20010995 Ver 1_Complete File_20010703

O?OF W AT ,9QG Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary -
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
r Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
>_ y Acting Director
p Division of Water Quality
July 16, 2000
Richmond County
DWQ Project No. 01-0995
TIP Project B-2607
Replacement of Bridge No. 29 over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek on US 1
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place
fill material for the purpose of constructing a temporary work causeway for Bridge 29 on US 1, as
you described in your application dated 29 June 2000. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3114.: , -;This.-
certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 33 when the Corps of Engineers issues it.:.
In addition, you must get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead. with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water
Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new application. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or
in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
• Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized for -
stormwater sheet flow.
• Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert extensions.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical.
Upon completion of the project, the NCDOT shall complete and return the
enclosed "Certificate of Completion" form to notify NCDWQ when all work included in
the §401 Certification has been completed. The responsible party shall complete the
attached form and return it to the 401/Wetlands Unit of the NC Division of Water Quality
upon completion of the project.
N. C. Division of Water Quality 1617 Mail Service Center Raleigh, NC 27699-1617 [phone] NC
Customer Service -
.1 800 623-7748
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, 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, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Cynthia Van Der
Wiele at 919.733.5715 or Mr. Ken Averitte of the Fayetteville Regional Office at
910.486.1541.
Attachment
S' c ly
U'
h.D.
cti
e
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville Field Office
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy
[Fwd: B-2607 Replacement of Bridge 29 over Falling Creek]
Subject: [Fwd: B-2607 Replacement of Bridge 29 over Falling Creek]
Date: Wed, 08 Aug 2001 14:47:09 -0400
From: Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
Organization: NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
To: [e-mail]
Subject: B-2607 Replacement of Bridge 29 over Falling Creek
Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2001 11:31:23 -0400
From: Eric Black <eblack @dot. state.nc.us>
Organization: North Carolina Department of Transportation
To: John Hennessy <[e-mail]>,
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>,
Bruce Ellis <[e-mail]>
Cynthia/John:
I have just received the water quality certification for B-2607 (DWQ No. 01-0995) in Richmond County.
Included in the certification letter was a list of special conditions relating to critical areas and WS-III
waters of the state. Falling Creek is a Class C stream (index no. 13-39-12(10)) at the proposed
construction site as I have stating in the permit application. The upstream waters of Falling Creek are
designated as Class WS-III CA, however, the water intake inlet is located approximately 2.5 to 3 miles
upstream of the proposed construction site. Additionally, a dam crosses Falling Creek between the
construction site and the water intake inlet. I have no problem with the two conditions relating to the
buffers and the stream dimensions, however, I am curious why the other three conditions have been
included. Please give me a call at 733-1176 so that we can discuss this matter.
Thank you,
Eric B.
Eric Black
Natural Systems Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
[phone]
[e-mail]
Cynthia Van Der Wiele <[e-mail]>
Environmental Specialist
NCDWQ 401 Wetlands Certification Unit
1 of 2 8/8/013:20 P1V.
D?O? wAT FRQG Michael F. Easley -
\ Governor
co William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 16, 2000
Richmond County
DWQ Project No. 01-0995
TIP Project B-2607
Replacement of Bridge No. 29 over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek on US 1
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification with Additional Conditions
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions and those listed below, to place
fill material for the purpose of constructing a temporary work causeway for Bridge 29 on.US 1, as
you described in your application dated 29 June 2000. After reviewing your application, we have
decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3114:.? This
certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 33 when the Corps of Engineers issues it.
In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your
project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Non-Discharge and Water
Supply Watershed regulations. This approval will expire when the accompanying 404 permit expires
unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application except as
modified below. If you change your project, you must notify us and to send us a new application. If
the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of this Certification and approval letter and
is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for this project (now or
in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H.0506 (h) (6) and (7). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the
attached certification and any additional conditions listed below.
• Installation of Hazardous Spill Catch Basins as Falling Creek lies within the Critical Area ofa WS-
III.
• Sediment and erosion control measures shall adhere to design standards for sensitive watersheds
(15A NCAC 4B .0024).
• Non-point source and stormwater management requirements as specified in 15A NCAC 2B .0215
[Class WS-III waters].
• Mowing of existing vegetated buffers is strongly discouraged, so that they may be utilized for
stormwater sheet flow.
• Existing stream dimensions are to be maintained above and below locations of culvert extensions.
Use of rip-rap for bank stabilization is to be minimized; rather, native vegetation is to be planted
when practical.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (fax), http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/
Page 2 of 2
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, 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, 6714 Mail Service
Center, Raleigh, N.C. 27699-6714. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401
of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please contact Ms. Cynthia Van Der
Wiele at 919.733.5715 or Mr. Ken Averitte of the Fayetteville Regional Office at
910.486.1541.
Sincerely,
Attachment
Pc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Steve Lund, USACE, Asheville Field Office
Ken Averitte, DWQ Fayetteville Regional Office
Central Files
File Copy

401 ISSUED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTIVI W OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GovERNOR SECRETARY
June 29, 200 ,,.r
Mr. David Timpy r
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 0109,95
ATTN: Dave Timpy
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 29 over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek on U. S. 1. Federal
Aid Project No. BRNHF-001(5). State Project No. 8.1581101. TIP No. B-2607.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 29
over Falling Creek (DEM Index # 13-39-12(10)), a "Class C" waters of the state. The proposed project will
consist of replacing the current bridge with a 320 ft long and 74 ft wide bridge at the existing location. All
traffic will be maintained on-site using staged construction of the new bridge.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACT'S
Stream impacts associated with the proposed project will consist of 0.028 acres of temporary fill
associated with the construction of a temporary work causeway. Bridge No. 29 is composed of reinforced
concrete piers, girders, deck, and rails. Only a 50 foot long section of the bridge is actually over Falling
Creek and configured such that all components of the bridge should be possible to remove without
dropping debris into the creek. There will be no fill associated with the demolition of the bridge. Bents
used for construction of the bridge will be installed using drill shaft and will not be placed in the stream.
There are no wetland impacts associated with the project.
RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration Plan: All causeway materials including pipes shall be completely removed and the entire footprint
shall be returned to the original contours and elevations immediately after the purpose of the causeway has
been served or as otherwise required by the permits.
Restoration Schedule: The project construction letting is proposed for January 15, 2002, with an availability
date of February 25, 2002. It is expected that the contractor will place Class II riprap in Falling Creek for the
construction of the causeway to be used for bridge construction. The temporary causeway will remain in
place for the life of the project or approximately 21/2 years.
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
q,
Disposal Plan: The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the nprap used for the causeway. All
causeway materials not reused shall become the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required
to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all unused materials.
FEDERALLY THREATENED AND/OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of March 22, 2001, there are six Federally Threatened or Endangered species listed for
Richmond County, North Carolina. A list of the federally protected species and the biological
conclusions are found in Table 1. Two species have been added to the list since the Natural Resources
Technical Report (NRTR) was completed in 1997. These species include the bald eagle and Carolina
heelsplitter. Surveys for bald eagle are not necessary because habitat is not present within the project
area. Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter will be required prior to project construction. A resurvey of
the North Carolina Natural Heritage database on June 11, 2001 revealed no populations of federally
threatened or endangered species within one mile of the project area.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Richmond County, North Carolina.
Common Name Scientific Name Biological Conclusion
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus No Effect
Carolina heels litter Lasmigona decorata 'Unresolved
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis No Effect
Short nose sturgeon cipemw &eviy=mn No Effect
Michaux's sumac Rhwmichwxii No Effect
Rough-leaved loosestrife L si nzbia aVmdaefq&i No Effect
*A survey for Carolina heelsplitter will be conducted prior to construction.
NEPA DOCUMENT STATUS/REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE), Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR), Preconstruction Notification Form (PCN), and permit drawings for the
proposed project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 (65 Federal Register 12817, 12899;
March 9, 2000). Additionally, a request is made to the Division of Water Quality by copy of this application
for the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at (919)
733-1176.
Sincerely, ;
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Design
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design Mr. David Henderson, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. Bill Rosser, P. E., Division 8 Engineer Mr. John Williams, Project Development

Office Use Only: Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
Fj Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
F-I Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 33
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:
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
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: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 3 of 12
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: Replacement of Bridge No. 29 over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek on U. S. 1.
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-2607
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Richmond Nearest Town: Rockingham
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(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:
Urban area (Downtown Rockingham NC)
7. Property size (acres):
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Falling Creek (Class C)
9. River Basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
(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.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 4 of 12
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: Public Transportation
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project:
Heavy duty construction equipment.
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Urban land use.
IV. 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.
N/A
V. 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
VI. 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
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 5 of 12
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***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
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 littp://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: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
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)
1 temporary Falling Creek Perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-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 internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone:com,
www.mapquest.corn, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Y5 4
Page 6 of 12

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.)
N/A

List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts mctuae, out are not nmitea to: nu, excavation, ureugutg,
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): E] uplands F-1 stream E] wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. 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.
Tonographv adiacent to the site and the presence of parked rail cars preclude access to the
stream floodplain by any other means Impacts will result from a temporary causeway.
Page 7 of 12
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
ide.htmL
http://li2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmy
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.
Impacts are temporary, no mitigation is required.
Page 8 of 12
It
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 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
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): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
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 ?
X. 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 213 .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Page 9 of 12

Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
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 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 3U teet perpendicular from near banx of cnannei; Lone L extends 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.
N/A
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.
N/A
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 ? No
Page 10 of 12
XIV. 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).
No fish moratoriums are required for the proposed project.
US Army Corps Of Engineers Field Offices and County Coverage
Asheville Regulatory Field Office Alexander Cherokee Iredell Mitchell
US Army Corps of Engineers Avery Clay Jackson Polk
151 Patton Avenue Buncombe Cleveland Lincoln Rowan
Room 208 Burke . Gaston Macon Rutherford
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 Cabarrus Graham Madison Stanley
Telephone: [phone] Caldwell Haywood McDowell Swain
Fax: [phone] Catawba Henderson Mecklenburg Transylvania
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office Alamance Durham Johnston Rockingham
US Army Corps Of Engineers Alleghany Edgecombe Lee Stokes
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road Ashe Franklin Nash Surry
Suite 120 Caswell Forsyth Northampton Vance
Raleigh, NC 27615 Chatham Granville Orange Wake
Telephone: [phone] Davidson Guilford Person Warren
Fax: [phone] Davie Halifax Randolph Wilkes
Washington Regulatory Field Office Beaufort Currituck Jones
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bertie Dare Lenoir
Post Office Box 1000 Camden Gates Martin
Washington, NC 27889-1000 Carteret* Green Pamlico
Telephone: [phone] Chowan Hertford Pasquotank
Fax: [phone] Craven Hyde Perquimans
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office Anson Duplin Onslow
US Army Corps Of Engineers Bladen Harnett Pender
Post Office Box 1890 Brunswick Hoke Richmond
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 Carteret Montgomery Robeson
Telephone: [phone] Columbus Moore Sampson.
Pitt
Tyrrell
Washington
Wayne
Union
Watauga
Yancey
Wilson
Yadkin
*Croatan National Forest Only
Page 11 of 12
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
74 ( 1405

BEGIN
PROJECT
Midwa R?
1124
110-3//t
I
L
ROCKINGH#AA
m
m
1419
Rd.
S. F oY e? 1497
14 77 W
Fa?K1tn Sfi.
1 oc 1648 END
N. a,,,-PROJECT
h
ff- a
Vi 1293 \ Bi-°va
i qL
a
h 74
1956 Rockingham Quad Map Phoforevised In 1982
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY RICHMOND COUNTY
MA PLS PROTECT: 8.1581101 (8-2607)
BRIDGE NO. 29 ON US 1 OVER
FALLING CREEK & CSX RR
SHEET I OF
rr
aQ
LL.
ao
x~
In =
U
V V)
O Q
f'r ?i;:
ow
c U)
U wa
1- U
O
I?
U I
z
r
z
a
O '-
Q
a
CREEK
V)
UNG
W FAL
0
J
2
V -

z
a.
0
M
z
Z
Q
0 w
0
0
O X
5 & BR??
1 REE
_I

I
? Q) .

® ?
x v 0 ?I
o
0
®
06 0, W
0

1
® U
Z

I v u ?
z N
I > ® ?a w

ti
i
Qo+Ll
0
??
c It
e.l
a

I CcMl) NO/IV007
1N38
S C.I.P. F.M. F S S -
?6" gUCTILE IRON
V
I
f ?
U
?I z
1

?I a

V
?I
0

I 4
/I
L'

0 0 0 0 o z o
? N N O ? ® w cZ ,?
-
?
N N N F
?
' ? c ?
?4 ? °
® z

0 U
Z z L
I
H I M \ 1 1 1 1 1 1 1111 1 1 0 A ° ® W
®
o
®
® z % EH ® U
® x z
z
w ® ?a W
U A at

0 z
0
0

u

U
?

LC7

L O

O
O O
Ln
O O O O O Ln
r ?
N N
N N O
n
J rn N

®

..

W 0

® Z ?U
o
W x U
Ca
.
W
? E°' ®
® ?
od
c°,i
ue
/
L
L
U>-
,
a U II/n,? I Y I z
-

® 1
d
lei
z
® x

U s
,
du
z

I
rr
0Q- U W 0
wz
OL w ® 0 w
W U)
CL U) U0 Un
U A
u A

x
:2 za I rig
W Q _J 0 o
W
I z
I- U U I`? CC)
? I
I
I

b
I

o W
o F--
o Q
W
o U
Q
Cr

z`-'

i LL-
W
U cn
00
? °0

Ln
_
?-
W
tn (n ^ ? J

z m W Q
f-
Q°
?
o
J 00
U W z
CL C7)
0- -
o
LL>

-
w
z r)
CL ::Eo

?a om
t
PROPERTY
NUMBER NAME
Ann Jordan OWNERS
ADDRESS
2984 Harlinsdale Dr.
Rock Hill, S.C. 297374

2 Childers Sind 118 Central Ave.
_
Company Inc. Rockingham, N.C. 28374

3 CSX Railway P.O. Box 45052
Jacksonville, FL 32232

N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RICHMOND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1581101 (B-2607)
BRIDGE NO. 29 ON US I OVER
FALLING CREEK & CSX RR
SHEET 5 OF 5 05151101

ATTACHMENT) 46
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION AND NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
010995
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2607
State Project No. 8.1581101
Federal-Aid Project No.: BRNHF-001(5)
A. Project Description
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 29 on US I over CSX Railroad and Falling
Creek in Richmond County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge measuring 98
meters (320 feet) in length and 22.5 meters (74 feet) in width. This will provide a 18.3
meter (60 foot) travelway, 0.6 meter (2 foot) offsets on each side and a 1.5 meter (5 foot)
sidewalk on each side. The approach roadway will be a 19.5 meter (64 foot) curb and
gutter facility. The approach roadway will also have sidewalks on both sides. Traffic will
be maintained on-site through the use of staged construction of the new bridge.
B. P_u=se and Need:
Bridge No. 29 has a sufficiency rating of 20.3 out of 100. The existing bridge is
only wide enough for four traffic lanes, which does not met the traffic capacity needs of
the US 1/US 74 intersection. -The vertical clearance for trains under the bridge is
substandard. For these reasons Bridge No. 29 needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking weaving,
turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes, including
safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)

lp
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 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
® 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.
2

. i
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when located in
a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is adequate street
capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such construction is
not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land acquisition
loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and protective buying will be
permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types
of land acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
D. Spccial Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
1. All standard measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize environmental
impacts.
2. In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps
of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will be applicable for this project.
3. A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401
Water Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23.
4. A moratorium on in-water construction may be required for the months of April
and May; if bents for the proposed bridge are required in Falling Creek.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 3,050,000
Right of Way $ 440.000
Total $ 3,490,000
3
o?
Y
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 14,100 VPD
Year 2020 - 15,000 VPD
Note: The 2020 traffic projection assumes that two major projects in the area and
completed. They are the US 1 Bypass (R-2501) and US 74 Bypass (R-512).
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The approach roadway will be a 19.5 meter (64 foot) curb and gutter facility. The
approach roadway will also have sidewalks on both sides.
Design Speed: .
65 km/h (40 mph)
Functional Classification:
US 1 is classified as an Urban Other Principal Arterial Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports the chosen alternate and proposed method of
maintaining traffic operations.
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 F-1 X
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of permanent
and/or temporary wetland taking less than one-third (1/3) acre ?
and have all practicable measures to avoid and minimize x
takings. been evaluated?
4

(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands ? a
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely impacted
by proposed construction activities? F-1
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water ?
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States in any
of the designated mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage tanks
(UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
F1
F-1
X
X
X
X
X
YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the project
-
significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area of F
1 X
Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act resources? F-l 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? F
1 X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
F-
changes? 1 X
SOCIAL , ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RF.gOURC ES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned growth or

land use for the area? 6 ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or business?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way. acquisition considered minor? X
5
? A
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of any adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local X
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? -
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan and/or
Transportation Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in x F
conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) and
will all construction proposed in association with the bridge ?
replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? 1:1 X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for or 1:1
listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history ? X
(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 X
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act of 1966, X
as amended?
6
T
(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? 1:1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 16 on page 5: Two businesses will require relocation due to the proposed right-
of-way impacting the available parking for both. A small business northeast of the bridge will
lose what little parking it has. A restaurant southwest of the bridge may lose enough of it's
available parking to require relocation and is being included as a relocation at this point.
7

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.: - B-2607
State Project No. 8.1581101
Federal-Aid Project No.: - _BRNHF-001(5)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 29 on US 1 over CSX Railroad and Falling
Creek in Richmond County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge measuring 98
meters (320 feet) in length and 22.5 meters (74 feet) in width. This will provide a 18.3
meter (60 foot) travelway, 0.6 meter (2 foot) offsets on each side and a 1.5 meter (5 foot)
sidewalk on each side. The approach roadway will be a 19.5 meter (64 foot) curb and
gutter facility. The approach roadway will also have sidewalks on both sides. Traffic will
be maintained on-site through the use of staged construction of the new bridge.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II (A)
x_ TYPE II (B)
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
9-25-97 miayhe G-??a?
Date Project Planning Unit Head
4. 1:M. x AdMt-= 6-
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
9-30-q7
Date tivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
toll 11111i
,%`??H GAR9Z
O ..,....•ti. 4'
?QUO ?9`
1077
'?•'? T. G0OO .?,
,,'?ffnfnllllt??`?
8
V ?3

N
••
North Carolina Department of
?. Transportation
?q Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Richmond County
Replace Bridge No. 29 on US 1
Over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek
B-2607
Figure One I
V

64-) . /- -a/ 01-t
- 6)(Xx L'.:?-1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 30, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue .
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 29 on US 1 over CSX RR &
Falling Creek, Richmond County, B-2607,
Federal Aid Project No. BRNHF-001(5), State
Project 8.1581101, ER 97-7248
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 5, 1996. However, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) on September 20, 1996, to
discuss the project and view the project photographs and aerial.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the National Register-listed Richmond
County Courthouse and Rockingham Historic District are located within several
blocks of bridge 29. In addition, there are several commercial buildings over fifty
years of age within the general project area. We recommend that an architectural
historian with NCDOT determine the project's area of potential effect and conduct a
survey of historic architectural resources within it.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
gft
. 1
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,
r ?
Da ' ok
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: u-< F. Vick
C. Bruton ;
T. Padgett
Rockingham Historic Preservation Commission
RELOCATION REPORT
s
EIE.I.S. [D CORRIDOR F? DESIGN

PROJECT: 8.1581101 COUNTY Richmond Alternate 1 of 1 Alternate
I.D. NO.: B-2607 F.A. PROJECT BRNHF-001 5
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replacement of Bridge #29 on US 1 over CSX RR and Falling Creek,
Rock-in ham
.
.. ...............
:.::::: :.
EST?LifAfED.D15 l: lCEES. :;:;:.:.:::::::....

:::....:........ .
................ ... ....
Type of
I
Displacees Owners Tenants Total Minorities 0-15M 15-25M 35-50M
25-35M 50 UP
Residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Businesses 1 1 2 0 . :[ VALUE GF wEL UNG .: ......: :::::DSSUwE avfuuu3ce ....
Farms 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
Non-profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M $0-150 0-20M $0450
_ _ ......................................... 2040M 150-250 20•40M 150-260
Yes No Explain all OYES' answers. 40-70M 250400 40-70M 250.400
X I. Will special relocation services be necessary 7 70-100m 400-600 70-100M 400600
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 600 up 100 uv Goo ur
displacement? TOTAL
X 3. Will business services soil be available after : ........... : .. ES (Re§ nd by luumbe :: a... -:
........................

.......................
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, 3. There will be many other restaurants and some other
indicate size, type, estimated number of chiropractic businesses even if these two decided not
employees, minorities, etc. to reopen at new locations.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
$< 6. Source for available housing (list). 4. A. Holiday Restaurant, a large and busy restaurant,
na 7. Will additional housing programs be needed? employs perhaps 15-20, some minority. They may
na 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered? have enough parking to stay then:, but it is
na 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc. doubtful.
............:....
:.,.:
families?
(B) Rockingham Chiropractic Center will lose 6 of 10
.
na 10. Will public housing be needed for project? parking spaces and would probably need to
na 11 . Is public housing available? relocate. Employs 2-4.
na 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period? 14. Commercial brokers indicate many buildings are
na 13. Will there be a problem of housing within available in the Rockingham area.
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
.. 15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? 8 -10

?6? 9
...,:... - 3-s 7
97`
19
A.M. Simpson 1
-
-
Relocation Agent Date : Approved b Date
? /7 ii 17?. • ? I-
V C.
North Carolina Department oil; 11prisportation
AREA RELOCATIOWOFFt?E

Form 15.4 Revised 02195 d umgirm a1 1 %OOP/. JlalC mempuaIIurg M961 IL
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
?s
Replacement of Bridge No. 29
over CSx Railroad and Falling Creek on US 1
Richmond County
TIP No.: B-2607
F.A. Project No.: BRNHF-001(5)
State Project no.: 8.1581101
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2607
Michael J. Baranski
Consulting Biologist
Department of Biology
Catawba College
Salisbury, NC 28144
February 20, 1997
., '
MICHAEL J. BARANSKI
Academic Background
B.S. in biology and chemistry. West Liberty State College, W.Va., 1968.
Ph.D. in botany and ecology (minor work in wildlife biology, forestry and
genetics). North Carolina State University, 1974.
Professional Experience Summary
Currently Professor of Biology at Catawba college in Salisbury, N.C., where
he has been since 1974 and served as Biology Department Chair from 1986-89. He
has held visiting faculty appointments at North Carolina State University
(1973/74, 1982), Rocky Mountain Biological Laboratory (1975), Duke University
Graduate School of Forestry and Environmental studies (1978, 1979), University
of North Carolina-Charlotte (1988), and the Highlands Biological station (1996).
He has taught a wide range of courses, including biology, general botany, field
botany, plant taxonomy, ecology, conservation of natural resources, environmental
science, and genetics, and he has sponsored many undergraduate research projects.
special interests are in vegetation ecology, floristics, dendrology, wetlands,
natural heritage, and environmental education; a large number of reports,
presented papers and published articles have resulted from his work and that of
his students. From 1986-93, he founded, developed and served as first director
of the 120 acre Catawba College Ecological Preserve (wetlands creation involved).
He was a review panelist for the National Wetlands Plant List Inventory for the
U.S. Fish and wildlife service in 1984. instructor in a Plant identification
workshop for U.S. Fish and Wildlife service personnel at UNC-Charlotte (1988).
Training course on Functional Assessment of Wetlands (WET ii) in 1990.
Past president of the Association of Southeastern Biologists (1994) and the
Southern Appalachian Botanical society (1990, 19.91). Numerous offices in the
North Carolina Academy of Science (1980-89). Professional affiliations with
other organizations, including the Ecological society of America and American
Society of Plant Taxonomists.
Service on several state-level advisory committees and panels, including:
Natural Heritage Advisory Committee (1985-87), Governors Advisory committee on
the Crystalline Rock Nuclear Repository (1986), North Carolina State Parks System
study committee on Biological Resources (1987), Low-Level Radioactive waste
Siting Review Committee (1988), Nongame and Endangered species Advisory Committee
of the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (1986-present). Board of Trustees of
Highlands Biological Foundation (1995-).
Biological consultant since 1982. Biological surveys for wastewater
treatment facilities (Section 401 projects), municipal airport, proposed
hazardous waste treatment facility site; wetlands assessments for industrial
developers. Subconsultant for RUST Environment and Infrastructure (formerly BAKK
Engineers) since 1988 for projects in North Carolina, completing biological
resources assessments and conceptual wetlands mitigation plans for the US 64
relocation from Tarboro to Robersonville (1989) and the Ahoskie Bypass from
Powellsville to Winton (1994). Natural area reconnaissance surveys for the
Nature Conservancy (1985). Completed natural areas inventories for the
Conservation Trust for North Carolina for the Yadkin River Corridor in Davie,
Davidson and Rowan Counties (1993) and for Rowan county (1994). Beginning in
1994, contract work for the N.C. Department of Transportation, conducting natural
resources investigations for small highway projects.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction........ ........................................ .... 1
1.1 Project Description ................................... 1
1.2 Purpose ........................................................ 1
1.3 Project Area ...................................... . 1
1.4 Methodology ..................................................... 2
2.0 Physical Resources .................................... •. 2
2.1 Geology .......................................•• 2
2.2 Physiography and .soils ................................ ....... • 3
2.3 Water Resources ......................................... ....• . 3
2.3.1 Waters Impacted ....................................• 3
2.3.1.1 Stream Characteristics ... 4
2.3.1.2 Best Usage Classification •••• 4
2.3.1.3 Water Quality ............................... 5
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts ....................... 5
3.0 Biotic Resources ......................................... 6
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Types ................................ •.. • 6
3.1.1 Natural Mature Communities ..... 7
3.1.2 Natural Successional Communities • g
3.1.3 Maintained Communities •.• ..... g
3.1.4 Developed Land Types ......................... 9
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna ........ 9
3.3 Aquatic Life ....... ................................... 12
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource Impacts 12
3.4.1 Terrestrial Systems 12
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems ......................................... 14
4.0 Special Topics . 14
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States ............. •... 14
4.1.1 Permits ............................................. 15
4.1.2 Mitigation ................................. ••••..•.... 15
4.2 Rare and Protected species ...................................... 16
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species .................... . 16
4.2.2 Federal species of concern and State Protected species.. 17
5.0 References .......................... 19
1
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is produced to provide
environmental input on natural systems to assist in the preparation of a
categorical Exclusion for a federally-funded project.
1.1 Project Description
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 29 that carries Us 1
over the CSX Railroad and Falling Creek in the city of Rockingham, in Richmond
County (Fig. 1). The existing concrete bridge has sidewalks on both sides and
ties into very short fill sections against the slopes at both ends. The bridge
is approximately 90 m (295 ft) in length and 18 m (60 ft) in width, including the
sidewalks. Us 1 is a four-lane urban primary artery; the paved area is 20 m (66
ft) in width, except over the bridge. 'It is expected that the bridge will be
replaced in-place, with road closure likely. There are suitable alternate routes
nearby to carry the traffic during road closure.
The area under detailed study (study corridor), which should contain all
construction activity, is approximately 258 m (846 ft) along us 1 and 48 m (157
ft) in width as shown in Fig. 2, for a total area of 1.2 ha (3.0 acres).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to describe and inventory the
natural systems occurring within the project area and to evaluate probable
impacts to these systems. Recommendations on ways to minimize these impacts are
also presented.
1.3 Project Area
The project area is defined as the land including the study corridor and
the areas immediately adjacent to the corridor. The project vicinity is defined
as a larger area, extending more or less about 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of
the project area. Project region is the area mr-e or less the size of a standard
7.5 minute quadrangle sheet.
The project region is located on the border between the sandhills Ecoregion
and the Central Piedmont Ecoregion (Omernik 1987) in Richmond county, in the
extreme south-central portion of North Carolina (Fig. 1). The project vicinity
is near the westernmost edge of the sandhills Ecoregion, which covers most of
Richmond county. The Central Piedmont Ecoregion begins in the western part of
the project region. Richmond County is mostly rural, with a population of 44,518
(1990 census). The small city of Rockingham has a population of 9,399. The city
of. Hamlet (population 6,196) joins Rockingham on the east side. Rockingham and
Hamlet are the only two urban areas in Richmond County.
The project area is in a highly-developed commercial zone near downtown
Rockingham. There is a heavy traffic flow through the project area. With one
exception, there are no residential structures nearby. The built-up portions of
the project area are essentially unvegetated. The south side of the project area
includes a restaurant, an auto sales lot, a bakery outlet store, and an auction
company; a chiropractic center and an abandoned used car facility are located on.
2
the north side. Paved parking lots, auto display lots, sidewalks, and grassy
strips are included in the built-up areas. The CSx Railroad, Falling creek, and
a vegetated corridor lies within this commercial zone. The bridge traverses this
corridor (Fig. 2). Included within this corridor are at least two sewerage
outfall lines, an underground fiber optic cable line, and a small overhead
powerline. The area under the bridge, including Falling creek, is heavily
littered with trash, tires, and discarded large metal objects.
1.4 Methodology
Project planning information and aerial photographs were provided by the
NCDOT Planning Unit. Background research was undertaken prior to the site visit.
Relevant sources of site information included soil field sheets for this section
of Richmond County (Richmond County Natural Resources Conservation Service),
hydric soils lists (soil conservation service 1991), USGS.7.5 minute topographic
map (Rockingham quadrangle, PR 1982), geologic map of N.C. (N.C. Geological
survey 1985), and U.S. Fish and wildlife service and N.C. Natural Heritage
Program (Amoroso and Weakley 1995; LeGrand and Hall 1995) data for rare and
protected species. Stream classification and water quality data were obtained
from various reports of the Division of Environmental Management of the N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR).
The project area was investigated on June 14, 1996 and February 2, 1997.
Field methodology conducted by the author involved reconnaissance survey and
evaluation of the biota, natural communities and phygical resources present in
the area. The entire area that included the study corridor and adjacent areas
was walked and inspected, and probable impacts due to construction were assessed.
Plant communities were identified and classified following Schafale and
Weakley (1990). Floristic and faunistic lists were developed, and communities
were mapped. Potential wetlands were evaluated and determined following standard
procedures (Cowardin et al. 1979, Environmental Laboratory 1987, Reed 1988).
With a few exceptions, plant names follow Radford, Ahles and Bell (1968). Beal
(1977) and Whitford and Schumacher (1969) were consulted for some of the aquatic
plants. Animal names follow treatments in Martof et al. (1980); Potter, Parnell
and Teulings (1980); Rohde et al. (1994); and Webster, Parnell and Biggs (1994).
Godfrey (1980) provided useful information on expected animal occurrences.
Common names of birds follow Rogers (1992).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Geology
The project area lies in a transition area between rock types of the
Coastal Plain and the Piedmont. East and south of the project area occur
sedimentary rocks of Cretaceous age in the Middendorf Formation. These consist
of sand, sandstone and mudstones. North and west of the project area, the
geology. consists of metamorphic rocks of the Carolina slate Belt. These are
phyllites and schists that are locally laminated and pyritic, and including
metasediments, metavolcanics, and hornfels. There is some minor rock outcropping
in the project area and within the stream.
3
2.2 Physiography and soils
The project vicinity in Richmond County is located in the transition area
between the coastal Plain and Piedmont physiographic regions in extreme south-
central North Carolina, but site characteristics are typical of the Piedmont.
The landscape is gently rolling, with steep slopes near streams (Fig. 3). Major
drainageways are dendritic. Minor streams are relatively straight in narrow or
non-existent floodplains, but the larger streams have significant meander and are
in moderately well-developed floodplains. The elevation range is from about 61
m (200 ft) near Falling creek to about 88 m (290 ft) on the higher uplands within
the city.
The USGS topographic map (originally drawn in 1956, but photorevised in
1982) indicates several mill ponds or beaver ponds on larger streams in the
project vicinity and region, including one on Falling Creek in the project area.
However, there is no pond on the site at this time, and it has apparently been
a number of years since the pond was present. It is speculated that the mapped
pond may have been a beaver pond that has since been drained.
The soils of the project vicinity are all mapped as upland, well-drained
soils. Except for a small part of the project area on the north side that lies
within a unit mapped as urban Land, the remainder of the project area and most
of the vicinity is in the Masada sandy loam soil series.
There are no hydric soils mapped within the project vicinity. The Masada
series is not indicated as having hydric soil inclusions. However, on the east
side, upstream of the project vicinity, there is a significant unit of the hydric
Johnston fine sandy loam, a soil that is frequently flooded for long durations.
Also, within the project vicinity on the west side (but well outside of the
project area), there is a large unit of Chewacla loam, a frequently flooded soil
that may have inclusions of hydric soils or wet spots in depressions.
2.3 Water Resources
2.3.1 Waters Impacted
The project region/vicinity lies in sub-basin 03-07-16 of the lower
drainage area of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin. The Pee Dee River flows
southeasterly to the N.C.-s.C. state line, draining several ecoregions in North
Carolina, including a small part of the Sandhills. The lower drainage area
includes the cities of concord, Wadesboro, and Rockingham.
Drainage from the project area flows into Falling Creek. The water
resource Index No. for the affected stream reach of Falling creek is 13-39-12-
(10) (NCDEHNR 1993). Falling creek is a west-flowing tributary of Hitchcock
creek, joining it about 1.1 km (0.7 mi) downstream of the project area. From the
mouth of Falling Creek, Hitchcock Creek flows another 9.3 km (5.8 mi) in a
westerly direction to the Pee Dee River. The headwaters of Falling creek begin
about 11.0 km (6.8 mi) east of the project area. Hinson Lake is a large
impoundment on Falling creek about 2.6 km (1.6 mi) east of the project area.
There are no other perennial or intermittent streams in the project area.
The South Prong of Falling creek enters about 366 m (1200 ft) upstream of the
4
project area. West of the project area, a small intermittent stream flows under
the railroad and into the creek. Falling creek will directly receive all of the
runoff from the roadway and construction activity. There is a steep rock-lined
gully on the east side of the bridge that carries runoff from the road above.
2.3.1.1 stream Characteristics
Falling creek is a moderate-size low-gradient stream. Fish (1968)
describes Falling creek in the project vicinity with an average width of 4.6 m
(15.0 ft) in his "Catfish-Sucker" category of Piedmont streams. Such streams are
characterized as follows: over 3.0 m (10.0 ft) in width; moderately deep pools;
warm summer temperatures; varying turbidity; minimum flows over 5 cfs; substrates
of silt, rubble and boulders.
At the time of the site visit in February, the average width of the active
stream was about 8 m (25 ft), within a channel that is about 12 m (40 ft) from
bank to bank. Banks vary from 0.9-3.0 m (3.0-10.0 ft) in height, with the higher
banks sloping steeply and the low banks often deeply undercut, as much as 0.6 m
(2.0 ft). The average depth of the water was about 36 cm (14 in), but there were
some pools as deep as 1.8 m (6.0 ft). The substrate consisted mostly of
compacted gravel and scattered rubble. There were a few log jams and areas of
mucky silt. The stream consistently alternates between well-developed riffle
areas and deep pools. Current speed was swift, as much as 12.8 m (42 ft) per
minute in the pools. The water was very clear, though heavily stained with
organic acids. As noted previously, there was an ugly assortment of 'trash and
junk in the stream.
Though within a definite floodplain, Falling Creek in the project area is
an entrenched stream and not associated with wetlands. The floodplain is narrow,
gently sloping, and rocky in places. East and west of the project area, there
are wetlands in the floodplain.
2.3.1.2 Best Osage Classification
Falling creek in the project vicinity is classified as a Class "C" stream
(NCDEHNR 1993). This section includes the segment from the Rockingham water
Supply Intake, through Hinson Lake, to Hitchcock Creek. These are "freshwaters
protected for secondary recreation, fishing, aquatic life including propagation
and survival, and wildlife" (NCDEHNR 1996). This is the lowest freshwater
classification; all freshwaters receive this classification at a minimum. All
unnamed tributaries carry the same classification as the streams to which they
are tributary. Hitchcock Creek and the Pee Dee River are Class "C" streams.
A section of Falling creek east of the water Supply Intake [beginning about
4.8 km (3.0 mi) east of the project area] is classified "ws-III CA" (NCDEHNR
1996). These are "waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low
to moderately developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater
are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104 and .0211" of subchapter 2B of the
Administrative code (NCDEHNR 1996). This classification requires local programs
to control pollution from nonpoint sources and stormwater discharges. These
waters are also suitable for all class "C" uses.. "CA" refers to a critical area,
"the area adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated
5
with pollution is greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed
(NCDEHNR 1996). Further upstream to the source, the stream is "Ws-III."
2.3.1.3 water ualit
There are no chemical and/or biological classifications (from stations for
chemical or benthic macroinvertebrate (BMAN) samplings) available for the Falling
Creek watershed (NCDEHNR 1989, 1991, 1994). There are several monitoring
stations in the sub-basin. The information on general water quality status in
the region is presented.to possibly give some indication of what the status might
be in the project area.
The Pee Dee River, at a station on Us 74 north of Hitchcock Creek, was
rated "Good-Fair" in 1988 and 1990. There are three stations in the region on
Hitchcock Creek, one at US 74 just north of Falling Creek; these were rated
"Fair" in 1988.
There are three dischargers in the sub-basin with permitted flows greater
than or equal to 0.5 MGD. Two of these discharge into Hitchcock Creek; the
Rockingham WWTP permitted at 6.0 MGD and Burlington industries permitted at 0.9
MGD (NCDEHNR 1989).
Streams may or may not support their designated uses. Support ratings are
available only for the Pee Dee River sampling site. The overall rating is "ST"
(support threatened), with non-point sources of pollutants being most important
(NCDEHNR 1994).
2.3.2 Anticipated Water Resource Impacts
Stream water quality and the designated uses of streams can be impacted by
construction activity. Significant pollution discharges are possible when roads,
culverts, and bridges. are constructed. Construction impacts can degrade waters,
with pollutants and sediment loads affecting water quality from a biological and
chemical standpoint. Because of the generally acute sensitivity of aquatic
organisms to discharges and inputs derived from construction, appropriate ,
measures must be taken to avoid spillage, control runoff, and reduce or eliminate
stream disturbances. These measures must include an erosion and sediment control
plan, provisions for waste materials and storage, storm water management
measures, and appropriate road maintenance measures. Best Management Practices
should be employed consistently.
Table 1 summarizes potential water resource impacts. The surface waters
of Falling Creek are the only water resources that will be'impacted.
Table 1. water resources potential impacts.
Falling Creek crossing ca 48 m (157 ft)
0.04 ha (0.09 acre) in study area
6
There should be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands. Even though the
project area partly includes a small floodplain, sites do not meet the definition
of jurisdictional wetlands. There could be potential indirect impacts to
downstream offsite wetlands. Jurisdictional wetlands are discussed in section
4.1.
Construction of this project should not modify the flow of Falling Creek,
certainly not much more than it has already been modified through past
construction of the existing bridge. streams can be crossed effectively, and
with minimal impact, with application of appropriate construction techniques and
bridge and culvert designs. Careful design should avoid the necessity of any
stream relocation. Erosion control measures will be necessary to protect the
stream,. and all instream activities should be scheduled during low flow periods.
when the old bridge is removed, similar precautions will be necessary to reduce
potential impacts.
There may be some unavoidable negative impacts on the vegetative cover that
protects streams. Increased light levels will result in higher stream
temperatures and modified species composition in affected stream reaches.
Removal of streamside forest affects sediment flux, chemical and biological
transformations, food availability, habitat structure, and dissolved oxygen
availability. sediment deposition will adversely affect aquatic organisms (see
section 3.4.2).
The project, as described, will not impact any waters classified oRw
(Outstanding Resource Waters), HQW (High Quality Waters), WS-I (water supplies
in natural watersheds), or WS-II (water supplies in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds). The project does not lie within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of such resources.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
The biota and natural and secondary communities are more typical of the
Central Piedmont Ecoregion than of the Sandhills. No unusual or especially
significant elements were located during the field investigation, as noted below.
only common names are used in the discussion below after the scientific name is
first introduced.
3.1 Plant Communities and Land Tunes
The natural vegetation of the area may be classified according to Schafale
and Weakley (1990). Most of the land surface is no longer covered in the
original vegetation. The uplands have been cleared and developed. The slopes
are covered in successional vegetation which originally was probably Mesic Mixed
Hardwood Forest. The riparian zone and floodplain of Falling Creek is still
covered with an alluvial forest that should be best classified as Piedmont
Alluvial Forest, but with some influence of coastal Plain small stream swamp east
of the study corridor. This second-growth forest is the only forest type in the
project area, but there are other forest communities in the project vicinity.
The remaining communities are either natural successional types or artificially
maintained types. The types with the greatest coverage in the study corridor and
that will potentially be most heavily impacted from project construction are
Built-up Areas [0.38 ha (0.93 acre)] and Roadway [0.34 ha (0.85 acres)] (Table
2). only small amounts of older natural communities will be affected.
7 ;
For purposes of description, relative importance and abundance of each
species are indicated by a standard terminology. In order of decreasing
importance and abundance, the following terms are used: dominant, abundant,
common (frequent), uncommon (infrequent, occasional), rare. Uncommon and rare
species are sometimes described as being present only. Each stratum in a
vegetated community is usually treated separately. Sometimes, only a general
statement about relative importance is given, e.g., important or not
important. The season of the year during which most of the field investigation
was conducted precluded the possibility of including many herbaceous species in
community descriptions.
Community descriptions are based on observations derived from the general
vegetation in and near the project area. For purposes of discussion and
quantification, eleven communities and land types are recognized in the study
corridor. These are divided into four groups: Natural mature communities,
Natural successional communities, maintained communities, and Developed Land
Types. These communities and land types are described below, and coverage
estimates for each classification are given in Table 2.
3.1.1 Natural Mature Communities
Alluvial Forest. Sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and river birch (Betula
niQra) are the most abundant canopy trees in this community. Other common trees
include willow oak ( uercus Phellos), red maple (Acer rubrum), winged elm and red
elm (Ulmus alata, U. rubra), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Uncommon trees are
boxelder (Acer neaundo), water oak (Ouercus ni ra), hackberry (Celtis laeviaata),
and Carolina laurel cherry (Prunus caroliniana). Shrubs include frequent Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense), and winged sumac (Rhus covallina) and rare
silverberry (Elaeagnus pungens, E. umbellata) and American holly (Ilex o aca).
Common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia) and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
Japonica) are common vines; crossvine (Anisostichus capreolata) is rare. English
ivy (Hedera helix) occurs near the edge of the study corridor. Chervil
(Chaerophvllum tainturieri) and wingstem (Verbesina sp.) were the herbs noted
most frequently. Several herbs were rare, including fescue (Festuca sp.),
cranesbill (Geranium carolinianum), Indian strawberry (Duchesnea indica), and
virgin's bower (clematis dioscoreifolia).
A sewerline right-of-way on the south side of the creek is maintained in
an open condition for vehicular access. Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum)
and fescue are the most abundant plants; other common plants are Indian
strawberry, mugwort (Artemisia vulaaris), common chickweed (Stellaria media), and
tick-trefoil (Desmodium sp.).
West of the study corridor, but in the same alluvial forest system, there
are some large forest trees. There are several loblolly pines up to 61 cm (24
in) dbh and some very large specimens of cottonwood (Populus deltoides), sweetgum
(Liauidambar stvraciflua), and water oak. On a higher terrace edge where there
is residual vegetation, there are flowering dogwoods (Cornus florida), white oaks
(Ouercus alba), and some large beech (Faaus grandifolia). Upstream and
downstream of the study corridor, there are dense stands of Chinese privet.
Stream. An assortment of plant life occurs in the stream. vascular plants
include occasional water-starwort (Call itriche.heterophvlla), small pondweed
8
(Potamoaeton pusillus), and swamp smartweed (Polygon um hydropiperoides). Algae
were generally abundant, including blue-green algae (Cyanophyta), filamentous
green algae (Chlorophyta), and a red alga (Batrachospermum sp.,:Rhodophyta).
Periphyton were abundant on the rocks in the riffle areas. A few sedges (carex
sp.) and occasional witchgrass (Dichanthelium sp.) occur on some of the sandy and
mossy flats in the stream edge. Aquatic animal life is covered in Section 3.3.
3.1.2 Natural Successional Communities
slope Thickets. This community type occurs on the steep slopes above the
floodplain and adjacent to the bridge. woody plants, including small trees and
saplings, are important. Common woody species are sweetgum, hackberry, sassafras
(Sassafras albidum), chinaberry (Melia azedarach), and redbud (Cercis
canadensis). Rare species are paper mulberry (Broussonetia papyrifera), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), boxelder, and honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos).
Chinese privet is an abundant shrub. Blackberry (Rubus sp.) is common.
Multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora) and Japanese privet (Liaustrum Japonicum) are
infrequent. Common greenbrier and. Japanese honeysuckle are abundant vines.
wisteria (wisteria sp.) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans) are present.
Herbs are relatively abundant on these moderately open slopes. Mugwort is
generally common but abundant in spots. Herbs that are frequently present
include goldenrods (Solidaao spp.), common chickweed, Johnson grass (Sorahum
halepense), and Japanese grass (Microsteaium vimineum) on the lower slopes. some
rare herbs include cranesbill, vetch (Vicia sp.), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), and ebony spleenwort (Asplenium Platyneuron).
Fescue has been planted to stabilize the tops of the slopes in places.
In the southeast corner, a large stormwater drainage ditch lined with heavy
rip-rap occupies a part of the slope thicket. It was included as part of the
thicket.
Successional weed Community. This community occurs in the northeastern
upland section of the study corridor in an abandoned open area. only a few woody
taxa are present. These are Japanese honeysuckle, which is abundant; silverling
(Baccharis halimifolia), which is common; and kudzu(Pueraria lobata) and
blackberry, which are rare. Asters (Aster spp.) and Bermuda grass (Cynodon
dactylon) are abundant. Common herbs include goldenrods, lovegrass (Eraarostis
sp.), and fescue. Rare herbs in the community are rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium
sp.), vetch, English plantain (Plantaao lanceolata), dog-fennel (Euyatorium
capillifolium), pokeweed, ground ivy (Glecoma hederacea), Johnson grass
broomsedge (Andropocron virainicus), and three awn grass (Aristida sp.).
3.1.3 Maintained Communities
open Ruderal Community. This community occurs under a small powerline
between the railroad tracks and the creek, over a sewerline on the east side, and
in an narrow open cleared area on the west side of the bridge. There are several
variants. of the community. All are maintained by regular mowing and/or bush-
hogging. The part adjacent to the railroad tracks was recently bush-hogged to
reduce the woody vegetation, which consisted principally of frequent water oak,
boxelder and Chinese privet sprouts and saplings. Elsewhere, hackberry,
sycamore, sassafras, sweetgum, elderberry.(Sambucus canadensis), and Japanese
honeysuckle are also present. Common greenbrier is an infrequent vine in this.
9
community. otherwise, the community is dominated by herbs. Sida (Sida sp.) was
dominant in most places, and Japanese grass and fescue were abundant. Frequently
occurring herbs were Johnson grass, foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), asters,
broomsedge, verbena (verbena sp.), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia
(L2pgedeza cuneata), American burn (Erechtites hieraciifolia )' sericea,
(ChenoDOdium s p.), goosefoot
p.), wingstem, cranesbill, and morning-glory (IAomoea sp.).
outside of the study corridor, upstream about 18 m (60 ft) to the east,
there is a wet depression in this open community. This is a mucky, emergent
marsh-like area about ,0.1 ha (0.25 acre) in size. sedges are the dominant
plants. Flatsedge (CVnerus sp.), rush (Juncus sp.), and beaked panic grass
(Panicum anceus) are common. Johnson grass and sida are present.
Lawn and open Areas. There are a few areas generally maintained as lawns
or semi-lawns. They are closely associated with the built-up areas. Bermuda
grass was generally most abundant. Fescue and bushclover (Lesnedeza s
common. occasional plants were
present included English plantain common chis ickweed,
field garlic (Allium vineale), white clover (Trifolium re ens
(Sonchus sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), henbit, andblue bluegrass ahsstle
9 (_ P•)
Garden. one area in the northeast corner of the study corridor is
essentially a garden landscape associated with a residential structure that is
not in the study corridor. This area is on a moderate slope adjacent to the
bridge above the railroad track. Included in this area are flower and vegetable
gardens, one large 76 cm (30 in) dbh water oak, and some small fruit trees,
hollies (Ilex sp.), and paper mulberry.
3.1.4 Developed Land Types
Railroad and Ballast. The railroad is a three-track line about 15 m (48
ft) in width. The rock ballast is essentially clear of vegetation except for an
occasional individual of crabgrass (Diaitaria sp.) or cranesbill.
Built-up Areas. This type consists of all the areas that have been
developed for commercial or residential purposes. It includes paved parking
lots, sidewalks, grassy strips along the sidewalks, and the structures
themselves. Some of the parking lots are very weedy and trashy. Plants present
around the edges commonly included wisteria, mimosa (Albizzia julibrissin),
Japanese honeysuckle, mugwort, pokeweed, common chickweed, henbit, and
cranesbill.
Bare Soil. The steeply sloped under the bridge are essentially lacking in
vegetation. They are heavily trashed with litter.
Roadway. This category includes all of the paved highway surface in the
study corridor. The portion of the roadway on the bridge is not included.
3.2 Terrestrial Fauna
The wildlife and other fauna are less easily observed than the flora of an
area without special efforts being expended. Evidence of the typical fauna is
sought through habitat evaluation, casual sightings, and observation of sounds,
10
tracks, scats, dens, and other indirect evidence. Studies of range distributions
are also important in estimating the expected fauna of a given area.
Descriptions of the expected fauna of the project area, given the evidence
available and the human population density and development, are given below.
Those taxa actually observed in the field or for which direct evidence was seen
are noted with an asterisk (*) in the text.
There is moderate diversity of habitat types in the project area, but only
about one-third of the area supports habitat. The habitat types of greatest
extent consist of open ruderal, weed, and early successional communities, both
in the project area and in the vicinity. Forests are the most significant
habitat types in the vicinity, mostly in the riparian zone and floodplain, but
only a small part of the study corridor is forest. The forests in the stream
corridor are all part of one contiguous system. of course, Falling creek
provides substantial aquatic habitat. Ecotonal zones are abundant.
Animal diversity is expected to be considerably reduced because of the high
human presence and development in the area. Overall, abundance of most
vertebrate species is also expected to be low. The landscape diversity in the
area is judged to be generally good for birds of open areas. Avian fauna were
found to be relatively common, but noise levels were high, making bird
observation particularly difficult. There were no ponds or.lakes noted in the
project vicinity, though there are several in the region. Therefore, the
distinct array of reptiles, birds and mammals that frequent lentic environments
is not expected to be important in the project area. The high human development
of the vicinity allows the presence of many species that are tolerant of human
intrusion and that do not require large expanses of natural communities. Except
for the extensive trash and junk, the stream habitats are attractive and diverse.
Based on available habitat, animals are here roughly divided into five
general groups. Four are mostly expected in a specific habitat type, and the
fifth is considered somewhat ubiquitous. The specific habitat groups are as
follows: more o en areas, consisting of successional weed communities, open
ruderal areas, and open lawn and garden areas; intermediate habitats, consisting
of thickets; forest habitats, consisting of alluvial and upland forests; and
aquatic and wet habitats, consisting of the stream and marshy areas. some of the
habitat types are present in the project area, but not in the study corridor.
Those generally ubiquitous amphibians are American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowlers toad (B. woodhousei), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), and
spring peeper (HV1a crucifer). The low grounds in the project area appear to be
good habitat for eastern narrowmouth toad (Gastrophrvne carolinensis) and cricket
frogs (Acris sp.). Treefrogs (Hula sp.) should be common in the wooded stream
corridor. The three-lined salamander (Eurvicea guttolineata), dwarf salamander
(E. guadridiaitata), and the slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus) are expected
in the moist forest habitats. Ambystomid salamanders (Ambvstoma spp.) are not
expected because of the lack of suitable breeding pools in the area.
Among the widely distributed reptiles, those occurring here probably
include the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), rat snake (Elaohe obsoleta),
black racer (Coluber constrictor), rough green snake (opheodrvs aestivus),
eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis, sauritus), earth snake (yirQinia sp.), and
11
copperhead (Aakistrodon contortrix). The eastern hognosed snake (Heterodon
Platyrhinos) might be expected in some of the more open areas having friable
soils. In intermediate habitats, likely occurrences include Carolina anole
(Anolis carolinensis), eastern fence lizard (ScelOpOrus undulatus), eastern
garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern milk snake (Lamproveltis
trianaulum). Typical reptiles expected in the forested habitats are eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina), brown snake (Storeria dekayi), redbelly snake (s.
occipitomaculata), ringneck snake (Diadophis punctatus), and worm 'snake
(Carphophis amoenus).
The avifauna that typically characterize open areas and which are expected
in the project area include American kestrel (Falco sparverius), mourning dove
(zenaidea macroura), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), common grackle (4uiscalus
czuiscula), and grasshopper sparrow (Ammodramus savannarum). An unexpected
northern harrier (Circus cvaneus) was observed in the project area. Birds in
intermediate areas include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), *brown thrasher
(TOxostoma rufum), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis
(Mimus polyalottos), American goldfinch )• northern mockingbird
(Carduelis tristis), indigo bunting
(Passerina c anea), common yellowthroat (Geothlvpis trichas
), and white-throated
sparrow (zonotrichia albicollis). Forest species such as various wood warblers
(Parulidae) are expected to be infrequent only. However, other species such as
*tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), summer tanager (Piranaa rubra), eastern phoebe
(sayornis phoebe), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), American redstart (setophaaa
ruticilla), and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea) are expected.
species ranging through many habitats include red-tailed hawk_ (Buteo
Jamaicensis), eastern screech owl (Otus asio), *American crow (Corvus
brachyrhvnchos), *northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), *Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), rufous-sided towhee
(Pi ilo ervthrophthalmus), ruby-throated hummingbird (Archilochus colubris
bellied woodpecker ), red-
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens),
*common flicker (Colaptes auratus), and *Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis).
Green heron (Butorides striatus) and belted kingfisher (Meaaceryle alc on)
probably utilize certain sections of Falling Creek. *House sparrow (Passer
domesticus), *house finch (carpodacus mexicanus), and *rock dove (Columba livea)
were present. Common starling (Sturnus vulaaris) is expected.
Mammals of open and intermediate habitats include southeastern shrew (sorex
lonairostris), least shrew (CrVptotis arva), long-tailed weasel (Mustela
frenata), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulus), meadow vole (Microtus
PennsVlvanicus), and hispid cotton rat (siamodon hispidus). Those ranging into
forests as well as open and intermediate habitats are southern short-tailed shrew
(Blarina carolinensis), eastern mole (Scalopus aauaticus), woodland vole
(Microtus pinetorum), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), gray fox (Urocyon
cinereoa venteus), white-footed mouse (1eromVg2 leucopus), and eastern
cottontail (Sylvilaaus floridanus). species usually shunning open areas, but in
the intermediate and forested areas, include opossum (_D_idelphis virainiana) and
golden mouse (ochrotomys nuttalli). several species of bats, such as eastern
pipistrelle (Pipistrellus subflavus), Seminole bat (Lasiurus seminolus), and red
bat (L. borealis) are expected to be common, foraging over the stream and
forests. Species that occur mostly in forests include *raccoon (Procyon lotor),
*gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomvs
volans), and evening bat (NVcticeius humeralis). Muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus)
and mink (Mustela vison) should be common in the riparian areas around Falling
12
Creek. *Beaver (Castor canadensis) occur in the area. Evidence of white-tailed
deer (Odocoileus virginianus), a typically mid-successional species, was not
observed in the area, and they are not expected to be present. Introduced rats
(Rattus spp.) and house mice (Mus musculus) are expected to be common.
3.3 Avuatic Life
Fish (1968) describes Falling creek as a "catfish-sucker„ stream; such
streams containing various catfish [Ictaluridae], suckers [catostomidae], and
shiners [cyprinidae]. Fish reports that this section also contains sunfish
[Centrarchidae] and pickerel [Esocidae]. The stream appears to be excellent
habitat for redfin pickerel (Esox americanus), flat bullhead (Ameiurus
platyicephalus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), and small sunfish such as
robin (L. auritus). A number of *eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) were
observed during the study.
Good turtle habitat is not present, but the snapping turtle (Chelvdra
serpentaria) and possibly some sliders or cooters (Chrvsemvs sp.) may be present.
Northern water snake (Nerodia sivedon) is the most likely water snake of the
area.
No aquatic amphibians were observed, but those present should include the
northern dusky salamander (Desmoanathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurvicea
bislineata), green frog (Rana clamitans), pickerel frog (R. palustris), and
southern leopard frog (R. sphenocephala).
Snails or clams (Mollusca) were not found. No evidence of crayfish
(Cambarinae) was noted. *Mayfly nymphs (Ephemeroptera), *caddis fly larvae
(Trichoptera), and *midge larvae (Diptera) were found.
3.4 Anticipated Biotic Resource impacts
3.4.1 Terrestrial systems
The land and community types present in the study area and the surface area
of each type that is potentially affected by direct impact due to project
construction are presented in Table 2. Calculations are best approximations
given the design specifications available and the precision possible in this
study. Area measurements were calculated on aerial photographs onto which the
study corridor was drawn, as described in Section 1.1, and land and community
type boundaries were mapped. with the exception of the slope thickets (possibly
completely destroyed), mostly only the edges of other communities will be
affected, thus reducing in small part the total available habitat in the project
area. Alluvial forest is the most important habitat type that would be affected
[0.06 ha (0.15 acre)]. The community type that would be most heavily affected
consists of open ruderal areas (potentially 0.15 ha [0.37 acre]), but these are
not considered to be as important as the forest. over two-thirds of the study
corridor consists of roadway, built-up areas and other developed land types.
Habitat losses should be minimal, with a reduction only in small part of
the total natural habitat in the project area. Some of the communities will re-
establish themselves following construction. The actual impacts to biotic
13
communities will be less than those indicated in Table 2 because all of the study
corridor will not be utilized in construction.
The amount of direct loss of habitat for animal species will depend on
how much of the study corridor is actually utilized in construction. There will
no net loss of habitat for small animal species and predators and scavengers that
utilize open areas. There may be a reduction in the available habitat for
animals that require forest and intermediate habitats.
Other indirect effects on wildlife population levels and habitat value
should not change significantly. Mortality rates for all species due to road
kills should not increase. The riparian zone of the creek is probably an
important corridor for animal movement. The existing roadway already disrupts
natural corridor movement, so bridge replacement will not introduce a
significantly new factor, except during the construction phases of the project.
Construction damage can be incurred on forest land outside the R/w and
construction limits. such damage can include soil compaction and root exposure
and injury, placing of fill dirt over tree root systems, spillage of damaging
substances, and skinning of trees by machinery. with the exercise of proper
care, such damage can be avoided.
Table 2. Area estimates of community and land types in study corridor.
ha acres
Alluvial Forest 0.06 (0.15)
Stream 0.04 (0.09)
Slope Thickets 0.08 (0.20)
Successional Weed Community 0.02 (0.05)
open Ruderal Areas 0.15 (0.37)
Lawn and open Areas 0.01 (0.02)
Garden 0.04 (0.09)
Railroad and Ballast 0.08 (0.19)
Bare Soil 0.04 (0.11)
Built-up Areas 0.38 (0.93)
Roadway 0.34 (0.85)
. TOTAL 1.24 . (3.05)
14
There should be no adverse effects due to fragmentation of habitats. It
appears that all construction will occur adjacent to and within the existing
roadway boundary.
3.4.2 Aquatic Systems
Increased sediment and pollution from highway construction activity and
runoff pollution after construction are widely recognized as factors that can
seriously reduce water quality. Aquatic organisms are generally acutely
sensitive to these inputs. Any impacts to aquatic systems off-site and in the
project vicinity should be minimal or non-existent, if construction is done
carefully to reduce sediment runoff. on-site impacts are more likely to occur.
There may be some impacts on stream fishes, but these can be minimized if
construction is done carefully to reduce sedimentation and channel alternation
and if no barriers to fish movement are introduced. Any culverts that may be
installed to channel streams can cause behavioral inhibition of movement for some
species.
Removal of streamside vegetation will (1) increase stream temperature and
irradiance, thus lowering available dissolved oxygen and increasing the oxygen
demand, (2) cause a reduction of allochthonous food sources, altering the food
chain dynamics of the stream, (3) increase the amount of sediment reaching the
stream in the surface runoff by reducing the filtering function, and (4) change
the habitat structure in the stream by reducing the amount of insert debris and
number of debris dams. These effects will negatively alter the stream
characteristics for many aquatic organisms. sediment deposition and stream
substrate alteration will have negative effects on sessile benthic organisms and
on breeding sites. sediment adversely affects organismal physiology, behavior,
and reproduction. Sediment deposition will adversely affect periphyton
communities and thus affect stream productivity and oxygen levels in the
substrate upon which grazing benthic invertebrates depend.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
4.1 Jurisdictional Waters of the United States
Highway construction affects wetlands and surface waters by direct taking
and by alteration of characteristics and functions in adjacent areas. Freshwater
wetlands are important because of their habitat value for fish, wildlife and
endangered species; maintenance of biological diversity; food chain support;
nutrient retention and removal; sediment trapping; shoreline anchoring;
regulation of flooding and groundwater hydrology; recreation; their uniqueness
in their own right; and their aesthetic value in some cases. Highway
construction in wetlands has major impacts on their value for these functions.
Wetlands and surface waters receive specific protection under Section 404
of the clean water Act (33 U.S.C. 1251-1376) and other federal and state statutes
and regulations. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) has jurisdiction over
the discharge of dredged or fill materials into these waters and wetlands.
Determination of jurisdictional wetlands were made pursuant to 33 CFR 328.3 (b)
based on best judgement of required criteria (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
15
Surface waters of the riverine system in Falling Creek are the only
jurisdictional waters present in the study corridor, to which construction will
be limited (Table 1). In the NWI system, the waters of Falling Creek would be
classified R2UB1H (Riverine, Lower Perennial, Unconsolidated Bottom, Cobble-
Gravel, Permanently Flooded) (Cowardin et al. 1979).
It is determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are associated with the
stream crossing. None of the alluvial forests or successional lowland systems
in the project area meet the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands. Some
jurisdictional wetlands may be present downstream of the bridge site and
potentially will receive inputs from road construction. A small area of
jurisdictional wetland (emergent marsh) near to and upstream of the study
corridor will not be affected by project construction.
It is difficult to judge the extent of impacts to jurisdictional waters,
except for potential actual takings in a study corridor, until the particular
design requirements are known, but it appears that it will be possible to avoid
significant impacts in project design and construction. (see Section 2.3.2 for
further discussion)
4.1.1 Permits
In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit is required from the COE to discharge and place fill
materials into any jurisdictional wetlands or surface waters affected by
construction. A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 [33 CPR 330.5 (a)(23)]
should authorize this project. This permit authorizes approved categorical
Exclusions i.e. activities "categorically excluded from environmental
documentation" because they fall in "a cate o
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effects nhl henehuman
environment." Individual or General Permits are required for situations where
the criteria for Nationwide Permits are not,met.
A 401 Water Quality certification from the water Quality Section of the
Division of Environmental Management in NCDEHNR will be required for construction
activity in surface waters where a federal permit is required. This
certification is required prior to issuance of the 404 permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
The project may cause unavoidable impacts to jurisdictional surface waters.
There are no other feasible alternatives for crossing Falling Creek at this
point. Impacts can be minimized, as noted elsewhere in this report. However,
compensatory mitigation is generally not required where Nationwide Permits or
General Permits are authorized, pursuant to a memorandum of understanding between
the Environmental Protection Agency and the CoE. If an Individual Permit should
be required for the Falling Creek crossing, all sites (impact areas of surface
and wetland waters) may have to be accumulated for mitigation purposes. Final
discretionary authority in these matters rests with the CoE.
Nonetheless, utmost care must be taken in designing and placing all
structures and roadway in order to minimize impact. Properly installed and
appropriate kinds of drainage culverts and catch basins will help minimize
16
impacts. Appropriate erosion control devices will have to be installed to
prevent avoidable storm water discharges into streams and wetlands, and soil
stabilization measures must be taken as quickly as possible during and after
construction of banks, fills, graded areas, culverts, bridges, and other areas
where the soil will be disturbed. sediment and erosion control measures and
borrow locations should not be placed in wetlands. when the old bridge is
removed, similar measures must be followed to protect the waters from pollution
discharges.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected species
Species classified as Threatened (T), Endangered (E), Proposed Threatened
(PT), and Proposed Endangered (PE) receive federal protection under section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered species Act of 1973, as amended. As of August 23,
1996, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service reports four species with one of these
classifications for Richmond County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federally protected species in Richmond county, with state
category also given.
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME FED. CAT. STATE CAT.'
Red-cockaded Picoides borealis E E
woodpecker
Shortnose A_ciyenser brevirostrum E E
sturgeon
Rough-leaved Lysimachia asperulaefolia E E
loosestrife
Michauxes sumac Rhus michauxii E E-SC
E = Endangered, in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range (or in the state); SC = special concern, requires
monitoring.
The red-cockaded woodpecker inhabits mature, open pine forests, primarily
longleaf pine forests in the Coastal Plain and Piedmont for breeding (LeGrand
1995). The species favors large tracts of old pines, suitable for the
construction of nesting cavities, in areas having sparse understory vegetation.
The woodpecker has been largely extirpated in most areas outside the southeastern
coastal Plain of North Carolina due to the demise of mature pine forests
following logging and the elimination of fire (Lee and Parnell 1989). Old
loblolly pine stands may also be used (Lee and Parnell 1989). The red-cockaded
woodpecker is known from several sites in the nearby sandhills. suitable habitat
for this species does not occur in the project vicinity. Neither individuals nor
cavity trees were observed. Biological conclusion: No effect.
17
The shortnose sturgeon is a marine and estuarine fish of the tidewater and
coastal plain, living in the brackish waters of large rivers and estuaries. It
spawns in freshwater areas, including the Pee Dee River system in Richmond
County. Sturgeons require fast flowing streams with rough bottoms for spawning
(Rohde et al. .1994). suitable habitat for this species does not exist in the
project area. Biological Conclusion: No effect.
Rough-leaved loosestrife is a small slender herb with whorled leaves in the
Primulaceae. It flowers in May-June and fruits in August-October. It is endemic
to the Carolinas, but mostly in the southeastern Coastal Plain in North Carolina.
Pocosins and pocosin/savanna ecotones are the exclusive habitats. This type of
habitat does not occur in the project area. No plants were observed. Biological
Conclusion: No effect.
Michaux • s sumac is a small, dioecious, rhizomatous shrub up to 0.6 m (2 ft)
tall in the Anacardiaceae. It is easily distinguished from winged sumac (Rhos
copallina) by being densely pubescent throughout and having serrate leaflets.
The plant flowers from June to August and fruits in August to October. It has
a limited distribution in the inner coastal Plain and lower Piedmont. The
habitat is sandhills, sandy or rocky open woodlands., and woodland edges. There
may be an affinity for basic soils. Populations have been documented in Richmond
county within the last 10 years. Habitat for this species is marginal in the
project area. No plants were observed. The winged sumac is present. Biological
Conclusion: No effect.
Construction of this project will not affect any federally protected animal
or plant species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Protected species
candidate taxa are not legally protected under the Endangered species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions until formally proposed or listed
as E or T. Cl taxa are supported by sufficient information to warrant listing
as E or T, but they are not yet listed because of the large number of backlogged
Cl taxa. BSC taxa are "federal species of concern," species which show some
evidence of vulnerability and are under consideration for listing, but there are
not enough data to support listing proposals at this time.
North Carolina affords protection to Endangered, Threatened, and Special
concern (SC) species in the state. Plants are legally protected under the Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979, and animals are legally protected under
the N.C. Endangered Species Act of 1987.
There are 15 taxa listed as federal candidate species for Richmond County
(Table 4). They are mentioned here for information purposes in the event they
become federally listed in the future. The state listing is also given. None
of the federal candidate species were noted in the project area.
Most of the taxa are species found in sandhills or other Coastal Plain
habitats, including southern hognose snake, northern pine snake, alrogos skipper,
Georgia indigo-bush, sandhills milkvetch, white wicky, sandhills bog lily, bog
spicebush, conferva pondweed, Pickeringts dawnflower, Carolina asphodel, and
roughleaf yellow-eyed grass. The Sandhills Ecoregion begins a short distance
18
east of the project area, but there are no sandhills communities present in the
project vicinity.
Rafinesque,s big-eared bat roosts in caves, mines, and old buildings.
Bachman•s sparrow breeds in old fields and open longleaf pine forests. The
robust redhorse occurs in the Pee Dee River.
The N.C. Natural Heritage Program database does not include any records of
federal candidate species or any state listed species in the project vicinity.
There are a number of records further west along the Pee Dee River.
Table 4. Federal species of concern for Richmond County.
COMMON SCIENTIFIC FEDERAL STATE amr?saF
NAME NAME CATEGORY CATEGORY HABITAT
Rafinesque-s big- Corvnorhinus FSC SC
eared bat rafinescuuii
Bachman's sparrow Ai.mophila aestivalis FSC SC No
Southern hognose Heterodon simus FSC* SR No
snake
Northern pine Pituophis melanoleucus FSC** SC No
snake melanoleucus
Robust redhorse Moxostroma robust um FSC SC No
Arogos skipper Atrvtone aro os var. FSC** SR No
aro os
Georgia indigo- Amorpha georCl.ana var. FSC* E No
bush georciana
Sandhills AstraQalus michauxii FSC C

milkvetch No
White wicky Ralmia cuneata FSC E-SC No
Sandhills bog Lilium iridollae FSC* C/PT No
lily
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC E No
Conferva pondweed Potamoaeton FSC C No
confervoides
Pickering-9 Stvlisma pickerincii FSC E No
dawnflower var. pickerincii
Carolina asphodel Tofieldia labra FSC C

Roughleaf yellow-
X ris scabrifolia
FSC
C No

eyed grass No
E = continued viable existence in the state is in jeopardy; T = threatened,
likely to become endangered in N.C. within foreseeable future throughout
all or portion of range; FSC = federal species of concern under
consideration for listing, but insufficient information exists to support
listing; C = Candidate, very rare and likely to merit listing as E or T if
trends continue; SC = special concern, requires monitoring; PE = proposed
endangered; PT = proposed threatened; SR.= not listed but significantly
rare in N.C., generally with 1-20 populations.
* = no specimen from the county in at least 20 years. ** = obscure record.
19
None of the federal species of concern were noted in the project area.
Suitable habitat does not exist for the majority. Identifications are difficult
for some of the animal species.
Construction of this project is not likely to have impact on any federal
species of concern.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J. L., and A. S. Weakley. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare plant species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Beal, E. 0. 1977. A manual of marsh and aquatic vascular plants of North
Carolina with habitat data. N. C. Agri. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. No. 247.
Agricultural Research Service, N. C. State Univ., Raleigh.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification
of wetlands and deepwater habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service, Biological Services Program, Washington, DC. Publ. No. FWS/OBS-79/3.1.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands delineation manual.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. Tech.
Report Y-87-1.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A catalog of the inland fishing waters in North Carolina:
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries,
Raleigh, NC. Final Report, Federal Aid in Fish Restoration Project, F-14-R.
Godfrey, M. A. 1980. A Sierra Club Naturalist's Guide to the Piedmont. Sierra .
Club Books, San Francisco.
Lee, D. S., and J. F. Parnell. 1989. Endangered, threatened, and rare fauna of.
North Carolina. Part III. A re-evaluation of the birds. occasional Papers of
the North Carolina Biological survey 1989-5. North Carolina State Museum of
Natural sciences, Raleigh, NC.
LeGrand, H. E., Jr., and S. P. Hall. 1995. Natural Heritage Program list of the
rare animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B. S., W. M. Palmer, J. R. Bailey, and J. R. Harrison 111. 1980.
Amphibians and reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Univ. of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1989. Benthic macroinvertebrate ambient network
(BMAN) water quality review. 1983-1988, Report No. 89-08. Water Quality
Section. Raleigh, NC.
20
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1991. Biological
assessment of water quality in North Carolina streams: benthic macroinvertebrate
data base and long-term change in water quality, 1983-1990. Water Quality
section. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1993.
Classifications and water quality standards assigned to the waters of the Yadkin-
Pee Dee River Basin. Division of Environmental Management, Raleigh, NC.
(Reprint from NCAC: 15A NCAC 2B.0309)
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental management. 1994. Water quality progress in North Carolina 1992-
1993, 305(b) report. Report No.94-07. Raleigh, NC.
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. 1996.
Administrative Code Section: 15A NCAC 2B .0100 - Procedures for Assignment of
Water Quality Standards, 15A NCAC 2B .0200 - Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Applicable to surface Waters of North Carolina, and 15A NCAC 2B .0300 -
Assignment of Stream Classifications. Division of Environmental Management,
Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Geological Survey. 1985. Geologic map of North Carolina. North
Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development, Division of
Land Resources, Raleigh, NC.
Omernik, J. M. 1987. Ecoregions of the conterminous United States. Ann. Assoc.
Am. Geograph. 77(1):118-125.
Potter, E. F., J. F. Parnell, and R. P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas.
Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A. E., H. E. Ahles, and C. R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the vascular flora
of the Carolinas. Univ. of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
Reed, P. B., Jr. 1988. National list of plant species that occur in wetlands:
Southeast (Region 2). U.S. Fish and wildlife service, Washington, DC.
Biological Report 88(26.2).
Rogers, R. 1992. The birds of the Carolinas. International Field checklist
series. Clear Fish, Seattle, WA.
Rohde, F. C., R. G. Arndt, D. G. Lindquist, and J. F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater
fishes of the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. Univ. of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC.
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, Dept. of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Raleigh, NC.
soil conservation service. 1991. Hydric soils of Richmond County, NC.
Technical Guide, section II-A-2. U.s.D.A., soil conservation service, Raleigh,
NC.
.
21
Webster, W. D., J. F. Parnell, and w. c. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the
Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland. Univ. of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, NC.
Whitford, L. A., and G. J. Schumacher. 1969. A manual of the fresh-water algae
in North Carolina. N. C. Agri. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bul. No. 188. Raleigh, NC.
Orman
r Ir
Enaee ?
O?
'R 1 C H MON
220 s-dhas, NK
911RoDadel Mars
1\
North Carolina Department of
r4 .? Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Richmond County
Replace Bridge No. 29 on US 1
Over CSX Railroad and Falling Creek
B-2607
One
•
.
o.r •
•
o?kingham • •
77 ) . 110
NO Hamlet* 0 , .
I 10
II , )d r ?.
u • •
n ', . /.ice S • •
e
111, , ., ? y
f
Il ? /
0101-_ ?? ?'=
00
.lain(/(! ? ? n i •?' ,• h\\ . . ' ;_''ci? ?. ?? ? ?Rr
MNA lit/ e

t 4 ,?IQIYa • • ?j•` .

• 1 ° 136.
a • .?.
Ll/r_` w

de- P 'dik /\ 57'30
W
e a <23 ? W
_ J
a • .; _ ?a1• FF
`` hN
.; c Q 2
t_- ' ta
J
W y?
J
:1!11• d
..•t-0
• •t'4 ' •' '%7
' U . ;30, • j?•!•`•1• SZ,F
i eCf? HiYBon
W
JIR. J
t 'S6
?`? // ••t ••w V,
?. •. ? t al
?' ~m
- i 55'
Figure 3. ?? `
YADKIN RIVER BASIN
Name of Stream Subbasin Stream Index Number Map Number Class
Dutchmans Creek
Dye Creek (Branch)
Dykers Creek
Dykers Creek
East Branch Lick Creek
East Double Creek
East Fork Coddle Creek
East Fork Stewarts Creek
East Prong Little Yadkin River
East Prong Little Yadkin River
East Prong Roaring River
East Prong Roaring River
East Prong Roaring River
East Prong Roaring River
East Prong Rock Hole Creek
East Swan Creek
Easter Creek
Edgison Lake
Elisha Creek
Elk Branch
Elk Creek
Elk Creek
Elkin Creek (River)
Elkin Creek (River)
Elkin Creek (River)
Elkin Reservoir
Ellis Creek
Ellis Creek
Ellison Creek
Ellison Creek
Ellsworth Creek
Ellsworth Creek
Emerson Branch
Emerson Branch
Endicott Creek (Branch)
Endicott Creek (Branch) (Raven Knob Lake)
Fall Creek
Fall Creek
Falling Creek
Falling Creek (Hinson Lake, Great Falls Pon
Falling Creek (McDonalds Pond)
Far Branch
Farbee Creek
Farmers Creek
Faulkner Creek
Featherbed Branch
Ferreltown Creek (Ferreltown Lake)
Fiddlers Creek
Fifth Creek (Five Mile Branch)
Fish Dam Creek (Fishtrap Creek)
Fisher Creek
Fisher River
Fisher River
YAD09 13-2-24 F18SE3 WS-IV
YAD11 13-17-2 E15SE5 C
YAD04 12-98-(1) D17SE1 WS-IV
YAD04 12-98-(2) D17SW3 WS-IV CA
YAD08 12-126-2 E18NE7 C
YAD02 12-67 B16SW6 C
YAD11 13-17-6-1 E16SW4 WS-II
YAD14 13-17-36-9-2 G16SE5 WS-III
YAD02 12-77-2-(1) B17SE1 B
YAD02 12-77-2-(2) B17SE1 WS-IV&B
YAD01 12-46-4-(1) B14NE8 C Tr
YAD01 12-46-4-(5) B14NE8 B Tr
YAD01 12-46-4-(7) B14SE2 C Tr
YAD01 12-46-4-(9) B14SE5 C
YAD12 13-17-24-1 G17NW2 C
YAD01 12-51-2 C15NE4 WS-IV
YAD07 12-119-8-4-1 D18NW7 C
YAD12 13-17-9-4-3 F16NE2 C
YAD05 12-102-15 D16NE5 C
YAD01 12-19-11-4 C12SE3 C Tr
YAD01 12-24-(1) C12NE4 B Tr ORW
YAD01 12-24-(10) C13SW1 B ORW
YAD02 12-54-(0.5) B15NW7 WS-II
YAD02 12-54-(3.5) B15SE7 WS-II CA
YAD02 12-54-(4.5) B15SE7 C
YAD02 12-54-4 B15SE7 WS-II CA
YAD08 12-130-(1) E18SW8 WS-IV
YAD08 12-130-(2) E18SW9 WS-IV CA
YAD02 12-88-(0.4) C17SW5 C
YAD02 12-88-(0.7) C17SW5 WS-IV
YAD05 12-102-16.5-(1) D17NW7 B
YAD05 12-102-16.5-(2) D17NW7 C
YAD11 13-17-6-4-(1) F16NW1 WS-II
YAD11 13-17-6-4-(2) F16NW1 WS-II CA
YAD02 12-63-5-(3) B15NE1 WS-II Tr
YAD02 12-63-5-(1) B15NE2 WS-II&B Tr
YAD01 12-31-2-2 C13NW2 C Tr
YAD02 12-57 C15NE2 C
YAD02 _ .12-6.6._.. Y ....,_ _ u. Ci6NE1.... C.
YAD16 13-39-12-(7.5) H20NW4 WS-III CA
d) YAD16 13-39-12-(10) H20NW4 C
m YAD_16 _ 13-39A12,-a(.LL .._. _ m_, Fi20NW4 ,_WS- I_I .,-•-
YAD12 13-17-17-2-1 G16NE2 C
YAD04 12-106 D17SW8 WS-Iv
YAD02 12-65 C16NW2 C
YAD03 12-72-6 A16SE8 C
YAD17 13-42-2-3 H18NES C
YAD11 13-17-4-3 F15NE8 C
YAD04 12-94-13-3 C18SE4 C
YAD06 12-108-13 D15SW3 C
YAD01 12-35 C13NE6 WS-IV
YAD02 12-84-2-4 C16SW5 WS-III
YAD02 12-63-(1) A15SE4 WS-II Tr
YAD02 12-63-(7) B15NE6 WS-II
Page 8 of 27
NC DENR - DIVISON OF WATER QUALITY 2B .0300
.0309 YADKIN RIVER BASIN
Classification
Name of Stream Description Class Date Index No.
Unnamed Tributary to
Terry Pond (Terry mile upstream of mouth
Pond)
Unnamed Tributary to From a point 0.1 mile
Terry Pond upstream of mouth to UT to
Ledbetter Pond
Hitchcock Creek (Midway From dam at Roberdel Lake C
Pond, Steeles Mill to Pee Dee River
Pond)
Steely Branch From source to Hitchcock C
Creek
/
V Falling Creek From source to a point 1.4 WS-III
(McDonalds Pond) miles downstream of
Richmond County SR 1640
Corning Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III
stream to Falling Creek
Legion Lake and Jenkins Entire ponds and connecting WS-III
Pond stream to Falling Creek
Morgans Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III
stream to Falling Creek
Longs Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III
stream to Falling Creek
Morse Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III
stream to Falling Creek
Robbins Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III
stream to Falling Creek
/ V
09/01/74 13-39-(10)
09/01/74 13-39-11
08/03/92 13-39-12-(1)
08/03/92 13-39-12-2
08/03/92 13-39-12-3
08/03/92 13-39-12-4
08/03/92 13-39-12-5
08/03/92 13-39-12-6
08/03/92 13-39-12-7
Falling Creek From a point 1.4 miles WS-III CA 08/03/92 13-39-12-(7.5)
downstream of Richmond
County SR 1640 to
Rockingham Water Supply
Intake
Hearne Pond Entire pond and connecting WS-III 08/03/92 13-39-12-8
stream to Falling Creek
J Falling Creek (Hinson From Rockingham Water C 09/01/74 13-39-12-(10)
Lake, Great Falls Supply Intake to Hitchcock
Pond) Creek
Baldwins Pond Entire pond and connecting C 08/03/92 13-39-12-10.5
stream to Hinson Lake,
Falling Creek
South Prong Falling From source to Falling Creek C 09/01/74 13-39-12-11
Creek
Ormsby Lake Entire lake and connecting C 09/01/74 13-39-12-11-1
stream to South Prong
Falling Creek
From source to a point 0.1 WS-III
08/03/92 13-39-9-1-(1)
WS-III CA 08/03/92 13-39-9-1-(2)
58