20011532 Ver 1_Complete File_20011019

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Bill Ross, Secretary
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Acting Director
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
llkf'?WAJ •
A&4 2
AOV=Wft 00=%
NC ENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
December 3, 2001
DWQ No. 011532
Orange County
Re: Orange County, Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1517,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1517(2), State Project No. 8.2501501; TIP B-3497.
North Little Fork River [27-2-21-3; HQW NSW]
APPROVAL of Neuse Buffer Rules AUTHORIZATION CERTIFICATE with ADDITIONAL
CONDITIONS
Dear Mr. Gilmore,
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to impact 0.06 acres of protected riparian
buffers for the purpose of replacing Bridge Number 26 on SR 1517. The project shall be constructed
according to your application dated September 21, 2001. This approval shall act as your Authorization
Certificate as required within the Neuse River Riparian Area Protection Rules (15A NCAC 2B .0233). In
addition, you should get any other required federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application dated September
21, 2001. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new
application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this authorization and approval
letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. For this approval to be valid, you must
follow the conditions listed below.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this authorization, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You -
must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition,
which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative
Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N_C_ 27611-7447. This authorization and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing-
Non-Discharge Branch Wetlartds 401 Unit 1621 Matz Service Center Raleigh, North Carolina 27669-1621
Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Afrumative Action Employer 50% recycledt10% post consumer paper

Page 2 of 2
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under the "No Practical Alternatives"
determination required in 15A NCAC 2B :0233(8). If you have any questions, please contact John Hennessy
at 919-733-5694.
Cc: US Army Corps of Engineers Raleigh Fi1d Office
DWQ Raleigh Regional Office
File Copy
Central Files

TIf7-0?-?
01 15 3 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
September 21, 2001
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27609
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Orange County, Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1517
over North Fork Little River. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1517(2),
State Project No. 8.2501501, TIP No. B-3497.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 26 on SR 1517, over the North Fork Little River, in Orange County. Replacement
will be at approximately the same location with a double barrel 13' x 10" reinforced
concre le-Project length is approximately 400 feet. Traffic will be detoured
along existing secondary roads.
Impacts to Waters of the United States
There are 0.05 acres of fill and 0.03 acres of mechanized clearin im acts antici ated to
wet an s y e construction of the proposed project. However,
construction will also, result in 0.07 acres of surface water impacts to North Fork Little
River. There will be 87 linear-feet-of surface water impacts by the construction of the
project. Surface water impacts and impacts to jurisdictional wetlands are depicted on
sheet 3 of the attached permit drawings.
The existing bridge will be demolished. The existing bridge is composed of an asphalt
overlay surface on a timber deck, with timber joists and steel I-beams. The substructure is
made up of timber except for concrete encasements at the pile footings. The bridge is 75
feet long and 20 feet wide. The asphalt wearing surface and bridge rails will be removed
prior to demolition, without dropping it into the water. There is the potential for parts of
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

the bridge to fall into the water; the calculated maximum potential fill in the water
resulting from bridge demolition is 17 yd' of material. All temporary fill material will be
removed from the river as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal process. During
construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Impacts to Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer
The project impacts involving Neuse River Basin Riparian Buffer including 0.06 acres of
permanent impacts to the buffer surrounding North Fork Little River. The buffer impacts
to Zone 1 and Zone 2 are broken out in Table 1. Sediment and erosion is possible from
the cleared areas of the proposed buffer impact sites. Therefore, control basins (temporary
silt ditches and rock silt checks) must be placed in the most effective locations to
adequately control any sediment or erosion. These locations have been determined for the
proposed project and include locations outside of Zone 2, within Zone 2 and at the end of
Zone 1 of the riparian buffers. The locations were selected as the most reasonable
locations with no other practical alternatives available. The control basins proposed for
this project represent the least invasive method of control. Impacts to riparian buffers,
locations of the control basins, and a summary of buffer impacts by zone are depicted on
sheets 3 and 5 of the attached permit drawings.
Table 1. Neuse River Buffer Impact
Site Permanent Impacts
Zone 1 0.05
Zone 2 0.01
Totals 0.06
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 (FWS) lists five federally protected species for Orange County
(Table 1). The CE (dated September 30, 1999) rendered Biological Conclusions of "No
Effect" for each of these species due to lack of habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel and
red-cockaded woodpecker in the project study area. The CE also rendered a Biological
Conclusion of "No Effect" for Michaux's sumac, smooth coneflower and small-whorled
pogonia 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 6 August 2001
revealed that no known occurrences of bald eagle, red-cockaded woodpecker, dwarf
wedgemussel, smooth coneflower, or Michaux's sumac occur within one mile of the
project area. Therefore, the Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" remain valid for each
of these species.
TahlP 1 _ FP(lPrn11V-Prntected Snecies for Orange Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status Biological
Conclusion
red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E No Effect
dwarf wedgemussel Alasmidonta heterodon E No Effect
smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E No Effect
small-whorled pogonia Isotria medeloides T No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E No Effect
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout an or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within
the near future 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.
¦ Avoidance: NCDOT has avoided additional temporary and permanent impacts by
choosing Alternate 1 over Alternate 2. The total impacts to North Fork Little River
for Alternate 2 were 120 linear feet versus 87 feet for Alternate 1.
• Minimization: Best Management Practices will be strictly enforced for sedimentation
and erosion control for the protection of surface waters and wetlands.
¦ 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.
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 provided to the N. C. Division
of Water Quality (NCDWQ) for this project per 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC)
General Certification under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. However, notification is
not required from DWQ for 401 WQC General Certification for Section 404 Nationwide
Permit 23. NCDOT does request written authorization from NCDWQ for impacts to
Neuse River Buffer areas.
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. Mike Mills, P.E., 7 Division Engineer
ffice Use Only: a Form Version April 2001
SACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
aving the space blank.
Processing
Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW 23
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification is
not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: E
Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: bgilmoreaa dot state nc us
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be attached
if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page I of 10
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge Replacement over North Fork Little River
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3497
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Orange Nearest Town: Caldwell
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No.26 over North Fork
Little River on SR 1517 approximately 1.75 miles west of NC 157, approximately 3.2 miles
northwest of Caldwell.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): see attached application
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application:
Rural
7. Property size (acres):-
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): North Fork Little River
9. River Basin: Neuse
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/admin/mgps/.)
Page 2 of 10
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Replacement of the bridge with a double
barrel 13' X 10' reinforced concrete box culvert
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: rural
Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: No
Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 10
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area
of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
15+60 to 18+47 -
L-LT fill & mechanized
clearing 0.07 10 linear ft. PEN/SS

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,.
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online. at httn://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property:
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0.08
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
15+60 to 18+47
L-LT culvert 87 North Fork Little River 20 ft. Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated np-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.fopozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Page 4 of 10
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 87 linear feet
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: tiny excavation, drudging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The other alternative called for an on-site detour, which would have added an additional 60
linear feet of stream impact This design calls for an off-site detour so that the stream impacts are
minimized This project is located in the Neuse River Basin: therefore the regulations pertaining
to the Neuse Buffer Rules will apply. There are 0.05 acres of impacts in Buffer Zone 1, and
0.0 1 acres of impact to Buffer Zone 2
Page 5 of 10
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC,
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
No proposed mitigation
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at htty://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wry/index.htm. If
Page 6 of 10
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): zero
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): zero
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): zero
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ® No ? If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Page 7 of 10
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0.05 3
2 0.01 1.5
Total 0.06
Gone t extends out 3U teet perpenaicular trom near banK of cnannel; Gone z extenas an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
Not required
XI. Stormwater. (DWQ Only)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes [-] No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes E] No
Page 8 of 10
. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
(f P?
flvof
.t/Agent's Signature Date
signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
JS Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
51 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Loom 208 Burke Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
'elephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
ax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
aleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
S Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
uite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
sleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
elephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
ax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
ashington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
3 Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
)st Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
ashington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
;lephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
.x: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
ihnington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
S Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
)st Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
ilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
;lephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson
ix: [phone] Cumberland New Hanover Scotland
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 9 of 10
US Fis
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Telephone: [phone]
h and Wildlife Service / National 1Vl
US Fish and Wildlife Service
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, NC 28801
Telephone: [phone]
[arine Fisheries Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
Habitat Conservation Division
Pivers Island
Beaufort, NC 28516
Telephone: [phone]
North Carolina State Agencies
Division of Water Quality
401 Wetlands Unit
1650 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1650
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Water Quality
Wetlands Restoration Program
1619 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1619
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
CAMA and NC Coastal Counties
State Historic Preservation Office
Department Of Cultural Resources
4617 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephone: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
Division of Coastal Management Beaufort Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
1638 Mail Service Center Bertie Craven Hyde Pender
Raleigh, NC 27699-1638 Brunswick Currituck New Hanover Perquimans
Telephone: [phone] Camden Dare Onslow Tyrrell
Fax: [phone] Carteret Gates Pamlico Washington
NCWRC and NC Trout Counties
Western Piedmont Region Coordinator Alleghany Caldwell Watauga
3855 Idlewild Road Ashe Mitchell Wilkes
Kernersville, NC 27284-9180 Avery Stokes
Telephone: [phone] Burke Surry
Mountain Region Coordinator Buncombe Henderson Polk
20830 Great Smoky Mtn. Expressway Cherokee Jackson Rutherford
Waynesville, NC 28786 Clay Macon Swain
Telephone: [phone] Graham Madison Transylvania
Fax: [phone] Haywood McDowell Yancey
Page 10 of 10
INFUSE RIVER BUFFER IMPACTS
N.. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ORANGE COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.22501501 (6-5d97)
BRIDGE NO.026 OVER NORTH
FORK LITLE RIVER O\r. SR 1517
FEB. 2001
SHEET 1 OF
VICINITY MAP
J
J
W
Q
0

LO
r
I cle
V?
z

o

N ,

z a ' oN
a x ?~ z z
z x ? R .

0 44 N-4
IAJ
44 z H Ww
o
H ? a
C y zH
J ?I
W > W W
A o a A?
U go C W
? z

ii
II ?
SIR-
?A.0000,
II
III
1 C
II
IIJ
I I LU
II ?
II
11 ?
I I w
IIQ
0
U
O
E-
w
J
Q
U
N
O
F-
F-
O
Z
z
I I ?cn
x
;z (-
41 II? I I I ti a? M cN
41.
?? 13 ??; zx o jcx
o d U y G>?
1 '?, J w 0 w c, ?; ?W
z °
?vwi F- I o? a 0 O
O cLt a
w a o ad /'q
O II I I A A 90
E..
Qom.. II V U A w w
I Ix a) z x
CD I o of
x
V) _
°o ? o
N - ?
?{ ?• ? [L ;ter; .' ' 3 t
L) 0
CL 00
z
aJ
41
i O V)
. ' CL :-?
?I J \ w00 a
I ? Q
I
?? I I o - Cl?
.o I w
co °o w l O` I Y a
--A I p i
.? C4
o I t?
\ I Ct- I 1 o Z= z z
W W ? c
I ( ?= a
41
I
F W J
Nil
? ?? I I I ? W d V)
?? -A I I - W `

OD co

W
-
0
Z
O
O --
0
Q !n c
i
O? i-mZw
z r- W W N
_

'0
O
co 500 > 3i ti
(n
-0
Q O O
IL c c °? U
N M J
O

CL O
Q W
g F ZY
L
W L
U
O
-
OWLL
0o

z
o
?
?z

m =0

C N O

+
?
to

0 F-

c
o
?
m
V L ?•
c
U
W
0

O t6
?
y L
? U
N
V

W U z°60

H
a o
o
" °
V w
a n' ?
U

?
N
? p
o
o
c c ?
d coo

?
N p
O
l`C p
C m ?
- fp U
Z :a

a ? O
? ?
C p

?
V1
U1 cN
O 'D o0
U ?
a
a > V U
? W c
?
Z y
-a O

J _
W
j n' N U
E ? v
3 C

vl
O O
Q
c a N
Q O O
- l0
- - U
LL. ? `6
>

? O
r ?
J

y Cl)
r

?

O
(n m
0
O
?
p ? ~O J
f0 ?
U ?
CO
?
LL +
r co
r

? J
!n Z 0
O Z
°o
?Z
- ?_
mU
V w g U =
Z
O N
zv

Q 0
c?

w

LL w U
U- z
0
m

W

LL N
w U
? O?
m N
Z
C0

Z
QI w ?j
?
F- O Q
W

}

d
Q^ o

Cl)
, Cl)
I
°
Q CO
O
o
a ?

- a.

W
LL N
z U
Q
o
0
LL N .

W

Z U
a ° c
O °
N

z F0F J
°
o S +
z
0

N O
+

U
w
wa
>> b
w

?.
LLJ X j

F H X
U) O
N m
O
z J
w Q

N o

i ?
011532
?a
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No.
A. Project Description:
B-3497
8.2501501
BRZ-1517(2)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No.26 on SR 1517, over the North Fork Little
River, in Orange County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location
with a 3 @ 12 foot by 10 foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC). The
culverted travelway will be 22 feet wide with 6 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. 26 has a sufficiency rating of only 20.7 out of 100. The bridge is
posted at 8 tons SV and 14 tons TTST. The bridge has an estimated remaining life
of only 4 years. For these -reasons, Bridge No. 26 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 (3111 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
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
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
! -
!f
,1
2

i
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. Soecial Proiect Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $725,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 13.500
Total Project Cost $738,500
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 500 VPD
Year 2025 - 800 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The existing approach roadway is 18 feet wide. The proposed culverted
travelway will be 22 feet wide with 6 foot grassed shoulders. Shoulder width will
be increased by at least 3 feet where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 60 mph.
Functional Classification:
SR 1517 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
3
i
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports road closure and replacement at the
existing location.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
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? Fx1
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takin
s been evaluated?
X a
g
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
F X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? F? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
-
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HOW)?

X
F
1
(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
(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)?
YES NO

4

(1 1) 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?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the a
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? El _ X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ? 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? F] X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
F]
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
5
N
I
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 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? F-1
X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Item 2, federally listed protected species: Suitable habitats do exist in the
project area for Smooth coneflower, Small-whorled pogonia, and Michaux's sumac.
However, a plant-by-plant survey did not reveal any specimens, and the NCNHP
database does not list any populations within 1.0 miles of the project study area for
any of the above species. Thus it is concluded that there will be no effect on any
federally listed protected species.
6

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3497
State Project No. 8.2501501
Federal Project No. BRZ-1517(2)
Proiect Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No.26 on SR 1517, over the North Fork Little -
River, in Orange County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location
with a 3 @ 12 foot by 10 foot reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC?. The
culverted travelway will be 22 feet wide with 6 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)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
/ 2- 20-71
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
12-U-qJ UVgynQ- L%7!,'o#-
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
cot
-?-+- ti
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
A9 4 r
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
ordonton 1111 -- (1U
1.0
1 107 ` . - - - 1 134 1.3 1 t1 1 3-
N •i., n
N 1 _
1106
1
1.4 0 •4 •2
°0 1181 '._••?
8 f?K .' 1135
M R
i - Hurdle i ?
C
1ct : v1 Mills N.
O • 7 1.7
• % S •W
Fak..-1108 1113 % 1114 y 1120
`.
-'-' ?
1001 120B
1209• 1.5
S `• p 1915 D.. /,
? ' ? 2 ? 1119
rl, "? ?' ? 1119 ? ?•.
1.3
1102 , $ 104 1 103 1'120
f 22 1001 e??I 17 C x1121. .
? ;y_j a 1116 ?
5 2 fd5 --.....? 1121
'- 1 1 1 5S O .•`:, ; 1 18 8 118 N .7 1 122 1 123
-------------
A 1515 1526 1527
a
1 51 A N', U N T ; .D
-• '•,- `.1001 N 6
1507 o 1578 Bridge No.26 2
1512 .8
1 14
n
1525 \ .•
• 1512 i
1516 i
1511 I0 S O 5 1.6
1510 1. 1 D 1517
1510 1.0 0 1522 •9
• 7 / 1517,
' 01 1509 ? `'`•, ?p?y I 1
1518 m
71 57
0 `1`1508 1519• 1520 ? 57
9 1507 ? ••? o _ ? \ 9
1 6 11521
1543 1508 Caldwell
9 2.1 1 1.0 1581 '
154
1545 1639 a 1
. ` •6 OD
2, S
0000
• 5 9? D.
545
tT ro 1520
1507 - 3' 3 1544 '? 162 1579
1 0?
I 3A ?? Studied Detour Route
SadeT
41e?` ? Mated
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
0
N5?°'t! Planning & Environmental Branch
OP TRA
Orange County
Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 1517
Over North Fork Little Ber
B-3497
FIGURE 1
s.
91
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
Jame B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty 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 #26 on SR 1517 over North Fork Little
River, Orange County, B-3497, ER 99-7689
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
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.
Archaeological site 31 OR331 is located within the southwest quadrant of the North
Fork Little River and SR 1517. Recorded in 1994, the National Register eligibility of
this Middle Archaic site is unknown. If the bridge is to be replaced in the existing
location without an on-site detour, the site should not be affected. However, if any
new ground disturbing activities are to take place within the southwest quadrant,
then we recommend that 31 OR331 be relocated to insure that it will not be
affected by the project. If the site cannot be avoided, testing will be necessary to
determine its eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Ralei`h, North Carolina 27601-2807 ???
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 Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett
If
.. STA7? o
Mae
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
B. Hunt Jr., Govemor Division of Archives and History
Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
ber 26 1999
uJVi e t-, E- C. William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
David Brook, Deputy
State Historic Preservation fficer
Archaeological Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on _'.
SR 1517 over North Fork Little River, Orange County -
State Project No. 8.2501501, TIP B-3497, ER 99-7689
you for your letter of September 29, 1999, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Gerold
and Shane Peterson of your staff concerning the above project.
ing the course of the survey, no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites were located within the
of potential effect for the bridge replacement project. Archaeological site 31 OR331 was found to be
.ted outside of the project area. Due to the absence of cultural resources, Dr. Glover has recommended
no further archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological resources.
updated archaeological site form for 31 OR3 3 1 should be submitted, however, to include information
cerning the surface collection conducted during this investigation.
above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
isory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
Part 800.
you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
ldb
Nicholas Graf, FHWA
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Gerold Glover, NCDOT
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

'f] North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission g
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 fHabitat 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. Bridge 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 Memo 2 December 16, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground 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, when 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 Savidge 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 will 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

e •

Bridge Replacement Memo
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 I 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.
c
Categorical Exclusion Document Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
December, 1999
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
-B-3497. Orange County
Bridge No. 26, on SR 1517
Over, North Fork Little River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1517(2)
State Project 8.2501501
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis.Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridae Demolition: The existing bridge is composed mainly of steel and
timber components. The timber piles have concrete encasement at their lower
sections. The steel and timber components 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. The
concrete encasement material may enter Waters of the.U.S.. during demolition. The
temporary fill associated with this concrete is approximately 17 cubic yards.
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will.be followed.
,?
i
`?.

c
µ STATE o
O „yra?y
?@ gw??am
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
September 30, 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. 26 on SR 1517 over North
Fork Little River in Orange County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1517 (2), State Project No. 8.2501501, TIP No.
B-3497.
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-3497
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR 1517
over North Fork Little River in Orange County
TIP No. B-3497
Federal Aid Project: BRZ-1517 (2)
State Project No. 8.2501501
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3497
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Systems Unit
Jared Gray, Natural System Specialist
September 30, 1999

1.0 Introduction ..............................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................. ..1
1.2 Purpose ................................................................................................................. .. l
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 Riparian Floodplain Community .................................................................. ..9
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed Community ................................................................ .. 9
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community ............................................................ 10
3.2 Wetland Communities ............................................................................................... 10
3.3 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... 11
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 ......................................... 14
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 .......................................................................................... 16
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................... 16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ........................................................................... 16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ....................................................................... 17
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............................. 2 0
5.0 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................. 22
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1 Site Topographic Map .........................................................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities .......................................................12
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Orange County ..............................................17
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Orange County ..............................................21
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 northeastern Orange County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 26 on SR
1517 over North Fork of the Little River (Figure 1). The existing cross section and
the proposed cross s@ction is a two-lane shoulder section. The existing and
proposed right-of-way is 18.3 m (60.0 ft). Two alternates exist for this project.
Alternate 1 requires replacing-the existing bridge in place with a new, two-lane
shoulder section triple barrel 12' x 10' reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic
would be detoured onto other local roads during construction, Under Alternate 1,
project length is approximately 122 m (400 ft). Alternate 2 involves replacing
bridge No. 26 on existing alignment with a temporary triple barrel 12'x 10'
reinforced concrete box culvert to the south. Traffic will be maintained on-site
with a temporary road with a triple barrel 72" corrugated steel pipe structure
during construction. The project length for Alternate 2 is approximately 244 m
(800 ft).
NCDOT built Bridge No. 26 in 1954. This bridge carries SR 1517 over
North Fork of the Little River in Orange County. The bridge has an asphalt
overlay surface on a timber deck, with timber joists and steel I-beams. The
substructure is made up of timber except for concrete encasements at the pile
footings. The bridge is 23 m (75 ft) long and 6 m (20 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 a potential for parts of the bridge to
fall into the water the calculated maximum potential fill in the water resulting from
bridge demolition is 13 m3 (17 yd 3) of material. All temporary fill material will be
removed from the creek as soon as possible as part of the bridge removal
process.
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.

onion 1 1 1 1 _.._..? _ _ n
1134
'". .a'
` '" 1. 3 1 1
°
. g
1 107 ..,; •
, -
N
1 106 1. 4 • 4 .2
.
i
1181
'

W
_
Hurdle 1 135
0+ 8 C( _° •; '
?y
17
114
120
y
1113
?
-
Fak
\ • to
1108
?i
?-' '? 1001 1208 Q
1
5
•
•2
~
.
?; • 1,
.
14
. i'
p 15
S 1119
rL .? .;? ?• I 1 19 '?
'' b ?? •111 •? i 1120 1.3
' 1 102 1 2 i 103 •4 1
1
?
001 1117
rm
f 5 2 ? ds-'°?-. ly 1 121 % n tp
1 I 05 S ! O 1 "( ?' "? O 1 18 N . 7 1 122 1123
..
._._._._.«_.
e CY few.

A* t 1515
Q
3
51 A T '' :1526 1627 p ?`
G
U N
1
1 R
^
.1
001 •6
•'
-
\
.?
' 1 0 •l?4-, 1578 Bri4e No.26
1 7
%
1512 '8 6
•
? ` 9 1 ? 152 \
i
V0 ;•
1512 1516 f

r
1511
'
1. 1
1510 1510 P 1517 1
0 1 0 1522 •9
.
. 7 1517
?
•
W 1509
'? ?y I. • 1
.6 i•, 1518
- 57
`
N ;??, 1508
\•?
1519 1520 Q 9
i `
1507 . , - .7
A
521
15d 1
1 508 1 Caldwell \
9 1543 2. 1 to 1 • W 1.0 1581 `•
154 i
1639 p
1545 .?
OD
`
• 6
ti
`?,, a
• s
1520
;
1. l
545 ?,
?o
•
1507 ?? --- 3.3 1544 '?
1 1 1579
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Orange County
Replace Bridge No. 26 on SR 1517
Over North Fork Little River
&3491
F I'GURE I
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 include U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Caldwell), U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map (Caldwell), 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 Orange 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.
I I 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. Moderately 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 the North Fork Little River. Project elevation is
approximately 185 m (607 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Six soil phases occur within project boundaries: Georgeville silt loam, 2-6
percent slopes, Appling sandy loam, 6-10 percent slopes, Helena sandy loam, 2-
8 percent slopes, Herndon silt loam, 2-6 percent slopes, and Chewacla loam-
sandy loam, 0-2 percent slopes.
Georgeville silt loam is a well-drained soil that is on broad ridges in the
uplands. Permeability is moderate, runoff is very rapid, 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.
Appling sandy loam is a well-drained soil that occurs on fairly narrow, side
slopes that are crossed by intermittent drainageways on uplands. Permeability is
moderate, runoff is rapid, and the available water capacity is medium. Infiltration
is fair and the hazard of further erosion is severe.
Helena sandy loam is a moderately well drained soil that is found on
broad ridges of uplands. Permeability is slow, the available water capacity is low,
shrink-swell potential is high. The seasonal high water table is normally below a
depth of 60 inches, but because of the slowly permeable subsoil, a. perched
water table is 12-30 inches below the surface during the wet season. Slope,
surface runoff, erosion, wetness, and high shrink-swell potential are the main
limitations to the use of this soil.
Herndon silt loam is a well-drained soil that is on broad ridges on the
uplands. The permeability is moderate, available water capacity is medium, and
the shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonally high water table is below a depth
of 72 inches. The main limitations are slope, erosion, surface runoff and
moderate permeability
Chewacla loam is a nearly level somewhat-poorly drained soil that is on
long, flat areas parallel to the major streams on the flood plains. Permeability is
moderate, the available water capacity is medium, and shrink-swell potential is
low. Depth to the seasonal water table is about 6-16 inches during late winter
and early in the spring. 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 for Orange County to have hydric inclusions in
areas with depressions.
Core samples taken throughout the project area did 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 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
North Fork Little River will be the only surface water resource directly
impacted by the proposed project (Figure 1). The creek is located in sub-basin
030401 of the Neuse River Basin. North Fork Little River is a tributary to Little.
River, and has its confluence with the river approximately 10 km (6 mi.) linear
stream channels distance downstream of Bridge No. 26.
North Fork Little River's bank at Bridge No. 26 measures approximately
12 m (40 ft) wide and 3 m (10 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 clay and sand, but also had cobble, stone, gravel
and boulders. Clay and sand were prevalent along the creek's edges. Water
within the North Fork Little River was turbid, 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 river's high siltation. ,
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
The DWQ categorizes streams according to a best usage classification.
North Fork Little River [index no. 27-2-21-3] falls under Class WS-II NSW
(NCDENR, DWQ, Water Quality Section, Water Quality Stream Classifications
for Streams in North Carolina, Neuse River Basin; 1 September 1998 Internet
update). Class WS-II waters are protected as water supplies, which are generally
in predominately undeveloped 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. The supplemental classification NSW
means that the waters are nutrient sensitive waters, which require limitations on
nutrient input.
6
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 Carolina; 15 October 1997 Internet
update). Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of 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
macroinverteb rate (benthos) organisms throughout the state. The monitoring
sites may very according to needs assessed for a particular basin. Monitoring of
benthos is conducted concurrently with monitoring of physical parameters in
preparation for 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. The North Fork Little River has not been sampled as
part of this monitoring program.
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 (NCDEHN 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, ahd 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 (NRS) 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 will impact water resources by the
following processes: tearing down of the existing bridge, and the construction of
a triple barrel 12'x 10' reinforced concrete box culvert. Construction activities are
likely to alter and/or interrupt stream flows and water levels at each aquatic 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. Since, the best usage
classification for the North Fork Little River is WS 11, Design Standards in
Sensitive Waters should be enforced for the life of the project. Also, North Fork
Little River lies in the Neuse River Basin, so the Neuse River Buffer Guidelines
will be applicable for this 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 is potential for components of Bridge No. 26 to be dropped into
Waters of the United States during construction. The resulting 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.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study
area: mixed hardwood forest, riparian floodplain 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 Riparian Flooolain Community
The Riparian Floodplain community is the major community impacted by
the project. This floodplain tract is dominated by species common throughout the
piedmont of North Carolina. The herbs and vines in the riparian floodplain flora
include: jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Aster (Aster sp.?, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), bellwort (Uvularia perfolhata), pickerelweed
(Peltandra virginica), virgin's bower (Clematis virginiana), false nettle (Boehmeria
cylindrica), rush (Juncus tenius), grape (Vitis sp.), wild rice (Zizinia aquatica),
may-apple (Podophyllum peltatum), japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum),
curly dock (Rumex crispus) and pokeweed (Phytolacca americana). The canopy
was comprised of red maple (Acer rubrum), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua ), 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), redbud (Cercis canadensis),
blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), multi-flora rose (Rosa multiflora), and silky
dogwood (Comus florida).
3.1.2 The Maintained / Disturbed Community
The maintained/ disturbed community is made of two sub-communities,
which include roadside shoulder, and power-line corridor. The flora which can be
found in the maintained areas include; fescue (Festuca sp.), English plantain
(Plantago lanceolata), bush clover (Lespedeza intermedia), chickweed (Stellaria
media), white clover (Trifoium repens), bittercress (Cardamine hirsuta),
Japanese honeysuckle, violet (Viola sp.), geranium (Geranium carolinianum),
henbit (Lamium officinale), mouse's ear (Heiracium pilosella), Indian hemp
(Apocynum cannabinum), buttercup (Ranunculus parviflorus), tiger lily (Lilium
lancifolium), wild onion (Album canadensis) and dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale).
10
The power-line corridor on the northeast side of the project also has a
shrub scrub wetland associated with it. Plants included in. this area are
blackberry, jewel-weed, swamp chestnut oak, American elm, green ash, red
maple, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), Joe-pye-weed (Eupatorium fistulosum),
black willow (Salix nigra), sycamore (Plantis occidentalis), Asiatic dayflower
(Commelina diffusa), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and trillium (Trillium catesbaei).
3.1.3 Mixed Hardwood Forest Community
This upland forest tract is dominated by species common throughout the
piedmont of North Carolina. Plants observed here include willow oak (Quercus
phellos), sassafras (Sassafras albidium), Northern red oak (Quercus borealis),
rock chestnut oak (Qaercus prinus), black cherry (Prunus serotina), red maple,
hazelnut (Corylus americana), viburnum (Viburnum dentatum), river birch, violet,
Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), grape fern (Botrychium sp.),
blackhaw (Viburnum prunifolium), white lettuce (Prenanthes alba), solomon's
seal (Polygonatum biflorum), and false solomon's seal (Smilacina racemosa).
Wildlife that may frequently use the riparian floodplain community, the
mixed pine/hardwood community or maintained/disturbed communities include:
two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), Eastern
ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), woodchuck (Marmota monax), beaver
(Castor canadesis), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), pine vole
(Microtus pinetorum), mink (Mustela vison), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
raccoon (Procyon lotor), gray squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), and white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus).
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), and the downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens). The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) is a permanent resident in
this community type.
3.2 Wetland Community
The wetland community associated with the site is located in the northeast
quadrant, in the power-line corridor. This area is a shrub/scrub community that is
saturated in some areas contains water stained leaves and shows signs of a
drainage pattern down to the North Fork Little River. The soils from 0-3 inches
have a Munsell color notation of 10YR 4/1 and from 3->12 inches, color notation
is 10YR 6/1 with 2.5YR 4/6 mottles. The soil textures varied from a sandy clay
loam to a clay loam. The vegetation is the same as the plants described in the
Maintained/ Disturbed community under the power-line corridor and the
associated shrub/scrub wetland.
II
3.3 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, North Fork Little River, 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 northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three lined salamander (Eurycea
guttolineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and
northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Fish species that may be located here include American eel (Anguilla
rostrata), redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysoleucas), rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), satinfin shiner (Notropis analostanus), swallowtail shiner
(Notropis procne), mountain redbelly dace (Phonixus oreas), creek chubsucker
(Erimyzon obiongus), Northern hog sucker (Hypentelium nigricans), black
jumprock (Moxostoma cervinum), shield darter (Percina peltata), Roanoke darter
(Percina roanoka), Johnny darter (Etheostoma nigrum), fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), margined madtom (Noturus insignis), yellow bullhead
(Amerius natalis) and creek chub (Semotilus astromaculatus).
3.4 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 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 degradation of 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.
12
TABLE 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Existing Bridge Temporary
Detour
Riparian Floodplain 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.07) 0.2 (0.49)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0-00(0.02) 0.00 (0.02) 0.06 (0.15)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.05 (0.12) 0.05 (0.12) 0.04 (0.09)
Wetland 0.03 (0.07) 0.03 (0.07)
0.0 (0.0)
Totals , 0.11 (0.26) 0.11 (0.26) 0.3 (0.73)
Values cited are in hectares (acres)
T
¦ Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific
community due to rounding of significant digits.
¦ Wetland impacts for Alternate 1 and 2 were subtracted from the.
Maintained/Disturbed Community.
¦ Alternate 1 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the removal of existing Bridge No. 26 and adjacent roadway
approaches in approximately the same location for the Triple barrel 12' x 10'
reinforced concrete box culvert.
¦ Alternate 2 values indicate both temporary and permanent impacts
associated with the removal of existing Bridge No. 26 and adjacent roadway
approaches in approximately the same location for the new replacement triple
barrel 12'x 10' reinforced concrete box culvert.
¦ Alternate 2 Temporary Detour values indicate both temporary and
permanent impacts for the removal of the temporary triple barrel 72"
corrugated steel pipe structure and associated roadway.
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as
nesting and sheltering habitat for a variety of wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 26
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 0.11 ha
(0.26 ac). Alternate 2 will result in 0.11 ha (0.26 ac.) of permanent impacts and
0.3 ha (0.7 ac.) of temporary impacts to the project area, most of which is in
riparian floodplain area. 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.
13
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-
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).
14
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 one-wetland areas located within the project study area.
The biological and physical aspects of shrub/scrub wetland that is located in the
power-line corridor are discussed in previous sections of this report.
The North Fork Little River 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 North Fork Little River are presented in
previous sections of this report.
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 80 linear feet.
Surface water impacts for Alternate 2 have been determined to be 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 is the potential that components of *the deck associated with Bridge
No. 26 will be dropped into waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting
temporary fill associated with Bridge No. 26 is 13 m3 (17 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
15
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
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.
1
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. Avoidance
cannot be reached because of the replacement of the existing bridge, which will
affect Waters of the United States.
16
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.
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 wetland or stream mitigation will probably not be required
for the project. Estimated unavoidable stream impacts under Alternate 1 and
Alternate 2 fall below compensatory mitigation levels required by the regulatory
agencies. Compensatory mitigation for wetlands will not be required because
the jurisdictional wetland falls below compensatory mitigation levels required by
regulatory agencies. 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.
17
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 five
federally protected species for Orange County.
Table 2. Federally-Protected Species for Ora
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E**
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel E
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E*
Isotria medeoloides Small-whorled pogonia T
Rhus michauxii Mlichaux's sumac - E
"E"--An Endangered species is defined as one whose continued existence as a
viable component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T'--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Denotes an obscure record (the date and/or location of observation is
obscure).
"*" Denotes no specimen from Orange County found in the past fifty years.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely
black and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male.
The back of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and
underside of this woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a
large white cheek patch surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pious palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must
contain at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other
stands to be appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in
trees that are > 60 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30
years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 200.0 hectares (500.0
acres). This acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
+ I 18
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in
trees that are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities
are located in colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and
average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50 ft) high. A large incrustation of running sap that
surrounds the tree can identify them. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION .................................................NO EFFECT
Suitable nesting and foraging habitat for the RCW, in the form of old
growth pine forest, is not located in the project study area. There were no pines
of sufficient size and density located in the project study area or nearby vicinity.
A review of NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
known populations of RCW within1.0 km (1.0 mi.) of the project study area. This
project will not effect the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Alasmidonts heterodon (dwarf wedge. mussel) E
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: March 14, 1990
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell
noted by two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The
periostracum (outer shell) is olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre
(inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
Known populations of the dwarf wedge mussel in North Carolina are
found in Middle Creek and the Little River of the Neuse River Basin and in the
upper Tar River and Cedar, Crooked, and Stony Creeks of the Tar River system.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable silt free streambed with well-oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ................................................... NO EFFECT
There is a stream on the project site, which is North Toe of the Little River.
NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge and Jared Gray surveyed for the dwarf wedge
mussel on September 13, 1999. There were no dwarf wedge mussels found in
North Fork Little River. North Fork Little River was a low flowing, and was full of
sediment, which does not provide suitable habitat for the dwarf wedge mussel. A
review of NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats revealed no
known populations of dwarf wedge mussel withinl.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project
study area. The biological conclusion of no effect will be used for dwarf wedge
mussel is due to a lack of suitable habitat.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991
Flowers Present: June - early July
19
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or
branched rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal
leaves are the largest, and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to
the base and elliptical to broadly lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no
petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves. Flowers are light pinks to
purplish in color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop. Fruits are gray-
brown, oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open
woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts,
and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil'derived from calcareous
parent material. North Carolina populations are found in soils derived from
Diabase, a circumneutral igneous rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant
sunlight and little competition from other herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ............. :..................................... NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower does exist in the project area (i.e.
roadside shoulder and power-line easement). NCDOT biologists Chris Murray
and Jared Gray conducted a plant-by-plant survey on June 29-, 7999. Prior to
conducting this survey, a known smooth coneflower population was visited to
familiarize us with the species. Survey methodology involved 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 habitat was located, no smooth coneflower was found
anywhere within the project study area. The NCNHP database of rare species
and unique habitat does not list any populations of smooth coneflower within the
1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of the project study area. Therefore, this project will not impact
smooth coneflower.
Isotria medeoloides (small whorled pogonia)
Plant Family: Orchidaceae
Federally Listed- September 10, 1982
Flowers Present: mid May-mid June
Small whorled pogonia is a perennial orchid having long pubescent roots
and a hollow stem. Stems terminate in a whorl of five or six light green, elliptical
leaves that are somewhat pointed. One or two light green flowers are produced
at the end of the stem. Flowers of small-whorled pogonia have short sepals.
The small whorled pogonia grows in "second growth deciduous" or
deciduous-coniferous forests, with an open canopy, open shrub layer, and
sparse herb layer. It prefers acidic soils. Flowering is inhibited in areas where
there is relatively high shrub coverage or high sapling density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ................................................... NO EFFECT
20
On May 10, 1999, NCDOT biologists Tim Savidge and Jared Gray
preformed a plant by plant survey within the project boundaries. There were no
specimens of small-whorled pogonia found during this survey. Although in mixed
hardwood community there was slope that had potential habitat, most of the
project did not have ideal conditions. Review of the NCNHP database of rare
species and unique habitat does not list any populations of small-whorled
pogonia within 1.6km (1.0 mi.) of the project study area. Given the lack of ideal
habitat and the fact that none were found during the field search. This project will
not impact small-whorled pogonia.
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Plant Family: Anacardiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1989
Flowers Present: June
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases
of the leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate.
The flowers of Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-
pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is
dependent on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat.
It usually grows in association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy
loams. Michaux's sumac grows only in open habitat where it can get full
sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete well with other species, such as
Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ..................................................NO EFFECT
A plant by plant survey for Michaux's sumac was conducted in the project
study area on June 29, 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 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 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, eleven Federal Species of
Concern (FSC) listed for Orange 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
21
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 Orange County
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Etheostoma collis lepidinion Carolina darter SC YES
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse SR YES
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater T/PE YES
Diacyclops jeanel!/ putei Carolina well diacyclops SR* NO
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T YES
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T YES
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E YES
Toxolasma pullus Savanna lilliput T YES
Juglans cinerea Butternut W5 YES
Monotropis odorata Sweet pinesap C YES
Plagiochila columbiana A liverwort W2 YES
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable
component of the State's flora is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species
within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
"SC"-A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be
taken or collected and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions
of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes (animals) and the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be
sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or
Endangered.
"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.
22
"SR"--A Significantly Rare 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 generally more common elsewhere in its range, occurring
peripherally in North Carolina.
"W2"--A Watch Category 2 species is a rare to uncommon species in North
Carolina, but is not necessarily declining or in trouble.
"W5"-A Watch Category 5 species is a species with increasing amounts of
threats to its habitat; populations may or may not be known to be declining.
'/P_"--denotes a species which has been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but has not yet completed
the listing process.
* -- 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. Please contact me if yo4 have any
further questions regarding the project.
5.0 References
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Checklist of North American Birds (6th
ed.). Lawrence, Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
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 Oniversity of North
Carolina Press.
23
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 ofk.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.
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.