20020448 Ver 1_Complete File_20020319

BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TIP PROJECT: B-3460
DIVISION: Five
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ -1445 (2)
STATE PROJECT: 8.2370801
COUNTY: Granville
ROUTE: SR 1445
DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 198 on SR 1445 over Spewmarrow Creek
PROJECT PURPOSE: Replace obsolete bridge
PROJECT U.S.G.S. QUAD SHEET(S): Clarksville South Quad
ROADWAY CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST .......................................................................... $ 275,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST .......................................................................... $ 28,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ...................................................................................... $ 00,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................................................................... $ 303,000
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 300 VPD; DESIGN YEAR (2025) 700 VPD
TTST 1 % DUAL 3 %
EXISTING ROADWAY TYPICAL SECTION: Two lane shoulder section, 20 foot
pavement, grassed shoulders
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
LENGTH 16.0 METERS WIDTH 6.0 METERS
53.0 FEET 20.0 FEET
COMMENTS:

2 . 6 1443
O ?
i Bullock
i
i
4
1445
i
i i
1444
`
i O 1443 h
i
i 1443 4
N .?
i
1450

1446
Uck

o /gOrr0
Bridge No
198
1442 .
1451 1448

1445 f N
.UI
1447
9 '2
?.' . 8
Grassy 1.3 .5
Crook 9
CO 1400 1431

? Coo, 1' 1435
143 7
O
1436
1432
`
1439
i
L 1433 '
f h
a 2
o • 6 1430
1439 1438 1434
5 to
;
n 1436 c

1300 j S
JOHN I
1505 (b 1506
1
l
1
I
STOVALL
1430 POP. 417
1.5
1432 f ??4
1427
?O 1

?oG ? aka (?,d
rto "ONWAS
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Granfle County
Replace Bridge No. 198 on SR 1445
Over Spewmarrow Creek
B-3460
Figure 1
' ??• . O VII- / ? _-»o- r ??• -
o?};? °_=?? --•r-?? ?.,? NORT_H??1?ROL'IN?
?\ '.. Recre?lloo?rrlrea
x369 Ramp ?'/? - -.?.j., 4.;-i ??•-• _ ?'','-_? ?? ?l?so ? --`a
73
5,3
wl,
(I ID44
J? - ` 1 ?Q(a?\, ? ?? / .t ar lei •? ? -' - .?.? 1 11• I:? •l??i ? ?? •I i ?!
c+t%(I
144
A, 40
.' `J. • ?" -' I ' rt it ? ? / / I
? r \4\Ir•.?11t1 ?F:? r I ???r?„'? '? ??? 1 . 'L-- ??/ ?•i ?? -Jer;, ?^ -
phi' /
/•'f u/a Lick 7 B r a
"'? i_ ,o. _
".Wd 391
J ?/ \ )'`?,, .,//'/ /__?.\ ? ••\'? I ._ ?1 V '?, fit,
ABM ? 1 I ? II I ? ? u V?
J22 x'
B M - I I /
391 ;I 1:6
Royster
^?) JOHN H ERR?_- _ ?em I \ ?J1
RUSER IR \` lu5
396
r) - - _ - - \ - --BM,
Q
C-s
or-
0
C;D
a
v
0
IQ i v
0
00
a
v O
D
D
o
Q
O
0 p
O o
O
4
o °
a o
G
? 0 0
o
a
O ?
o ?
O
CD a
0

U-,4 ST
ATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 7, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
MAR 19 2?.
GROl)4
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
020448
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 198
over Spewmarrow Creek on SR 1445, Granville County, NCDOT Division
No. 5, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1445(2), State Project No. 8.2370801,
TIP Project No. B-3460.
Please find enclosed the Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Action Classification Form
(PCE) and the Natural Resources Technical Report for the above referenced project.
Replacement of Bridge No. 198 will be at approximately the same location with a three-
barrel [13 feet wide by 13 feet high] reinforced concrete box culvert. The proposed
roadway cross section will include two 11-foot (3.3 meter) lanes with 4-foot (1.2 meter)
shoulders. Guardrail will be installed were warranted. Shoulder width will increase to 7
feet (2.1 meter) where guardrail is installed. The total project length is approximately
750 feet (229 meters). During construction, traffic will be detoured over existing
secondary roads.
Summary of project impacts: A total of 0.03 acres (0.01 hectares) of fill, associated with
the placement of the box culvert, will be placed into surface waters. The resulting fill
will impact a total of 67 linear feet (20.4 meter) of stream channel.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 198 contains one span totaling 50.0 feet (15.2 m). The
bridge is composed of timber and steel with concrete footings. The bridge will be
removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. During

construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
Due to the healthy mussel population (Elliptio spp.) in Spewmarrow Creek at the location
of Bridge No. 198, an additional mussel survey will be conducted by NCDOT biologists
prior to any in-stream construction. These findings will be forwarded as soon as they are
available. In addition, the NCWRC has requested notification of the construction
schedule so that they may potentially relocate mussels from the footprint of the project.
All aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we
propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of
March 9, 2000, Part VII, Vol. 65, No. 47, Pages 12817-12899. We anticipate a 401
General Water Quality Certification will apply to this project, and we are providing one
copy of the PCE and NRTR to the NCDENR, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Ms. Lynn Smith
at [phone], extension 286.
Sincerely,
"Ix C_ . &,?;;L
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
l? Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Cc: w/ attachment:
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NC DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. Tom McCartney, USFWS, Raleigh
Mr. David Cox, NCWRC, Raleigh
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., NCDOT Structure Design, Raleigh
Mr. John Alford, P.E., NCDOT Roadway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Burt Tasaico, P.E., NCDOT Program Development, Raleigh
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., NCDOT Highway Design, Raleigh
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., NCDOT Hydraulics, Raleigh
Ms. Karen Capps, P.E., NCDOT PDEA, Raleigh
Mr. Jon G. Nance, P.E., NCDOT Division 5 Engineer, Durham
Mr. Chris Murray, Division 5 Environmental Officer, Durham
or
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3460
State Project No. 8.2370801
Federal Project No. BRZ-1445(2)
A
B.
C.
Project Description:
This protect proposes to re lace Bridge No. 198 on SR 1445 over
Spewmarrow Creek in Granville ?ounty. The bridge will be replaced
with a three-barrel [12 feet (3.6 m) wide by 12 feet (3.6 m) high] reinforced
concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. The proposed roadway cross section will
include two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) shoulders.
Guardrail will be installed where warranted. Shoulder width will
increase to 7 feet (2.1 m) where guardrail is installed. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and tying in to the existing roadway. The total
project length is approximately 300 feet (91 m). 'Traffic will be detoured
along surrounding roads during construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 198 has a sufficiency rating of 45.0 out of a possible 100.
The deck and superstructure of this 42-year old bridge are in poor
condition. Therefore, Bridge No. 198 needs to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are
circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration,
rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding
auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitatin , and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through
lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g Providing driveway Pipes
g. Performing minor budge widening (less than one through
lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic o era ti ons improvement projects
including the installation o 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. Impproving 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
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade
railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitatinj bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, ender systems, and minor structural
improvements
Od 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 ade uate capacity to handle
anticipated bus and support vehicle traf?ic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings
and ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional
land are required and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
2
6%

D
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for
projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and
where there is no significant noise impact on the surrounding
community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance
land acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act.
Hardship and protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels. These types of
land acquisition qualify for a CE only where the acquisition will not
limit the evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for
planned construction protects, which may be required in the NEPA
process. No project development on such land may proceed until
the NEPA process has been completed.
Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 450,000
Right-of-way acquisition may not be required for this project.
However, a construction easement may be necessary.
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 300 vpd
Year 2025 - 700 vpd
TTST - 1 %
Dual - 3%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The proposed ty ical cross section will include two 11-foot (3.3-m)
lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m? shoulders. The shoulder width will increase to
7 feet (2.1 m) where guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 km/h)
Functional Classification:
Rural Local Route
3
Division Office Comments:
The Division Five Construction Office concurs with the
recommendation of replacing the bridge at the existing location while
detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 198 is located on SR 1445 over Spewmarrow Creek in
Granville County. The bridge is mainly composed of timber and steel
with the exception of concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge No. 198 will be
removed without dropping any components into Waters of the United
States.
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 habitat where federally listed
endarigered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1 / 3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service ?
lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely ?
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters D
(HQW)? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
4
{ %
ti
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
?
'
X
s) or hazardous materials sites
tanks (UST
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
e and/or an
t
l
t th
ff
l
y
zon
a
e coas
y a
ec
roject significant
'Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ?
X
(11) Does the roject involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
s
X
resource
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X

(13)
ect result in the modification of any existing
Will the pri
?
?
X
oodway
regulatory
14) Will the roject require any stream relocations or channel ?
(
changes X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned ?
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the roject require the relocation of any family or ?
business X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any
minority or 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
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or
?
land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local ?
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of
?
1990)? X
5
(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 bride replacement project, will the
bride be replaced at its existing location (along the
d in
i
on propose
existing facility) and will all construct
association with the bridge replacement project be
X
contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local ?
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/ properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic
Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which ?
are important to history or pre-history? 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 U. S. Department of Transportation Act
of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water
Conservation Act of 1965, as amended? X
(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 System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
'r,
6
F.
a
E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be
provided below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached,
as necessary.)
Item 2 - Habitat for the Dwarf Wedge Mussel (Alasmidonta lieterodon) in
the form of a stable streambed is present within the project study area. A
visual and tactile search for mussel fauna in the project area did not reveal
any dwarf wedge mussels. A search of the N. C. Heritage Program
database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal any records of
this species in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the dwarf wedge mussel.
Also, Habitat for the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) in the
form of open, disturbed areas is present within the project limits.
However, a plant by plant survey of the project area did not reveal the
presence of the smooth coneflower. In addition, a search of the N. C.
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats
did not reveal any records of this species in the project vicinity.
Therefore, project construction will not affect the smooth coneflower.
Item 13 - Spewmarrow Creek is located within the jurisdictional flood
storage area of Kerr Lake Reservoir. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Operations Branch at Kerr Lake Reservoir has been contacted concerning
this project. The U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Operations Branch
requested information concerning any modification of floodway storage
and additional right-of-way required for the project. Due to the
preliminary stage of design at the time of this document, further
coordination will be necessary during the permitting phase of the project.
However, since the bridge will be replaced in its existing location and
traffic detoured alon90 surrounding roads, right-of-way acquisition may
not be required and od storage may not be impacted.
7
. I
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3460
8.2370801
BRZ-1445(2)
This project proposes to replace Brid e No. 198 on SR 1445 over
Spewmarrow Creek in Granville County. T e bridge will be replaced
with a three-barrel [12 feet (3.6 m) wide by 12 feet (3.6 m) high] reinforced
concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and roadway
elevation as the existing bridge. The roposed cross section will include
two 11-foot (3.3-m) lanes with 4-foot 1.2-m) shoulders. Guardrail will be
installed where warranted. Shoulder width will increase to 7 feet (2.1 m)
where guardrail is installed. Approach work will consist of resurfacing
and tying in to the existing roadway. The total project length is
approximately 300 feet (91 m). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding
roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
3- 22-0°r? U?zc-
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
22.60 wcq n'_
Date Wane Elliott, Project Development Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
7-,22-DO v
Date ren er, Project Development Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
ja-Ar - a?'CO
Date

Highway Administration
8

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Dit6ion of Highuways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Grenville County
Replace Bridge No.198 on SR 1445
Over Spewmarrow Creek
B-3460
Figure 1

5

i
i
1444
i 0 1443
i? 1443
i
?
1446
lrynorr
20 /
/
1442
1451 1448
1445

Grassy
Cro*k 9
W 1400 1431 -,
•
v
?
2•

1437
1436
1.
_ 1439

_
CO
• •6
>
1439 1438
•5
1
n 1436
1
1300

JOHN I
1505 6 1506
1507
1450 s
LICk
0
Bridge No. 198
. I
1447 I
1 /? r
3 \\ /
1.8
STOVALL
1430 POP. 417
1435
/ 1.5
O 1432
1432 • 4
`• 60
1433 ).0
1427
.4
2 1430
1434
1443
Bullock
L
1445
Studied Detour Route
,,-STATE
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 28, 1998
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #198 on SR 1445 over Spewmarrow
Creek, Granville County, B-3460, ER 99-7695
Dear Mr. Graf:
FI ; r,.'
RF.C
-ON
SEC RE', P--
fE
r
?
f Art:tlive`aiid?story
RLTY Gr,1. Crow; Directpr
k & T
--- J
r
On December 15, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
log East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1?
Nicholas L. Graf
12/28/98, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill- Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W. D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett

PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 198
On SR 1445 over Spewmarrow Creek
Granville County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-1445(2), State Project No. 8.2370801
T.I.P. No. B-3460
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and Design
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch WDEA), Roadway
Design Unit, Hydraulics Unit
In the event that right-of-way acquisition is required for this project,
NCDOT will coordinate with the U. S. Army Corps of Engineers regarding the
land acquisition, flood storage impacts, anddetermination of Section 4(f) when
pplicability Detailed design informationshould be furnished to PDEA whe
available. Section 4(f) may possibly be applicable if the following two conditions
exist:
1 Actual Right-of-way (as opposed to an easement) is required.
2; The property involved is determined to have significant recreational
usage.
It does not appear at this stage of project development that both of the
above conditions exist.
Division Five Construction, Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental
Unit, Structure Design Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 198.
Division Five Construction, Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental
Unit, Hydraulics Unit
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for
"Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines" during
construction.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion
March 23, 2000
Page 1 of 1
e ? SiAn'?
M
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 2761 1-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
18 August 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Karen Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
FROM: Susan Brady, Natural Systems Specialist
Natural Systems Unit
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Replacement of obsolete Bridge No. 198 on SR 1445 over
Spewmarrow Creek in Granville County. Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1445(2), State Project No. 8.2370801, TIP No.
B-3460.
This report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) for the subject project. Water resources, biotic resources and
jurisdictional issues such as wetlands and federally protected species are included in this
report.
This project is located in the Piedmont physiographic province, and involves the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 198 on SR 1445 over Spewmarrow Creek (Figure
1). The existing cross section is a two-lane bridge with 6.2 m (20.2 ft) deck width. The
proposed cross section is two 3.3 m (11.0 ft) travel lanes with 0.6 m (2.0 ft) offsets. The
existing right-of-way extends from ditchline to ditchline (approximately 60 feet), and the
proposed right-of-way is 24.4 m (80.0 ft). Project length is approximately 106.7 m
(350.0 ft). Traffic will be detoured along existing roads during construction.
e_

2• (? 1443
6 'lot.
Bullock
i
i
0)
1445
i
i
i
i
i O 1 444
1443 "
NI,
h
? 4
1443
i
i
1450

• 1446
ce-0
Uck .

a arro

Bridge No. 198
1442
1451 1448 \
1 C?
445
?o N
9 "
( 1447 .
? . 8
Grassy
Creek .9 1.3
.5

Q7 1400 1431

coo, 1435
1437 i
0
1436
1432

1439
i
1433 '

1439 1438 '6 1430
1434
•5 ?
n 1436

1300 S

1505 $ 1506
i
r `
I
Kr
t
STOVALL
1430 POP. 417
Cra?n? ' 8
1.
1432
•a
1427
4
AAA North Carolina
i. Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
j Planning & Environmental Branch
00
Granville County
Replace Bridge No. 198 on SR 144
Over Spewmarrow Creek
B-3460
Fi;ure 1

Bridge No. 198 has one span, 50 feet in length. The bridge is composed of timber
and steel with concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge 198 will be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the United States.
METHODOLOGY
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation of the study area include:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle maps (Clarksville South), U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Maps (Clarksville South), and
NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200). Water resource information was
obtained from publications of the NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources- Division of Water Quality (D WQ, 1996) and from the NC Center for
Geographic Information and Analysis. Information concerning the occurrence of federal
and state protected species in the study area was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern (13 May 1999), and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats
(checked 14 July 1999).
A survey for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) was performed by Susan Brady and
Dale Suiter on 24 June 1999. General field surveys were conducted along the proposed
alignment by NCDOT biologists Susan Brady and Karen Lynch on 3 August 19.99, and
an additional mussel survey was performed by NCDOT biologists Susan Brady and Tim
Savidge on 17 August 1999. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were
identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the
following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations
(binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks and
burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
DEFINITIONS
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bounded by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 1.6 km (1.0 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region
is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map.
WATER RESOURCES
Spewmarrow Creek (DWQ index no. 23-2-9-1) will be the only surface water
directly affected by the proposed project. This river lies within subbasin 030206 of the
L
Roanoke River Basin and has a Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Best Usage
classification of C at this location. The C classification denotes waters suitable for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture.
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a basinwide approach to
water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. The basinwide
approach allows for more intensive sampling of biological, chemical and physical data
that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. Likewise, benthic
macro invertebrates are intensively sampled for specific river basins. Benthic
macro invertebrates have proven to be a good indicator of water quality because they are
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, have a relatively long life cycle, are non-
mobile (compared to fish) and are extremely diverse. The overall species richness and
presence of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River
basins are reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and to facilitate
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit review.
There are no benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring sites close to the proposed
project; however, samples taken in 1994 from other streams in the subbasin yielded
classifications of Fair, with moderate diversity and richness.
Fish community structure sampling was done in other streams in this subbasin in
1994. All the sites were rated Good, but some problems were apparent. Evidence of
sedimentation, sometimes severe, as well as the lack of suckers, darters, and other
intolerant species indicated that this may be a stressed system.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake and
estuarine water quality monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of
physical and chemical water quality data. The waterbody's freshwater or saltwater
classification and corresponding water quality standards determine the type of water
quality data or parameters that are collected. Samples from this subbasin indicate that
sedimentation and high levels of fecal coliform are the main problem with water quality
in this area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the NPDES Program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. No registered
point source dischargers are located within a 1.6 km (1.0 mi) radius of the project study
area.
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated as a result of construction activities.
This may include scouring of the streambed, siltation, runoff of toxic substances, and
damage to the stream banks. Impacts to surface waters are best minimized by limiting
earth removal, vegetation removal, and in-stream activities. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control Guidelines
must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Bridge No. 198 is composed of steel and timber, and will be removed without
dropping components into Waters of the United States. NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR) must be applied for the
removal of this bridge.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds
or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
A maintained/disturbed community is present along the edge of the road and
around the bridge. This community includes various grasses such as fescue (Festuca
spp.), gamma'grass (Tripsacum dactyloides), wild rye grass (Elymus sp.) and bottlebrush
grass (Hystrix sp.). Other herbaceous species such as red clover (Trifolium pratense),
wingstem (Verbesina occidentalis), bushclover (Lespedeza sp.), Queen Anne's Lace
(Daucus carota), wild senna (Cassia marilandica), New York ironweed (Vernonia
noveboracensis), yellow sweet clover (Melilotus ofcinalis), white sweet clover
(iVfelilotus alba), dodder (Cuscuta sp.), sunflower (Helianthus microcephalus), joe-pye-
weed (Eupatorium fistulosum), common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), heal-all
(Prunella vulgaris), groundnut (Apios americana), and yarrow (Achillea millefolium), are.
also present. Vines such as poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) are found at the edge
of the woods.
A Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) is found beyond the maintained area.
The canopy of this community is composed of southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), sugar maple (Acer barbatum), northern red oak (Q.
rubra), mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa), shagbark hickory (C. ovata), river birch
(Betula nigra), slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), winged elm (U. americana), red mulberry
(Morus rubra), and redbud (Cercis canadensis). The understory includes bladdernut
(Staphylea trifolia), flowering dogwood (Corpus Florida), ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), eastern redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), fringetree (Chionanthus
virginicus), possum haw (11ex decidua), and nanny-berry (Viburnum prunifolium). Herbs
found in this community include wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), New York ironweed,
goldenrod (Solidago sp.), mayapple (Podophyllum peltatum), false Solomon's seal
(Smilacina racemosa), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), panic grass
(Panicum sp.), St.-John's-wort (Hypericum sp.), and coralbells (Heuchera americana).
Vines present in this area include poison ivy, greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), muscadine
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and Japanese
honeysuckle. Close to the streambank, species that are tolerant of moister conditions
such as green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), silky dogwood (Corpus amomum),
spicebush (Lindera benzoin), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), bellwort (Uvularia sessifolia),
river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), monkeyflower
(Mimulus alatus) and Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum) are present.
One aquatic community, a Piedmont Perennial Stream, is found within project
boundaries. At the time of the site visit, the creek had a width of approximately 6.1 m
(20.0 ft), with a depth of up to 0.3 m (1.0 ft). The substrate is sand, gravel, cobble, and
boulders and there is evidence of overbank flooding into the surrounding forest. Plants
seen on cobble piles in the stream included tickseed (Bidens sp.) and smartweed
(Polygonum sp.). Podostemum ceratophyllum, an aquatic plant, was growing on many of
the submerged rocks.
Terrestrial fauna likely to occur in these communities includes Virginia opossum*
(Didelphis virginiana), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), golden mouse
(Ochrotomys nuttali), raccoon* (Procyon lotor), gray fox (Urycyon cinereoargenteus),
mink* (Mustela vision), white-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus), marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum), southern dusky salamander (Desmognathus auriculatus), spring
peeper* (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog* (Pseudacris triseriata), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene carolina), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta). Insects observed during the site
visit include beetles* (Pelidnota punctata and others), cicadas* (Family Cicadidae),
various biting flies*, and butterflies such as the Eastern tiger swallowtail* (Papilio
glaucas), pearl crescent* (Phyciodes tharos), monarch* (Danaus plexippus), and red-
spotted purple* (Limenitis arthemis astyanax).
Avian fauna likely to occur in this area includes song sparrow (Melospiza
melodia), blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), eastern phoebe* (Sayornis
phoebe), yellow-romped warbler (Dendroica coronata), Louisiana waterthrush* (Selurus
motacilla), yellow-billed cuckoo* (Coccyzus americanus), Eastern bluebird* (Sialius
sialis), American goldfinch* (Carduelis tristis), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus),
ovenbird (Selurus aurocapillus), northern parula (Parula americana), hooded warbler
(Wilsonia citrina), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning dove* (Zenaida
macroura), and pileated woodpecker* (Drycopus pileatus).
Aquatic fauna likely to occur in the project area includes various species of
insects and their larvae, such as mayflies* (Order Ephemeroptera), stoneflies* (Order
Plecoptera), dragonflies/damselflies* (Order Odonata), caddisflies* (Order Tricoptera),
water striders* (Gerris sp.), and whirligig beetles* (Family Gyrinidae). Mollusks which
may be present include mussels* (Elliptio sp.), pea clams* (Family Sphaeridae), snails*
(Physella hendersoni, Helisoma anceps), and the Asian clam* (Corbicula fluminea).
Fish which may be present include rosyside dace (Clinostomous funduloides), bluehead
chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), shiners* (Notropis sp.), margined madtom (Noturis
insignis), pirate perch (Aphedoderus sayanus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), green
sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus), fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare), and Johnny darter*
(Etheostoma nigrum). Other aquatic fauna that may be present include green frog* (Rana
clamitans), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon), and queen snake* (Regina septemvittata).
IMPACTS TO COMMUNITIES
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction may result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are
derived using the entire proposed right of way. Usually, project construction does not
require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities.
Community type Impacts in hectares (acres)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.13 (0.32)
Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) 0.07 (0.16)
Total 0.20 (0.48)
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and
sheltering habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 198 may reduce
habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. Due to the size and scope
of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to terrestrial fauna will be minimal.
However, replacing the existing bridge with a culvert may result in an increase in
roadkill, as there will no longer be a movement corridor under the road.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and
early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the
roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat.
Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable
for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment.
Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-

related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct
impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may
result in long term or irreversible effects. Replacing the existing bridge over Spewmarrow
Creek with a culvert may also have serious effects on the stream community. Culverted
streams are more susceptible to scouring near the culvert, and loss of habitat can
adversely affect benthic organisms.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased
channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream
substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate
will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species.
Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the
construction site alters the terrain. Alteration of the streambank enhances the likelihood
of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating
these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other
materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify
turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby
altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to
more direct sunlight penetration and to elevation of water temperatures, which may
impact many species.
JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
Surface Waters and Wetlands
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Section
328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3(b), are those areas that are
inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient
to support, and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation
typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill
into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
and must follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344).
7
Criteria to determine the presence of jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. No jurisdictional wetlands were
observed within the project boundaries.
Spewmarrow Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical, and water
quality aspects of this river are presented in previous sections of this report.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated total impact to surface waters from the proposed project is 24.4 linear
meters (80.0 linear feet). Impacts are determined using the entire proposed ROW width.
Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual surface
water impacts may be considerably less. No impacts to wetlands will result from project
construction.
The existing bridge is composed of timber and steel with concrete footings, and
will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States.
Permit Requirements
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands are anticipated. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the
United States."
A Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit is likely to be applicable for all impacts to
Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department, where that agency or department has determined
that pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the
procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act that:
(1) the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and;
(2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401
Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened,
Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section
7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. As of 14
May 1999, the FWS lists the following federally protected species for Granville County
(Table 3). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Granville County.
Scientific name Common name Status
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle Threatened
Alasmidonta heterodon Dwarf wedge mussel Endangered
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower Endangered
Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella Endangered
Endangered - a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened - a species likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or
a significant portion of its range.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 3/11/67
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white heads and short white tails.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate-brown in color. In flight bald eagles can be
identified by their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear
flight path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat. The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish are
the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and wounded
ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
9
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of a large body of open water is not present within a half mile
of the project area. Although there are large trees in the area, the lack of proximity to
open water makes it unlikely that eagles would use this area. The NC Natural Heritage
Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed no
records of the bald eagle in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect the bald eagle.
Alasmidonta heterodon (dwarf wedge mussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 3/14/90
The dwarf wedge mussel is a small mussel having a distinguishable shell noted by
two lateral teeth on the right half and one on the left half. The periostracum (outer shell) is
olive green to dark brown in color and the nacre (inner shell) is bluish to silvery white.
This mussel is sensitive to agricultural, domestic, and industrial pollutants and
requires a stable streambed with well-oxygenated water to survive.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of a stable streambed is present within the project study area. A
visual and tactile search (total of 6 manhours search time) for mussel fauna upstream and
downstream of the subject bridge did not reveal any individuals of the dwarf wedge
mussel, although other mussels were found (>240 Elliptio sp.). A search of the NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats did not reveal any records of
this species in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not affect the dwarf
wedge mussel.
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 10/8/92
Flowers Present: June - early July
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb that grows from simple or branched
rhizomes. This herb has a smooth stem and few leaves. The basal leaves are the largest,
and these leaves are smooth to slightly rough, tapered to the base and elliptical to broadly
lanceolate. Mid-stem leaves have short or no petioles and are smaller than the basal leaves.
Flowers are light pink to purplish in color and solitary. The petal-like rays usually droop.
Fruits are gray-brown, oblong-prismatic and four-angled.
10
Habitat for the smooth coneflower is found in areas of meadows, open woodlands,
glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone
bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. North
Carolina populations are found in soils derived from Diabase, a circumneutral igneous
rock. Optimal sites are in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition from other
herbaceous plants.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Habitat in the form of open, disturbed areas is present within the project limits.
However, a plant by plant survey of the project area did not discover any individuals of
the smooth coneflower, and a search of the NC Natural Heritage Program database of rare
species and unique habitats did not reveal any records of this species in the project
vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not,affect the smooth coneflower.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: 9/28/88
Flowers Present: late July - August
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with fibrous roots and erect to
spreading stems. The stems are green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and they
may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow, cylindrical, and septate, with broadly
clasping bases. Flowers are umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of small
lanceolate bracts.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and the
margins of clear, swift-flowing stream sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland
ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is always found in saturated
substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preference for sunny areas
and this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream erosion, usually on the
downstream side of large rocks or amidst thick clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION •
Habitat in the form of rocky or gravelly shoals or the margin of a clear, swift-
flowing stream is not present in the project study area. Habitat found in the project area
consists of maintained/disturbed roadside and mixed hardwood forest. It is generally too
shaded to support harperella and does not contain rocky or sandy shoals. The NC Natural
Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was reviewed and revealed
11
no records of harperella in the project vicinity. Therefore, project construction will not
affect harperella.
Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are nine Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Granville County as of
14 May 1999. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the
ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are
defined as those species that may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was
insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered.
Threatened, or Special Concern by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP)
list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of
1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern, the species state status and the presence
of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for
information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern in Granville County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Elliptio lanceolata Yellow lance T yes
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T* yes
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T yes
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E yes
Delphinium exaltum Tall larkspur E-SC yes
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil C ves
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"7--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected and sold
under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes
(animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only propagated material may be
sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the
state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or
disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a
main range in a different part of the country or the world.
"*"--Historic record (last observed in the county more than 50 years ago).
12

Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database
of rare species and unique habitats revealed no records of Federal Species of Concern in
or near the project study area. However, there is a record of Southeastern panic grass
(Panicum tenerum) approximately 1.2 km (0.7 mi) southwest of the project location.
This species is listed as Significantly Rare in North Carolina, and is not protected by
federal law.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions or need additional
information.
cc: David Schiller, Natural Systems Unit Head
File B-3460
13