland delineation and soils.
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project
Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed right-of-way limits; Project
Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mile) on all sides of the project
study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5
minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.

4
2.0 Physical Resources
Soil and water resources, which occur within the project study area, are
discussed below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition
and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. The project study
area lies within the Inner Piedmont physiographic region. Gently sloping to steep
wooded ravines characterize the topography of the project vicinity. The project
area is situated between broad ridges and narrow side slopes adjacent to the
floodplain associated with Bear Creek. Project elevation is approximately 213-
229 m (700-750 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Five soil phases occur within project boundaries: Rion sandy loam, 8-15
percent slopes (RnC), Rion sandy loam, 15-40 percent slopes (RnD), Wedowee
sandy loam, 2-8 percent slopes (WeB), Wedowee sandy loam, 8-15 percent
slopes (WeC), and Chewacla loam, 0-2 percent slopes (ChA).
Rion (RnC) sandy loam, 8-15 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil on side
slopes in the uplands. Permeability is moderate, erosion is a moderate hazard,
shrink-swell is low, and the water table remains below a depth of 72 inches.
Slope, surface runoff, erosion, and moderate permeability are the main
limitations to the use and management of this soil.
Rion (RnD) sandy loam, 15-40 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil on
side slopes in the uplands. Permeability is moderate, erosion is a severe hazard,
shrink-swell is low, and the water table remains below a depth of 72 inches.
Slope, surface runoff, erosion, and moderate permeability are the main
limitations to the use and management of this soil.
Wedowee (WeB) sandy loam, 2-8 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil
that occurs on moderately broad to narrow side slopes in the uplands.
Permeability is moderate, shrink-swell is moderate, erosion is a moderate hazard
and the water table remains below a depth of 72 inches. Slope and the moderate
hazard of erosion are the main management concerns.
Wedowee (WeC) sandy loam, 8-15 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil
found on narrow ridges and on side slopes in the uplands. Permeability is
moderate, erosion is a severe hazard, and shrink-swell potential is moderate.
The seasonal high water table is normally below a depth of 72 inches. Slope,
surface runoff, and severe erosion are the main limitations to the use of this soil.
Chewacla (ChA) loam, 0-2 percent slopes, is a nearly level somewhat-
poorly drained soil on floodplains along creeks and rivers throughout the county.
Permeability is moderate, and shrink-swell potential is low. Depth to the seasonal
water table is within 1.5 feet. This soil is commonly flooded for brief periods.
Wetness, flooding, and moderate permeability are the main limitations for the
use of this soil. Chewacla is listed as a non-hydric soil in Davie County and may
have hydric inclusions in areas with depressions.
Core samples taken throughout the project area did not exhibit hydric
conditions, such as low chroma colors, in low areas of the flood plain. Therefore,
hydric soil indicators, as defined in the "1987 Corps of Engineers Wetland
Delineation Manual", were not observed within the project area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely
to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical
aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage
Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water
bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Bear Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by
the proposed project (Figure 1). The creek is located in sub-basin 030706 of the
Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin. Bear Creek is a tributary to South Yadkin River,
and has its confluence with the river approximately 7 km (4 mi.) linear channel
distance downstream of Bridge No. 11.
Bear Creek's bank at Bridge No. 11 measures approximately 6 m (20 ft)
wide and 2 m (6 ft) deep. The stream bed at the same location measures
approximately 4.6 m (15.0-ft) wide and 0.2-0.6 m (0.5-2.0 ft) deep. The creek's
substrate consisted of sand and cobble. Sand was prevalent along the creek's
edges. Water within the'Bear Creek was clear, with visibility at 0.2 m (0.5 ft) at
the time of the survey. Streambank erosion and/or surface water runoff from
adjacent uplands may contribute to the creek's high siltation.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
The DWQ categorizes streams according to a best usage classification.
Bear Creek [index no. 12-108-18-(3.3)] falls under Class WS-IV (NCDENR,
DWQ, Water Quality Section, Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams
in North Carolina, Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin; 1 September 1998 Internet
update). Class WS-IV waters are protected as water supplies, which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds. Point source discharges
of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to 15A NCAC 2B .0104 and .0211.
Local programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of
pollution are required; suitable for all Class C uses. Class C designates waters
protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation (e.g., wading, boating), and agriculture. There are no restrictions on
watershed development activities within Class C designated streams (NCDENR,
DWQ, Water Quality Section, Surface Freshwater Classifications Used in North
6
Carolina; 15 October 1997 Internet update). Neither High Quality (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) Nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW)
occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin-wide approach to water quality
management for the 17 river basins within the state. The Environmental
Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ, collects biological,
chemical and physical data that can be used in basin-wide assessment and
planning. River basins are reassessed every five years. The Basin-Wide
Assessment Program assesses water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate (benthos) organisms throughout the state. The monitoring
sites may vary according to needs assessed for a particular basin. Monitoring of
benthos is conducted concurrently with monitoring of physical parameters in
preparation for National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
renewals for specific basins. Macroinvertebrates are important indicator
organisms and are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality.
Bear Creek was sampled at the site in April 1988 and received a Good-Fair
rating.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) is a method for
assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of
its fish community. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors
influencing aquatic faunal communities. The index incorporates information
about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance,
and fish condition (NCDEHNR 1996).
The assessment of biological integrity using the NCIBI is provided by the
cumulative assessment of 12 parameters (metrics). The values provided by
these metrics are converted into scores on a 1, 3, 5 scale. A score of 5
represents conditions expected for undisturbed streams in the specific river basin
or ecoregion, while a score of 1 indicates that the conditions vary greatly from
those expected in an undisturbed stream of the region. The scores are summed
to attain the overall NCIBI score (NCDEHNR, 1996). The NCIBI score is then
assigned an integrity class, which ranges from No Fish to Excellent. There was
not any fish community studies done within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project study
area.
Point sources refer to discharge that enter surface water through a pipe,
ditch, or other associated 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 NPDES sites located
within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) upstream of the project study area.
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source
(NPS) pollution comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt
runoff moves over the earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are
picked up, carried, and ultimately deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal
waters, and groundwater. Non-point source pollution includes fertilizers,
herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential areas; hydrocarbons and
chemicals from urban runoff and energy production; sediments from construction
sites, land clearing, and eroding streambanks; salt from irrigation activities; acid
drainage from abandoned mines; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal
wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of
NPS pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may not be
known. These pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water
supplies, recreation, wildlife, and fisheries (USEPA Office of Water, Nonpoint
Source Pollution Control Program, What is Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution? -
Questions and Answers; 30 December 1997 Internet update).
The NCDOT field investigators conducted a visual observation of any
potential NPS discharges located within or near the project area. Atmospheric
deposition; streambank erosion; fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from
nearby farms and residential areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from
nearby driveways were identified as potential sources of NPS pollution near the
project area. The field investigators did not observe any construction or land
clearing activities near the project area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts.
Construction of the proposed project may impact water resources during
the following processes: Alternate 1 will require demolishing the existing bridge
and constructing the new bridge; Alternate 2 impacts will require demolishing the
existing bridge, constructing a temporary detour, and constructing the new
bridge; Alternate 3 will require demolishing the existing bridge and constructing a
new bridge south of the existing bridge. Construction activities are likely to alter
and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at stream site. This disruption of
the stream can reduce flows downstream of the project. Temporary diversions of
water flow may raise the water level upstream from the project and lower the
water level downstream of the project. Anticipated impacts to the project area
water resources are contained in Section 4.1.2 of this report. Project construction
may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased
sedimentation and vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruption and/additions to
surface and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed
areas.
6. Potential concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff,
construction and toxic spills.
Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in
the study area; NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMP's
include, but are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion of
stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible.
Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction
interval should also be strictly enforced.
There should not be a potential for components of Bridge No. 11 to be
dropped into Waters of the United States during construction. There should no
temporary fill associated with the bridge removal is identified in Section 1.1.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
3.0 Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial communities. This section
describes those communities encountered in the study area as well as the
relationships between fauna and flora within these communities. Composition
and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study
area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to
occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are
provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally
follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980),
Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent
references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna that
was observed during the site visit is denoted with an asterisk (*).
Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna
expected to be present within the project area.
9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study
area: dry mesic hardwood forest, bottomland hardwood forest and
maintained/disturbed community. Community boundaries within the study area
are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal
species likely to occur within the study area will exploit all of these communities
for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Bottomland Hardwood Forest Community
The Bottomland Hardwood Forest Community is dominated by species
common throughout bottomlands in the piedmont of North Carolina. The herbs
and vines in the riparian floodplain flora include trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), may-apple
(Podophyllum peltatum), violet (Viola sp.), and stinging nettle (Utrica dioica). The
canopy was comprised of red maple (Acer rubrum), sycamore (Plautus
occidentalis), red mulberry (Morus rubra), river birch (Betula nigra) swamp
chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), and American elm (Ulmus americana). The
shrub layers consisted of blackberry (Rubus argutus), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), red maple, and ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana).
3.1.2 The Maintained / Disturbed Community
The maintained/ disturbed community is made of four sub-communities,
which include roadside shoulder, pasture, hedgerow and irregularly maintained
floodplain. The flora which can be found in the roadside shoulder areas are
fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), bush clover
(Lespedeza intermedia), chickweed (Stellaria media), white clover (Trifoium
repens), Japanese honeysuckle, violet (Viola sp.), geranium (Geranium
carolinianum), henbit (Lamium ofcinale), mouse's ear (Heiracium pilosella), wild
onion (Allium canadensis) and dandelion (Taraxacum officinale). The flora found
around the hedgerow include red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), American elm,
sweet-gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), black
willow (Salix nigra), multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora), red clover (Trifolium
pratense), wood sorrel (Oxalis dillenii), geranium (Geranium carolinianum), and
black cherry (Prunus serotina). The flora found in pasture area include fescue,
Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper, English plantain, dewberry (Rubrus
flagellaris), hop clover (Trifolium agrarium), bull thistle (Carduus lanceolatus),
and smooth vetch (Vicia dasycarpa). The flora found in the irregularly maintained
floodplain include may-apple, box elder (Acer negundo), green ash, trumpet
creeper, false nettle, blackberry, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and pignut
hickory (Carya glabra).
10
3.1.3 Dry Mesic Forest Community
This upland forest tract is dominated by species common throughout the
piedmont of North Carolina. Plants observed here include Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), violet, may-apple, blue-eyed grass (Sisrinchium
angustifolium), Virginia creeper, flowering dogwood (Comus florida), American
beech (Fagus grandifolia), tulip poplar, red maple, pecan (Carya illneonsis), and
river birch.
3.1.4 Fauna
Wildlife that may frequently use the bottomland hardwood forest
community, the dry mesic forest community or maintained/disturbed communities
include: two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer),
Eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), red
bat (Lasiurus borealis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), big brown bat
(Eptesicus fuscus), and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
Avian species utilizing these communities include the northern
mockingbird (Mimus polyglottas), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
Carolina chickadee* (Parus carolinensis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata) American
crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), belted kingfisher` (Megaceryle alcyon), field
sparrow* (Spizella pusilla), pileated woodpecker * (Dryocopus pileatus) and
northern cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis). The mourning dove* (Zenaida
macroura) is a permanent resident in this community type.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, Bear Creek, a piedmont perennial stream, will be
impacted by the proposed project. Perennial streams support an assemblage of
fauna that require a constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water. Physical characteristics of the water body and
condition of the water resource influence flora and faunal composition of aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly
influence aquatic communities.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
moderately sized perennial streams in rural areas may include common
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina),
eastern mud turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum), six-lined racerunner
(Cnemidophurus sexlineatus), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortix) and northern
water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Fish species that may be located here include gizzard shad (Dorosoma
cepedianum), common carp (Cyprinus carpio), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), eastern silvery minnow
11
(Hybognathus regius), highback chub (Hybopsis hypsinotus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus), whitefin shiner (Notropis niveus), greenfin shiner
(Notropis chloristius), white sucker (Catostomus commersont), eastern
mosquitofish* (Gambusia holbrooki), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellas) and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various 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. Permanent and temporary impacts to biotic
communities are represented in Table 1.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance
of each community present within the study area. Project construction will result
in clearing and degradating portions of these communities. Table 1 summarizes
potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project
construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of
way width of 18.3-m (60.0-ft). Usually, project construction does not require the
entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Alternate 3
Existing Temporary Existing New
Bridge Detour Bridge Bridge
Bottomland 0.03 (0.08) 0.03 (0.08) 0.05 (0.13) 0.03 (0.8) 0.1 (0.24)
Hardwood
Forest
Dry Mesic 0.01 (0.02) 0.01 (0.02) 0.02 (0.05) 0.01 (0.02) 0.09 (0.21)
Forest
Maintained/ 0.09 (0.21) 0.09 (0.21) 0.07 (0.16) 0.09 (0.21) 0.29 (0.72)
Disturbed
Totals 0.13 (0.31) 0.13 (0.31) 0.13 (0.34) 0.13 (0.31) 0.48(l.17)
Values cited are in hectares (acres)
¦ Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific
community due to rounding of significant digits.
¦ Alternate 1 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the removal of existing Bridge No. 11 and adjacent roadway
approaches in approximately the same location for the new bridge.
¦ Alternate 2 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the removal of existing Bridge No. 11 and adjacent roadway
12
approaches in approximately the same location for the new replacement
bridge.
Alternate 2 Temporary Detour values indicate both temporary and
permanent impacts for the removal of the temporary bridge and associated
roadway.
Alternate 3 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the removal of existing Bridge No. 11 and adjacent roadway
approaches.
Alternate 3 New Bridge values indicate both temporary and permanent
impacts associated with the new bridge and adjacent roadway approaches.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for a variety of wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 11
and its associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby
diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this project,
it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal. Areas modified by
construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway
while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas
suitable for the species.
Permanent terrestrial impacts associated with Alternate 1 total 0.13 ha
(0.31 ac). Alternate 2 will result in 0.13 ha (0.31 ac.) of permanent impacts and
0.13 ha (0.34 ac.) of temporary impacts to the project area, most of which is in
maintained/disturbed area. Alternate 3 has permanent impacts associated with
the removal of Bridge No. 11, which are 0.13 ha (0.31 ac.) and permanent
impacts associated with the construction of a new bridge to the south.
Permanent terrestrial impacts associated with the new bridge are 0.13 ha (1.17
ac.). Alternate 3 has the most permanent impacts on terrestrial communities of
the three alternatives, because of the demolition of existing Bridge No. 11 and
building a new bridge on new location. Alternate 2 impacts considerably more
terrestrial area than Alternate 1 does, because Alternate 2 has a temporary on-
site detour. Consequently, Alternate 1 is the least environmentally damaging
alternative.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even the smallest changes in their
environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and
erosion from construction- related work would effect water quality and biological
constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts
from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the
stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site.
Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or
feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
13
feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by
excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or
repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the stream bank enhances the
likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the
soil, thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic
compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at
the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of
vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration
and to elevations of water temperatures, which may impact many species.
4.0 Jurisdictional Topics
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis
pertinent to two important issues: Waters of the United States and rare and
protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of
"Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United
States include most interstate and intrastate surface waters, tributaries,. and
wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in
saturated soil conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b).
Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any
action that proposes to place dredge or fill materials into Waters of the United
States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE, and must follow the statutory
provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987
"Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter
approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed
hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland. There were no wetland areas located within the project study area.
Bear Creek is a jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and
water quality aspects of Bear Creek are presented in previous sections of this
report.
14
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters and to wetlands are determined by
using the entire project right-of-way width of 18.3 m (60.0 ft). Surface water
impacts pertaining to Alternate 1 have been determined to be 60 linear feet.
Surface water impacts for Alternate 2 have been determined to be 90 linear feet.
The surface water impacts for Alternate 3 is approximately 120 linear feet. The
amount of surface water and impacts may be modified by any changes in
roadway design. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-
way, therefore, and actual surface water and wetland impacts may be
considerably less.
There will not be any potential for the components of the deck associated
with Bridge No. 11 to be dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction. The
resulting temporary fill associated with Bridge No. 11 is 0 m3 (0 yd3). This project
can be classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions other than
those outlined in BMP's.
4.1.3 Permits
Clean Water Act §404 establishes a permit program to regulate the
discharge of dredged or fill materials into waters of the United States. The
USACE, which administers the permit program under CWA §404, established
nationwide permits for minor activities, specialized activities, and activities
regulated by other authorities. A nationwide permit (NWP) is a permit by rule.
In other words, compliance with the NWP rules satisfies the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the CWA (Strand, 1997).
Nationwide Permit No. 23, entitled Approved Categorical Exclusions,
covers certain activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or
financed, in whole or in part, by another Federal agency or department.
Nationwide Permit No. 23 applies when another Federal agency or department
determines that their activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
an environmental impact statement (EIS) under the National Environmental
Policy Act (NEPA). The activity, work, or discharge becomes categorically
excluded when its actions neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant
effect on the human environment. Also, the Office of the Chief of Engineers
must receive notice of the agency's or department's application for the
categorical exclusion and concur with the categorical exclusion determination (61
FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996). The project's impacts on the waters of
the United States will likely require a NWP 23.
Clean Water Act §401 authorizes states to determine whether activities
permitted by the federal government comply with state water quality standards.
The DWQ may require a Section 401 Water Quality Certification if a project fills
or substantially modifies waters or wetlands. North Carolina developed General
Certifications (GCs) that satisfy CWA §401 and correspond to the Corps of
15
Engineers' NWPs (NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water
Quality Certification; undated Internet site). Water Quality Certification No. 3107,
which corresponds to NWP 23, will likely be required for the project's impacts to
wetlands and waters.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality
(CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of
wetlands and surface waters" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of
the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of Waters of the U.S. has
been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to surface waters),
minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR §1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered
sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities
of averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate
to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Total
avoidance is not possible because of the replacement of the existing bridge,
which will affect Waters of the United States.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States.
Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and
permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of
the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize
impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include:
strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface
waters during the entire life of the project, reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams, reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, minimization of "in-
stream" activity, covering of exposed fill material and litter/debris control.
16
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
In most situations, the NCDOT must avoid and minimize to the maximum
extent possible all unavoidable adverse impacts to the waters of the United
States before considering compensatory mitigation. Compensatory mitigation
includes restoring, creating, and/or enhancing waters of the United States. The
NCDOT should make every effort to conduct mitigation activities in areas
adjacent or contiguous to the discharge site. The USACE usually requires
compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under CWA §404 if unavoidable
impacts to waters of the United States total more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetlands or 152.4 linear m (500 linear ft) of perennial and intermittent streams.
The DWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under a
CWA §401 permit if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total
more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands and/or 45.7 linear m (150 linear ft) of
perennial streams. Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from
the DWQ before the regulatory agency issues a Section 401 Water Quality
Certification. The USACE determines final permit and mitigation decisions under
Section 404 of the CWA.
Compensatory stream mitigation will probably not be required for the
project. Estimated unavoidable stream impacts under Alternate 1, Alternate 2
and Alternate 3 fall below compensatory mitigation levels required by the
regulatory agencies. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands will not be required
because the project will not impact wetlands. The regulatory agencies will
ultimately provide final permit and mitigation decisions for the project.
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 Fish and Wildlife
(FWS). 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 (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of May 13, 1999 the FWS lists one
federally protected species for Davie County.
17
Table 2. Federally Protected Species for Davie County.
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E
"E"- Endangered- a species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
Name: Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Family: Cashew (Anacardiaceae)
Federal Status: Endangered
Listed: September 28, 1989
Michaux's sumac is endemic to the inner Coastal Plain and Piedmont
physiographic provinces of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
Most populations occur in North Carolina. This species prefers sandy, rocky,
open woods and roadsides. Its survival is dependent on disturbance (mowing,
clearing, fire) to maintain an open habitat. It is often found with other members of
its genus as well as with poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans). There is no
longer believed to be an association between this species and specific soil types.
Michaux's sumac is a dioecious shrub growing to a height of 0.3-0.6 m
(1.0-2.0 ft). Plants flower in June, producing a terminal, erect, dense cluster of
4-5 parted greenish-yellow to white flowers. Fruits, produced from August
through September, are red, densely short-pubescent drupes, 5-6 mm (0.25 in)
across. Most populations, however, are single sexed and reproduce only by
rhizomes. The entire plant is densely pubescent. The deciduous leaves are
composed of 9-13 sessile, oblong leaflets on a narrowly winged or wingless
rachis. The acute to acuminate leaflets have rounded bases and are 4-9 cm
(1.5-3.5 in) long and 2-5 cm (1.0-2.0 in) wide. They are simply or doubly serrate.
This species is threatened by loss of habitat. Since its discovery, 50
percent of Michaux's sumac habitat has been lost due to its conversion to
silvicultural and agricultural purposes and development. Fire suppression and
herbicide drift have also negatively impacted this species.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted in the project
study area on May 10, 1999 by NCDOT biologists Chris Murray and Jared Gray.
The survey covered areas of suitable habitat such as irregularly maintained
shoulder and forested maintained ecotones. Prior to conducting this survey, a
known Michaux's sumac population was visited to familiarize us with the species.
Survey methodology involved was walking the length of the project looking for
areas with suitable habitat. Once the survey area was determined, habitat was
found and surveyed on foot by the above mentioned biologists. Although suitable
habitat was located, no Michaux's sumac was found anywhere within the project
study area. The NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitat does not
18
list any populations of Michaux's sumac within 1,6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project
study area. Therefore, this project will not impact Michaux's sumac.
4.5.2 Federal Species of Concern
According to the May 13, 1999 USFWS list, one Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) listed for Davie 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), 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.
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status (if
afforded state protection) 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.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern For Davie County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C* Yes
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare
throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different
part of the country or the world.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than
50 years ago.
Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were these species observed during the site visit. A search of the
NCNHP database of rare and unique habitats revealed no records of FSC or
State listed species in the project area.
5.0 References
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds (6th
ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
19
J
Amoroso, Jame L., and A. S. Weakley, 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
Cowardin, Lewis M., et al, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual," Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment
Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of
North Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program.
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.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC.,
Raleigh.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
1996. Basinwide Assessment Report Support-Neuse River Basin. Division of
Water Quality.
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.
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.
Fish, Fredric F. 1969. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina.
The Graphic Press. Raleigh.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
h
20
k
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, The Division
of Water Quality, Water Quality Section, Wetlands Water Quality Certification;
undated Internet site; (http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wetlandc.html).
NCDENR-DWQ, 1999. The Division of Water Quality, Stream Section,
Classification for streams in North Carolina. Internet webpage:
hftp://h2o.enr.state.nc.us./Strmclass/classes2.htmi.
Strand, Margaret N. 1997. Wetlands Deskbook, 2nd Edition. Washington, D.C.,
Environmental Law Institute.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1993. Michaux's Sumac Recovery Plan. U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 30 pp.
Patrick, T.S., J.R. Allison, and G.A. Krakow. 1995, Protected Plants of Georgia.
Georgia Department of Natural Resources. 248 pp.