20080941 Ver 1_Application_20080610

.? 5TA1p n
._'n.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
rte..
4L 'Z.
I ,f P/ C?
W4 ry
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 29, 2008
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
3331 Heritage Trade Drive, Suite 105
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 5
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
08pg41
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 13, 23, & 33. Replacement
of Bridge No. 200 on SR 1435 over Mountain Creek, Granville County, North
Carolina. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1435(4), State Project No. 8.2371801,
WBS Element 33750.1.1, TIP No. B-4526.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 200 on SR
1435 (Davis Chapel Rd.) over Mountain Creek, in Granville County. The existing 54-foot 3-span bridge
was constructed in 1957 and received a sufficiency rating of 47.4 out of a possible 100 for a new
structure. This bridge is considered functionally obsolete due to its deck geometry appraisal rating. The
project proposes to demolish the existing bridge and replace with a single span, box beam structure with
end bents on piles, spanning Mountain Creek. The new bridge will be approximately 90 feet long with
approximately 25 feet of roadway width. During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site. Please
see the enclosed Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings, design plans, and North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Stream Identification Form for the subject project. A Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion was completed for this project in March of 2007 and distributed shortly thereafter.
Additional copies are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in sub basin 03-02-06 of the Roanoke River Basin in
Granville County. This area is part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03010102. The project area is
located within the Central Piedmont ecoregion of North Carolina.
Two jurisdictional streams, Mountain Creek and an unnamed tributary to Mountain Creek (UT 1),
located within the project study area will be impacted during the construction of this project. Another
mapped stream, UT 2, lies outside of the construction limits of the project and will not be impacted.
Each stream has been assigned Stream Index Number 23-2-(1) by DWQ. The unnamed tributaries and
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] Of 2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 919-715-1335 RALEIGH NC 27604
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER FAX: [phone]
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
WEBS/TE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
the stretch of Mountain Creek in the project study area have been assigned a Best Usage Classification of
C.
Mountain Creek enters the study area as a fourth order perennial stream. Mountain Creek is described as
having a substrate consisting primarily of bedrock, with sand and gravel deposited throughout.
Mountain Creek flows northeastward into Grassy Creek, then towards John H. Kerr Reservoir and
eventually into the Roanoke River. Within the project study area, Mountain Creek is approximately 40
feet wide with banks ranging from 4 to 6 feet.
When the Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was written, UT 1 was determined to be a
jurisdictional stream, and an official jurisdictional determination was issued by USACE on January 18,
2005 based on this rating. For further clarification, a field investigation was conducted on April 3, 2008
by NCDOT biologists, Ashley Cox, Deanna Riffey, James Mason, and Sara Easterly. During this
investigation it was determined that UT I rates as being a low intermittent stream, scoring a 22.5 on the
DWQ Stream Identification Form. The substrate of UT 1 is comprised of silt and sand, and the channel
of UT 1 is 12 to 18 inches wide with the banks ranging from 3 to 8 inches high south of SR 1435. North
of the road, UT I appears to have been dug out and maintained in the past. Channel width ranges from 2
to 3 feet, reaching upwards of 5 feet at the mouth. The depth is between 1 and 3 feet, eventually
deepening to 5 feet at the confluence with Mountain Creek. There will be no wetland impacts associated
with this bridge replacement project.
No portion of Mountain Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are
listed on the North Carolina Division of Water Quality's (NCDWQ) 2006 Final 303(d) List of Impaired
Waters.
No waters classified as High Quality Water (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-II), nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Permanent Impacts: Site I is associated with extending the piped portion of UT 1 to allow for a driveway
relocation on the southern side of SR 1435 (Davis Chapel Rd.). It is anticipated that an additional 38
linear feet of stream will require piping to construct the driveway.
Rip rap will be placed along the banks at the existing bents providing bank stabilization, prior to removal,
resulting in 63 linear feet of permanent impacts to Mountain Creek. This rip rap accounts for
approximately 0.01 acres of surface water impacts.
Temporary Impacts: There will be less than 0.01 acres of jurisdictional impacts associated with the
construction of a temporary causeway. The causeway will be constructed of Class II rip rap at the base
and Class A rip rap for the crest. The causeway will be located on the western bank of Mountain Creek,
to assist in pulling the existing bent in the channel.
Bridge Demolition: The existing structure has a timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface on timber
joists. The substructure is composed of timber caps and piles with concrete mud sills. The existing
bridge will be removed without dropping components into Mountain Creek. Currently there is a bent
located in the channel of Mountain Creek. All guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
Utility Impacts: There are no anticipated utility impacts associated with this project
B-4526 Permit Application
2
RESTORATION PLAN
The stone materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeways will be removed from the
streambed. The temporary fill areas will be restored back to their pre-project elevations. NCDOT will
also restore the streambed to its pre-project contours.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The temporary causeways will be removed from the stream after the in-water bents of the new structure
is constructed. All stone material placed in the stream for construction of the causeways will be removed
by the contractor using excavation equipment. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation
plan for the removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will
have the option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of
proj ect.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered
(PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists three Federally Protected species, as of January 16, 2008, for Granville County. Table 1 lists the
species and their federal status.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species in Granville County, NC
Habitat
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological Conclusion
Present
Dwarf Alasmidonta
E No Effect Yes
wed emussel heterodon
Ptilimnium
Harperella E No Effect Yes
nodosum
Echinacea
Smooth coneflower E No Effect Yes
laevigata
Dwarf wedgemussel (DWM) has never been found or identified in the Roanoke River Basin; however, a
mussel species survey was performed to ensure the protected species was not present. The DWM survey
was conducted for this project on May 19, 2005 by Alderman Environmental Services, Inc. Biologists
John Alderman, Logan Williams, and Karen Lynch performed a visual and tactile survey, 200 meters
upstream from the subject bridge and down stream another 400 meters. No DWM were found in 3.0 man-
hours of survey time. Given the results of the survey and the absence of a known population occurring
within the Roanoke River basin, it can be concluded that this project will not affect the DWM.
An initial survey for harperella was conducted August 9, 2004. The survey resulted in a biological
conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect", as suitable habitat was present but no
specimens were identified. An additional survey was performed on August 2, 2007. NCDOT biologists
Ashley Cox, Deanna Riffey, James Mason, and Duncan Quinn surveyed the project area for harperella.
Mountain Creek provides suitable habitat for harperella. During the survey, no individuals of harperella
were observed. A search of the Natural Heritage Program database (updated February 2008) showed no
populations of harperella within one mile of the project area, nor are there any known occurrences of the
species upstream of the proposed project, thus warranting a biological conclusion of "No Effect".
B-4526 Permit Application
A survey for smooth coneflower was conducted on August 9, 2004 where no individuals were observed.
An additional survey was performed on August 2, 2007 by NCDOT biologists, Ashley Cox, Deanna
Riffey, James Mason, and Duncan Quinn. Although potential habitat is present within the project study
area in the form of regularly maintained roadside shoulders and fields, no individuals of smooth
coneflower were observed. A search of the Natural Heritage Program database, updated in February
2008, revealed no occurrences of the species within one mile of the project area. Therefore, a biological
conclusion for smooth coneflower of "No Effect" is warranted.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION and MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/ Minimization: Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to "Waters of the US". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and
practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts and to minimize impacts as part
of the project design.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices (BMPs)
highlighted in NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for Construction and Maintenance Activities".
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be implemented during the entirety of this project.
• During construction, traffic will utilize an off-site detour.
• No bents are to be placed in Mountain Creek.
Compensatory Mitigation: ion: NCDOT proposes no mitigation for the 101 linear feet of surface water
impacts associated with this bridge replacement. The 63 linear feet of impacts to Mountain Creek will be
a result of bank stabilization. There is no foreseeable loss of aquatic habitat due to the rip rap being
placed along the channel. Impacts to UT 1 are minimal (38 linear feet) and impact the most degraded
stretch of the stream, at the immediate roadside. The existing channel is littered with roadside debris and
refuse including tires and scrap metal.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a let date of November 18, 2008 and a review date of September 30, 2008. This
project has a date of availability of December 30, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will begin
construction shortly after that date.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that the
stream impacts to UT-1 be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092-11198; March 12, 2007),
the bank stabilization be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 13, and activities associated with this project
B-4526 Permit Application
4
resulting in temporary impacts to jurisdictional waters be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 33.
Therefore, NCDOT is requesting the issuance of Nationwide Permits 23, 33, and 13 for the impacts
sustained during the construction of this project.
Section 401 Permit: NCDOT anticipates that Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications (WQC)
3689, 3701, and 3688 will apply to this project, and no written concurrence will be required. In
accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a) and 15A NCAC 2B 0.0200 we are providing two copies of
this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of
Water Quality, for their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.or /g doh/preconstruct/pe/neu/permit.html. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Ashley Cox at 919-715-5534 or [e-mail].
Sincerel
C-_ A,
,9,k
V Greg ry J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Wally Bowman, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Chris Murray, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Tracy Walter, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
B-4526 Permit Application
5
Office Use Only: Form Version March 05
2 0 0 8 0 9 4 1
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(It any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification ? Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwides 13, 23, & 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 Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal, counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D. Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Pagel of 9
III. Project Information
6
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. 200 over Mountain Creek on SR 1435 (Davis
Chapel Rd.) in Granville County.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4526
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Granville Nearest Town: Stovall
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): Take I-85 North to
Granville County. Exit onto US 15 North, follow US 15 into the community of Stovall. SR
1430 bares off to the leftt, follow to SR 1434 and turn right. Continue for about 3.5 miles
and turn left on SR 1435, the bridge is straight ahead.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line,
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): ON
Property size (acres): N/A
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Mountain Creek
8. River Basin: Roanoke River Basin
(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/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Bridge 200 is approximately 54 feet long and was
attach a sheet that
oW
Page 2 of 9
constructed in 1957. Land use in the area is mainly agricultural and forestry-based with
some residential development.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
proposes to demolish the existing bridge and construct a single span box beam
superstructure on the existing alignment. The new bridge will be 90 feet long and will have a
clear roadway width of approximately 25 feet. During construction SR 1435 will be closed
near the existing bridge and traffic will be re-routed using an offsite detour. Heavy duty
excavation equipment will be used such as trucks dozers cranes and other various
equipment necessary for roadway construction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The current 54-foot bridge was constructed in
1957 and has a sufficiency rating of 47.4 out of a possible 100 (for a new structure It is
considered functionally obsolete due to its deck geometry appraisal rating and is eligible for
FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement Program.
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 future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
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. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert.installation should be listed separately from rip
rap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should 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.
Page 3 of 9
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.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Please refer to Application Cover
Letter.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of 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.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet) Area of
impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: NA
4 ?ndividually 1-is, i irrLrn-:: A t and perennial stream impacts Be sure to
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are nor limited to placement of fill or culvwts, darn
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, 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. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Stream Impact

Number
indicate on map)
(?

Stream Name

Type of Impact Perennial

or
Intermittent
? Average

Stream Width
Before Impact
Impact
Length

(linear feet)
Area of
Impact

(acres)
1
2 UT 1
Mountain Creek Piping the stream
Rip Rap Trte, mittent
Perennial 1
40 38
63 ( <0.01
O.O i
2 Mountain Creek Temp. causeways Perennial 40 30 <0.01

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 131 <0.03
Page 4 of 9
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)
Type of Impact Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0.
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): <0.03
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) <0.03
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 131
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ? Yes ® No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
N/A
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stotmwatc;r requirement, etc.):__
rlirrent lair w& ,- ;:ac vicinivy of the pond.-
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond sui..4:e 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
Page 5 of 9
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. See cover sheet.
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 January 15, 2002, 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 NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/newetiands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
Page 6 of 9

website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htni. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ?
2. 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 ?
3. 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 (required by DWQ)
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.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ? No
2. If "yes", 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 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total 0.0 0.0
Page 7 of 9
* Zone I extends out 30 feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 213.0242 or.0244, or.0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (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. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
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
XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes El
No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. 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
Page 8 of 9
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).
?C)o
ApplicMt/Agpt's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9
North Carolina Division of Water Quality- Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: G Project: .3/01S Latitude:
Evaluator: Site: i Longitude:
Total Points: Other
Stream is at least intermittent Z2, f County: `T Rrl,?? r
if t 19 or perennial if Z 30 e.g. Quad Name:
A. Geomorphology (Subtotal = w •s )

1a. Continuous bed and bank ?I'?4'? Aitisent

0

1
I!?i???M•...der00 $11
l.?l

.III ??hStrAn9l6pll?lli:
3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 129 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 N 2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 2 3
5. Active/relic floodplain ® 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches 2 3
7. Braided channel 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits 1 2 3
9 a Natural levees 1 2 3
10. Headcuts 2 3
11. Grade controls ;0. 1 1.6
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 1 1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
evidence.
a..
No
Yes = 3
...... ...a..., v..ww a. ...... ow , u.ow?u..a u ? u "01 lual
B_ Hvriminnv tGuhtntal = k'1 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 2
16. Leaflitter 1.5 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 1 1.5
18. Organic debris lines or plies (Wrack lines) 0 0.5 1
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No Yes =1.5
C. Biology (Subtotal =
20b. Fibrous roots in channel' 3 1 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 2 1 0
22. Crayfish 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves 1 2 3
24. Fish 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0.5 1 1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) 0 0.5 1.5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing bacteriatfungus. (jl•% 0.5 1 1.5
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other ;
items zu ana n tocus on me presence of upland plants, Item 29 focuses on the presence of aquatic or wetland plants.
Notes: (use back side of this form for additional notes.) Sketch:

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size / Type
Permanent
Fill In
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fill In
Wetlands
(ac)
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
(ac) Hand-
Clearing
in
Wetlands
(ac)
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac)
Temp.
SW
impacts
(ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
(ft) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
(ft)
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft)
1 12+47 - 12+73 Roadway Fill 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.01 0.00 38 0 0
2 13+52 - 14+22 Embankment RR 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00 63 0 0
2 13+73 - 13+93 Causewa 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 <0.01 0 30 0

TOTALS: 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 G0.0r. &0.01 101 30 0
*Per structures, a causeway is needed for the removal of the bent located in the channel.
Revised 3131105
PROPERTY
NAMES AND
PARCEL NO. NAMES OWNERS
ADDRESSES
ADDRESSES SITE NO.

O WALTER FISCUS, JR.
ANN J. FISCUS 2585 DAVIS CHAPEL RD.
OXFORD, NC 27565
1
CD J. FONTAINE JONES 2562 DAVIS CHAPEL RD.
OXFORD, NC 27565 1

NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
PROJECT:33750.L1 (B-4526)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE
#200 OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
ON SR 1435
SHEET S OF -f 10/ 23/ 07

See Suet 1-A For Index of Sleets
X01
?I
?I
?I
V
W
0
ct
Loca ion ST L
1431
Litt /
435
436 ras y eke
1430
5Y
m
Corn v 15
130
w
jr
Offsite Detour Route --0---0-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA ?n ean.mirr mnca?Nn NO.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS C B-4526---- 1
an noiw eaN1Ot14
33750.1.1 BRZ-1435 4 PE
GRANVILLE COUNTY ----- --- ----- -------
LOCATION. Bridge #200 over Mountain Creek on SR 1435, Davis Chapel Road
TYPE OF WORK: Grading, Paving, Drainage and Structure

END BRIDGE
-L- STS A 14+28.00
TO STOVALL
R - -
SR 1435 DAVIS CHAPEL ROAD
BEGIN
BEGIN T1P PROJECT B-4526
-L- STA ll f00.00
----- L
TO CORNWALL "
DA IS CHAT
P SR 1435
-L-
+38.00
0
L
m
t
t
U
0
0
E
T
L
N
E
L
N
a
i
O]
ON
Q
o,
Nm

\RFF?
END T1P PROJECT B-4526
-L- STA 16+85.00
I THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED BY METHOD III
,' • DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVE K FACTOR AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2007 = 60 vpd
ADT 2030 = 110 vpd _
PLANS DHV = 13 % Length Roadway TIP Project B-4526 = 0.094 Miles
50 25 0 50 100 D 60 % Length Structure TIP Project B-4526 = 0.017 Miles
T = 3 % Total Length TIP Project B-4526 = 0.111 Miles
O PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 55 MPH
° 1 _ _ 0 10 20 _
PROFILE (VERTICAL) TTST 1% 'DUAL 2°/a
Prepared In the Office e.
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Birch Ridge Dr., Raleigh NC, 17610
1aa6 STANDARD SPECMC4170NS
RIGHT OF WAY DATE: James Speer, PE
nnn-r PROJECT ENGIRT"
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
LE777NG DATE: John Lansford, PE
November 18, 2008 PROTECT DESIGN ENGEIff" -
PE
Permit Dmwinq
sheet, I _of.....
PRELIMINARY PLANS
W NOT OSB eoR CONsmuO ON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
Yf NOR,,
C?
o s
w
¦
r °, TNAN?f
......... ......... .......
.......... ................... ...__ _ ....... ......................
R/W REVISION 2111108 JCL
ADDED NEW PROPERTY LINES AND PROPERTY OWNER NAME FOR PARCEL •4
08 14:03
mi
is \ e is\64526_hyl_impacts_pshP4 nocon.dgn B/l7/99
SA! HY7?1.?i?3
L

O Dq
s
A
P
W
0
x
3W
rO
W
Q.
Q
W
mm?j
O
N
Q.
2
?W
O
cic?
P
m
N 68'34'50' E F!?
229.05'
RIP 1.4101
A A 1 AN(MENT
rxot to sawt \
s?
X58 stf
Est, q To- ?•
TTp. of Lin- CAtw 11111%-Rcp F!P
ITA. N+70
su U+12
\.\ \\\ \\\ Al
\ \ 1
? \ \\ \\ \\\ \\\\\\\\\\\\ \\\111// //oil I I
\ \1 \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \\ 1111 1 ?. 1 / 1 / I I (, I
I I ! I 1 _
v1 \vv?vvvv 1 VAA vAVAA 1111 111 1 /
1 1 v `v v v 1 1 1 1 11 vA A \?. A 1A1V I / I
I 1 \ \ I 1 1 1 1\ ? \ 1 1 \ 1 1 fw ? '? 1
I // / II ! I 1 1 1 I 1 \ \ \ 1 \?N\\ \ \\r1 !/1/ /lt 1 I Il l I ill/ W W\?
/ /1 1 \ \ \ \\`\ \\\ `\ \? III 1 1j':I I I 1 t I rJ \ v ; f
/ (Is \fG \ I \ \ \ \lu III I WI !I //
/ . \ \ \ \ \ \ ? osl SIT / /\ 1 L
/ /- \1 1 \ \: N\\ I\\ \ \\ 1\\\? 1111 111 III: r 'fi='r ? I I r?
FI I 1 1 1 ?M
/ r l \ \I 1111 I I: I L kIII ?e
/? / / / III \ \ \ 1 1111 1 I"\ 1
iAEP' \ \ \ \\\ \\\\ 1\\ \ \ Ii ?f 1 /5a law,
1w- Rxv
J \ \ F-
fIP - - J\ \ 1 \ \ aa' SRCH?ELR/d0 \ \ \ \ \ r ?'? \
_> \Z 1 r 1 1 1 r/
r 21f
' - -\`_ Sz" Is;%'\'c \\\\ \1\\/ /III I / ?A \
_ - V ,? 1? I 1 v v v;_ ?A11\1 1111 / ? / 1 / ?` a 1/J S
111 1111 r / +
41 ?? YYf
J / II I I / I
E
/ / 1 1 1 I ?! (DRIVE)
- - - - - - - - ' - - - - ^ , DB 12SP6PB In
/ / P(5t ?303b1 I ,'1fSro b+75.02
_ - - - - / 86/48 4YJf X11 62' /8'10-r (R7) * 4
J _ ' \ _ _' / 286 814} 1 D I. 28628 44.0'1
L-7 1 , L 2175'
T - 1892 T = /2.09'
R - 20,07 R - 20.00'
el`?
P
m
a
D
a
rr
EL GEND Perk Drawing B-4526 4
®DSUftFACEFWATER /awe
® DENOTES TEMPORARY / - _
FILLS SURFACE
WATER
/ PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT USE PO CON33RUC 10N
SEE SHEETS S-1 THROUGH S- FOR STRUCTURE PLANS
/ SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- PROkfflENO
SKETCH OF BRIDGE IN RE Np
EMENT
LiF`b
DENOTES TEMPORARY
L ah FILL IN SURFACE
PM1 ® MATER
/ I B-77 N 57- " B-77 22-9- E
N
/1 ^ I!7\1 111`\ \\IJ \\/ //, `L / //? ?/ _ ??
r 1;r, ?//
\ 1 I ; /0
rl
?I I x1111 /?1 X1114 IIIIIUril / I I A ///% lull////?i - v
/ .I
v 1• 1 l 1v N\11111 411 ,fill rrl ,ll I I V
V v - - / i Jlll?/41!!r?/rl v - - v
11
r ! 1 // 111
`/Illpll/ 1 ?\'\ \// I\\h\1111\\1111\\ `PRQfQSED-9, ,? 1 rr L?1g ? ?'--_
q{\ I 011 `1\\I\\\\\\\\\? _ - Jl !/1 l Il l / -2r v
:k
IN 68*454%* E 1k
/ s
1111 ry I\It A\+ \\
II ?` 1 1
101\ +? I LAPE it CMW \ / \ \ M LUXURY COUNTRY HOMES
- I\ I`DPI"PG22 1\JI IJ
ft"no
1
pT J 1 \ / '
??__?LE ? l \ 1 1
W iVM /
- - - - - - - - - - - - --
_ - --
---?
/

- DAIS CHAPEL RaV
?
SR 1435 a7SST_ - `
/

ly `tip ?_ ___ _ 1 \
A
DETAIL OF TEMPORARY

ROCR CAUSEWAY
l
b\
1 I I

J
\. O\\
\ \\o\\

\ J
I kS Elev-355,1-
J / '
Varies I

1
?
1
\ J
I l I
\ ,
\ ? ? /
1
\ I 1
C I -'ROck EmbOnKment / f
\ Q \
L0' Min. 1
Fl /
o.
/
1 \ \ \L 5:1 /
, / /
v v v 1511 -Streem Bed
1 $1\ I ' f
\
as
-
%
Ir//w / ?IIYI?v? Ili/.wlr%
,L ltF-
RIP RAP BELOW W.S. = 15 cy
D AREA OF
CLASS 11 RIP RAP 0.008 40
(i
?o
H
h
v
N

END BRIDGE
L- STA 14+28.00
C
P
D
L
N
T
a
N
N
P
v
of
CD1
0 OZ
i?
? O4Z**
NLA
TO CORNWALL
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GRANVILLE COUNTY
LOCATION, Bridge #200 over Mountain Creek on SR 1435, Davis Chapel Road
TYPE OF WORK: Grading, Paving, Drainage and Structure
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4526
-L- STA 114-00.00
CHAPEL ROAD
1435
-Y-
(DRIVE)
-L- STA 13+
N
U THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF ANY MUNICIPALITY
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED BY METHOD III
?' • DESIGN EXCEP11ON REQUIRED FOR SAG VERTICAL CURVE K FACTOR AND STOPPING SIGHT DISTANCE
See Sheet 1-A For Index of Sheets
ct
Loco ion ST L
1431
435 ?
436 eke
1435 1430
orn 15
130
`O s
Offsite Detour Route m Aft
mw MF
-L-

END TIP PROJECT B -4526
-L- STA 164-85.00
R,1. R,Tf IpO.T .PYW b .1t®T
N6 TM,L
?lTS
C. B-,4 526 1

33750.1.1 BR7-1435 4 PE
33750.2.1 BR Z-14354 M 3 UtiFf'n#
33750.3.1 BRZ-1435 4 Constnxtion

4
TO STOVALL
SR 1435 DAVIS CHAPEL ROAD
F PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO NOT Q98 POR CONSTRUCTION
V GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2007 = 60 vpd
ftI ADT 2030 = no vpd
PLANS DHV = 13 %
50 25 0 50 100 D = 60 %
T = 3 %'
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 55 MPH
10 0 10 20
00^010 NCD 11-A1% ' TTST 1% `DUAL 2%
PROJECT LENGTH
Length Roadway TIP Project B-4526 = 0.094 Miles
Length Structure TIP Project B-4526 = 0.017 Miles
Total Length TIP Project B-4526 = 0.111 Miles
Prepared In Me OffIcs Of:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1000 Birch RIJry Dr., Raleigh NC, 27010
2M S2ANWAO SPXCnWAT=0
RIGHT OF WAY DATE. James Sneer. PE
November 1, 2007 PAOJNCT Am amt
L97712VG DAZE. John Lansford. PE
November 18, 2008 P10JZC2 DZMV mmmm
HYDRAULICS HNGZNM
ROADWAY DMIIGN
ENGLYM
STATEDIVISIONN
OFOFORTHHIGHRAOYS
CAROLINA
4 C? MRRT
0
4
0 4
PS
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
m
C1 PROP. APPROX. 21"x" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PER SO. YD. IN EACH OF TWO LAYERS
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE. TYPE SF9.SA,
C2 BE PLACEDRINELAYERSONOT10OLEXCEEDR2 0INYDEPTH. 1A DEPTH. TO
E1 PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 456 LBS. PER SG. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE TXPE 825.0
E2 BE PLA%Ep INELAYERS NOTILESSSTHANR3§01NYDEPTHROR GREATER t0
THAN 5 IN DEPTH.
S" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT,
VII ASPHALT WEDGING (SEE DETAIL)
NOTE: PAVEMENT EDGE SLOPES ARE 1:1 UNLESS SHOWN OTHERWISE.
Detail Showing Method of Wedging
c
m
a
n
e
9
0
W
T El
Detail of Paving
to Face of Guardrail
USE WITH TYPICAL SECTION #2
??y
?y
-L
4' VAR 9' TO 10' VAR 9' TO 10'
OXA! TO 1' POR INT 0' TVAR
O V
T C1 W
08 ? EXIST
6.5' 6.5"
El U
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NQ- I
-L-
4' 10' 10'
GRADE WGU RAIL
Cl 6.5 POINT
08 ? OB
`-GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION NO.2
-Y- (DRIVE)
5' 2'
08 ?, 013_
`GRADE TO THIS LINE-
TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3
IV' 1.
1" U?. 10? 12' 7"
10' WIDE
FACED CONC
WIDE FLAT
CONC. RAIL

RORCT EEEERENO N0. EMEU NO.
8-4526 2
EW smw NO.
IOADWAY DWON HYDEAUUCS
CIDINER ENDNm

PRELIMINARY PLANS
m ? tiffi ?. ??rroK
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 1:
-L- STA 11+00.00 TO 12+00.00
-L- STA 15+50.00 TO 16+85.00
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 2:
-L- JIA 14tAD.UU CTVLE DKIUt7C IV -L- CIA I3t2U.UU
USE TYPICAL SECTION NO. 3:
Y- STA 10+10.00 to Y- STA. 10+85.00
(9) 3' VAde Box Sam Units - 27'
TYPICAL SECTION ON STRUCTURE
4- STA. 13+35.00 TO -L- STA 1A +28.00
__ r
P

+ MOM REFERE NCE NO. SHEET N0.
5 7 0 5 do 55 :
L
+
+ B 45 26 x
50 A5

4
A 30?

3
25
2D

I

5

}

}

}

5

3

_ A

5

5 4 5

120

3

_ 12 +' O, O

D. 2Q
7-1 7

_3 65 F

T - -?
-
--- --------

20
f) A ?

..
?_ ..

: -

-

- - - - -
- - - - - - -

04 20 .. .
- O. 20
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 77
7 7

3 1 )
C', CV
one Appro tBlu only. Uncbaified &cwalion,Borrow Cxoavation, Fine Groding,

O
O Grubbing, and Removal of 6dttinp Pavement will be paid
-
at the contract lump wm price for'Grading.- PRE LTMI NA $Y PLANS
j NOT VM MS 7
r V
7 D 4P 40
35
2

1

I

I

j
9 - I - I
P
\

+

+
PROI.RE
FEIIE NCE N0. WEET NO.

5

0

_,
?

+ 45 26
X-
22

5
5 45 4D a
5
2
5,
2
D
15
2D
2

D

4 5

AIX 2G 20

- 71
TI

1
-'

tj ;n

FT

o.
4

xa
1

o
.4

20
1

T

- T
..
; . 04 20 : o, o .
- -

12 . 4, 0

_.
r

a

NSW '? . .... -- _ .. :.

45 5 5
4D 35 2
D is
1
15
25
3

22-JAN-2008 09:50
\romoE\X C\b4526_rdy-=pl_l.dgn
8
FI? AM S$SE

., 8/23/99
14
I
L I .4 LA

.,

t t'. It
40
l

?

I ci?

it -
;.:
I
:

, .

C4

a
12

+ 034 5,1 LA; -11 S 1: 7 9

t

,

Col

I,

t it

f
I
.
o

x ?
Z
0
s
1EOL REFEREN CE NO. SNEEf NO.
A

7
D
6
0
5
D, V
3
5
3
D
2
5
2
D
1
1
1

3

1

5

2

D

?2

5

3

D

3

5

A

D

A

S

5

D*

d

D

4

5

7

0

5:
,

I

?
t t

0.
020
0.
18 - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
-
:
-
7,1 V)

1 5 + 25

0, 20 d. 20

_ - - '

0. 20 0: 20

1 . -1 4 +

0.0 201 0 02

XI:

New
4

..

:.

5

D

A

S

A

3

,
2
0
4
U
5
5

22-JAN-2008 809:51
$$$$US fgf?AME$$$$ 6_rdy_=pl_l.dgn 8/23/99
• V.
22-JAN-2008 09:51
S$SSUew6
E M\XJC
AM \bE526_rdy-xpl-y.dgn
:
: :.
: 8/23/99
.
. . . . . ..
i

? LIN

LPN
i
i

I
i
I
i
I
:

i II
I
I
1

f
{
I

I ,

44-

F
7
-.

I
I
I ? I

+
?
I

I

6
}

N.

. I
qv
%0
N
N
O

I

I I ,

I ,: I L : I

ul:
I I

I j I
1
I I

N
I
I
I

I
? I I

I ?
.
I
N
?

i Z
:

Eft:

Z

r.
1 'i )? L
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1435 Bridge No. 200 over Mountain Creek
Granville County
Q4?L;?'?gJ:c `?'
1
o
N 1 yr? ?,
080941
TIP No. B-4526
State Project No. 8.2371801
FAP No. BRZ-1435 (4)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch

April 2004
r _
Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
SR 1435 Bridge No. 200 over Mountain Creek
Granville County
TIP No. B-4526
State Project No. 8.2371801
FAP No. BRZ-1435 (4)
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Issued by:
Earth Tech, Inc.
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
Earth Tech Project No. 73566
April 2004
t -
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION
PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description .............................................................................................1
1.2 Project Purpose ................................................................................................... l
1.3 Methodology .......................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators ......................................................3
1.5 Terminology and Definitions ......................................................................
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................4
2.1 Soils .................................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Wate r Resources ................................................................................................. 5
2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters ............................................ 6
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ....................................................................... 7
2.2.3 Water Quality ......................................................................................... 7
2.2.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ............................................. 7
2.2.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report .................................................. 8
2.2.3.3 Impaired Waters ......................................................................... 8
2.2.3.4 Point Source Discharge Permits ................................................. 8
2.2.3.5 Non-Point Source Discharge ...................................................... 8
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................... 9
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................10
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................... 10
3.1.1 Disturbed Community .......................................................................... 10
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest .............................................................. 12
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest ...................................................................... 12
3.1.4 Faunal Component ................................................................................ 12
3.2 Aquatic Communities ....................................................................................... 13
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ..................................................................... 14
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities ....................................................................... 14
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................... 15
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................15
4.1 Waters of the United States ..............................................................................15
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ..................................16
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts .........................................................16
4.2 Permit Issues .....................................................................................................17
4.2.1 Mitigation .............................................................................................18
4.2.1.1 Avoidance .................................................................................18
4.2.1.2 Minimization ............................................................................18
4.2.1.3 Compensation ...........................................................................18
April 2004

Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.2.2 Bridge Demolition ................................................................................19
4.3 Rare and Protected Species ...............................................................................20
4.3.1 Species Under Federal Protection .........................................................20
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status ........................................25
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities .............................................. 14
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Surface Waters .....................................................16
Table 3. Estimated Area of Impact to Wetlands ...............................................................17
Table 4. Species Under Federal Protection in Granville County ..................................... 21
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Granville County ............................................... 25
FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ....................................................................................................... 2
Figure 2. Natural Communities ........................................................................................11
Note: Highlighted text denotes items not included in this draft that will be added
later by NCDOT`personnel once' alignments are developed.
April 2004
ii
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) preliminary to the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of the preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 200 on SR 1435, which
spans Mountain Creek. The project is located in northern Granville County about 10
miles (16.1 kilometers [km]) north of Oxford, NC (Figure 1). The bridge was
constructed in 1957.
Alternate 1
(Insert` description of Alternate here)
Alternate 2
(Insert description of Alternate here)
1.2 Project Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these
resources. Recommendations are made for measures that will minimize resource
impacts.
1.3 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5' quadrangle map (Satterwhite, 1981)
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Satterwhite, 1994)
• Soil Survey of Granville County Area (Natural Resources Conservation Service
[NRCS] 1997)
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR 2000)
April 2004
1
STa v,o L.. L,
X98
1"7
r
144$
• n t 1% 15t5
`r
5 t o r" .
- - -? .?, 201
42 41 1 T4W
215
155 t 343J ..? ?, 1. r ti
%
+ .? +ya wryer
jd4W 140 r t4sa 1 ,
r'- ' 4 d
11 Jf 1427
..6 , 420 l 14A
205 r
138 lig
200
44- 1436
p "4. r?F
°,® ,r ? 1428
14317 r •-- 1429
1410 p
c t .7 ,
- 139 5
` - Q 141
136 a • 0 t 3dt1 ` 1426
- 4 1425
r s
4 Q '
4415 1419
1412
. a t-
1414 33.
9
?ly
1 ^?
NO"7" rtiAO NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
.
y 4iy, TRANSPORTATION
` - DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
\' s
v PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
?`qqq\2F
p°?? ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
?
'?OF 7pA?!'%?
GRANVILLE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 200 ON SR 1435
OVER MOUNTAIN CREEK
B-4526
Figure 1
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats
• North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) Proposed Critical habitats for
aquatic species.
Water resource information was obtained from publications posted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR Division of Water Quality (DWQ). Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species (January 16, 2004), posted on the World Wide
Web by the Ecological Services branch of the USFWS office in North Carolina.
Information concerning species under state protection was obtained from the NHP
database of rare species and unique habitats. NHP files were reviewed for documented
sightings (January 13, 2004) of species on state or federal lists and locations of significant
natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project route by Earth Tech
biologists on January 16, 2004. Water resources were identified and their physical
characteristics were recorded. For the purposes of this study, a brief habitat assessment
was performed within the project area of Mountain Creek. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows). Terrestrial community classifications generally
follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows
Radford et al. (1968) and nomenclature follows National Plant Data Center PLANTS
Database (USDA, NRCS 2004). Vertebrate names follows Rohde et al. (1994), Conant
et al. (1998), the American Ornithologists' Union (2001), Thorpe and Covich (1991), and
Webster et al. (1985). Vegetative communities were mapped using aerial photography of
the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife community composition involved general
qualitative habitat assessment based on existing vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based on criteria
established in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (USACE,
1987). Wetlands were classified based on Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators
Investigator: George Lankford, PSS
Education M.S., Botany, North Carolina State University
Experience North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist, Biologist, Earth Tech 3 years
Expertise Botany, Soils, Wetland Delineation
April 2004
3
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Investigator: Amanda J. Todd, CPESC
Education MA, Geography and Planning, Appalachian State University. 2002
Experience Natural Resources Specialist, Earth Tech 1 year
Expertise Stream Assessments, Wetland Delineations, Field Data Collection
1.5 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this report, the following terms are used for describing the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes an area with a width of 500 feet
(152.4 m) along the full length of the project alignment. The "project vicinity" is an area
extending 1 mile (1.6 km) on all sides of the project area, and "project region" is an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USGS quadrangle map (about
61.8 sq miles or 163.3 sq km) with the project study area occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
The project area lies in the extreme north-central portion of North Carolina within the
Piedmont physiographic province. Elevations in the project area range from 370 to
410 feet (113 to 125 m) (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929). The topography of the
project vicinity ranges from nearly level within the floodplain to moderately steep slopes
in the adjacent uplands.
The proposed project is in a rural area in Granville County about 10 miles (16.1 km)
north of Oxford, NC. Granville County's major economic resources are forestry and
agriculture. The population of Granville County in 2000 was 48,498 (U. S Census
Bureau, 2000).
2.1 Soils
Information about soils in the project area was taken from the Soil Survey of Granville
County, North Carolina (USDA 1997). The map units in the project area are Altavista
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded, Congaree silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes and
frequently flooded, Georgeville silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, Herndon silt loam, 2 to
6 percent slopes, and Nason gravelly loam, 2 to 6 percent and 6 to 10 percent slopes.
Altavista loam and Congaree silt loam soils are mapped along Mountain Creek and
although are considered non-hydric soils by the NRCS, they may contain hydric soil
inclusions.
• Altavista loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, rarely flooded, is mapped along the low
stream terrace west of Mountain Creek. This soil is moderately well drained, has
moderate permeability, and low shrink swell potential. Natural fertility is low. The
seasonal high water table 1.5 to 2.5 feet and this soil is rarely flooded. Surface
runoff is slow. The NRCS classifies Altavista soils as non-hydric, but has the
potential for hydric soil inclusions.
April 2004
4
.'atural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
• Congaree silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded, is mapped along the
floodplain of Mountain Creek. This soil is moderately well drained or well drained
and has moderate permeability. Natural fertility is moderate. The seasonal high
water table is 2.5 to 4 feet and is frequently flooded for brief periods. Surface runoff
is slow. The NRCS classifies Congaree soils as non-hydric, but has the potential for
hydric soil inclusions.
• Georgeville silt loam, 6 to 10 percent slopes, is mapped on the narrow hill slopes
above the low terrace west of Mountain Creek. This soil is well drained, has
moderate permeability and the shrink-swell potential is low. Natural fertility is low.
The seasonal high water table is greater than six feet. The erosion potential is
moderate to severe. The NRCS classifies Georgeville soils as non-hydric.
• Herndon silt loam, 2 to 6 percent slopes, is mapped on the broad side slope of the
ridge in the western portion of the project area. This soil is well drained, has
moderate permeability, and the shrink-swell potential is low. Natural fertility is low.
The seasonal high water table is greater than six feet. The erosion potential is
moderate. The NRCS classifies Herndon soils as non-hydric.
• Nason gravelly loam, 2 to 6 percent and 6 to 10 percent slopes, are mapped on
narrow hill slopes in the eastern portion of the project area. This soil is well drained,
has moderate permeability, and moderate shrink swell potential. Natural fertility is
low. The seasonal high water table is greater than six feet. The erosion potential is
moderate to severe. The NRCS classifies Nason soils as non-hydric.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height,
in feet, that dominant and co-dominant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The soils in the project area have the following site indices:
• The Altavista soils have a site index of 96 for loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), and 97 for
shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata).
• The Congaree soils have a site index of 85 for loblolly pine, and 98 for yellow poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera).
• The Georgeville soils have a site index of 81 for loblolly pine, 66 for shortleaf pine
and 72 for white oak (Quercus alba).
• The Herndon soils have a site index of 81 for loblolly pine, 66 for shortleaf pine and
68 for white oak.
• The Nason soils have a site index of 81 for loblolly pine, and 60 for shortleaf pine.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics
(determined by field survey), best usage classifications, and water quality aspects of the
water resources. Probable impacts to surface waters are also discussed, as well as means
to minimize impacts.
April 2004
5
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
2.2.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Roanoke River Basin (ROA06) sub-basin, USGS Hydraulic
Unit Code (HUC) 03010102, Middle Roanoke). Mountain Creek originates about 5.7
miles (9.2 km) from the project site. Within the project site, Mountain Creek flows from
the southeast and turns northerly at the bridge. From the project area, the creek meanders
in a northerly direction about 0.4 miles (0.6 km) to its confluence with Grassy Creek.
Grassy Creek flows into the Grassy Creek Arm of John H. Kerr Reservoir, which flows
into Virginia before joining the main stem of the Reservoir. In addition to Mountain
Creek, three small, unnamed tributaries to Mountain Creek are located within the project
area.
Mountain Creek, a perennial stream, is approximately 40 feet (12 m) wide at the bridge
crossing. The banks of Mountain Creek are 4 to 6 feet (1.2 to 1.8 m) in height, and are
generally stable. The substrate is gravel and sand with bedrock in numerous places. The
canopy cover varies from 60 to 90 percent. On the day of the site visit the water was
clear, and flowing swiftly. Large woody debris was observed lodged upstream of the
bridge.
An unnamed tributary to Mountain Creek (referenced as UT 1 for the remainder of the
report) is present within the floodplain west of the bridge. The stream originates within
the project limits in a wetland to the southwest of the bridge. It flows north through a
culvert beneath Davis Chapel Road before entering Mountain Creek. This stream begins
as an indistinct channel within the wetland, becoming a single distinct channel
approximately 120 feet (36.6 m) from the culvert. Its banks are stable and up to 0.5 feet
(0.15 m) high and up to 1.5 feet (0.45 m) wide. It has good sinuosity and a sandy
substrate. On the day of the site visit, the water was clear and flowing slowly. This
stream meets DWQ Stream Classification criteria for at least an intermittent channel.
A second unnamed tributary to Mountain Creek (referenced as UT 2 for the remainder of
the report) is present within the eastern portion of the project vicinity. The stream enters
the project area from the southeast in hardwood forest. This section appears channelized
and is deeply incised. UT 2 then flows alongside Davis Chapel Road, between the road
and the agricultural field to the south. This section, also channelized, has a narrow buffer
of shrubs and has been maintaine a ong the roadside. UT 2Y_ flows into Mountain Creek
at the bridge. Its banks range from 2 feet (0.6 m) in the lower section up to 4 feet (1.2 m)
high in the upper section. The channel is up to 8 feet (2.4 m) wide. Its banks appear to
be somewhat unstable in the upper portion and stable in the lower portion. It has low
sinuosity throughout and the substrate is sand. On the day of the site visit, the water was
clear with a low flow. This stream meets DWQ Stream Classification criteria for at least
an intermittent channel.
April 2004
6

Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
A third unnamed tributary to Mountain Creek (referenced as UT 3 for the remainder of
the report) is present within the floodplain east of the bridge and north of Davis Chapel
Road. The stream originates within the project limits in a small spring and a small
adjacent wetland beside the road. It flows west through the floodplain, paralleling the
road. The stream flows into Mountain Creek approximately 200 feet downstream of the
bridge. Its banks are stable and up to 0.5 feet (0.15 m) high and up to 1.5 feet (0.45 m)
wide. It has good sinuosity and the substrate is sand and silt. On the day of the site visit,
the water was clear and flowing slowly. This stream meets DWQ Stream Classification
criteria for at least an intermittent channel.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Mountain
Creek (Index # 23-2-3) is classified as a Class C water body (NCDENR 2002). Class C
waters are protected for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation includes wading, boating, and other
uses involving human body contact with water where such activities take place in an
infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. There are no restrictions on watershed
development activities. The three unnamed tributaries present within the project area and
project vicinity have not been classified individually by DWQ, therefore they carries the
same C rating as its receiving stream.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-
II) or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources are evaluated. Water quality
assessments are based upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.2.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a watershed that is mainly forested with some agriculture. Small
row crop agricultural fields were observed nearby, as well as larger pastures with cattle.
Most waterways and wetlands within the watershed remain forested. Potential threats to
water quality in this area are agricultural or forestry practices which may contribute to soil
erosion and increases in chemical runoff and nutrient input.
April 2004
7
- w
Natur:-l Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
2.2.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report
Basin-wide water quality assessments are conducted by the Environmental Sciences
Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ. The program has established monitoring
stations for sampling selected benthic macroinvertebrates, which are known to have
varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived
from the number of taxa present and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can
then be given a bioclassification ranging from Poor to Excellent.
There are no macroinvertebrate monitoring stations within this drainage above the John
H. Kerr Reservoir. The reservoir was sampled in the summer of 1999 and rated as
mesotrophic. Sampling was confined to the Nutbush Creek Arm of the reservoir. The
Nutbush Creek Arm is located to the east of Grassy Creek Arm. An invasive aquatic
macrophyte, Hydrilla, was observed in the Grassy Creek Arm.
2.2.3.3 Impaired Waters
North Carolina's §303(d) List (NCDENR 2003) is a comprehensive public accounting of
all impaired waterbodies. An impaired waterbody is one that is damaged by pollutants,
such as nitrogen, phosphorus, and fecal coliform bacteria, and by pollution such as
hydromodification and habitat degradation. The source of impairment might be from
point sources, non-point sources, and atmospheric deposition. The standards violation
might be due to an individual pollutant, multiple pollutants, or an unknown cause of
impairment. This list is compiled by the DWQ and submitted to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) by April 1 of every even year.
None of the water resources described in Section 2.2.1 are designated as biologically
impaired water bodies regulated under the provisions of the Clean Water Act (CWA)
§303(d).
2.2.3.4 Point Source Discharge Permits
Point source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program administered by the DWQ. All
dischargers are required to obtain a permit to discharge. There are no permits issued to
discharge in Mountain Creek as of January 13, 2004 (NCDENR 2004).
2.2.3.5 Non-Point Source Discharge
Unlike pollution from industrial and sewage treatment, non-point source (NPS) pollution
comes from many non-discrete sources. As rainfall or snowmelt runoff moves over the
earth's surface, natural and man-made pollutants are picked up, carried, and ultimately
deposited into lakes, rivers, wetlands, coastal waters, and groundwater. Non-point source
pollution includes fertilizers, herbicides, and insecticides from farms and residential
April 2004
8
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
areas; hydrocarbons and chemicals from urban runoff; sediments from construction sites,
land clearing, and eroding stream banks; bacteria and nutrients from livestock, animal
wastes, and faulty septic systems; and atmospheric deposition. The effects of NPS
pollutants on water resources vary, and in many instances, may not be known. These
pollutants generally have harmful effects on drinking water supplies, recreation, wildlife,
and fisheries.
Earth Tech biologists conducted a visual observation of potential NPS discharges located
within and near the project study area. Atmospheric deposition from passing vehicles;
fertilizers, herbicides, animal wastes, and insecticides from nearby residential and
agricultural areas; and hydrocarbon and chemical runoff from nearby residential
driveways were identified as potential sources of NPS pollution near the project area.
Overall, the threat of non-point source discharge is low because of the moderately sized
riparian buffer along much of Mountain Creek and the rural nature of the area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. Temporary
impacts during construction may result in long-term impacts to the aquatic community.
In general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an off-site detour is
the preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location results in
more severe impacts, and physical impacts are incurred at the point of bridge
replacement. (Insert description of anticipated impacts for Alternates here)
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetation
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light penetration/water clarity from increased sedimentation.
• Changes in water temperature with vegetation removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter with vegetation removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flows as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and groundwater flow from construction.
Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as
applicable, during the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves
the construction site.
April 2004
9
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic resources.
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. They are also cross-
referenced to International Classification of Ecological Communities (ICEC)
(NatureServe, 2002), which has been adopted as the standard land cover classification by
the Federal Geographic Data Committee. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based on published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the common name
only. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: a disturbed
community, a bottomland hardwood forest, and an upland hardwood forest (Figure 2).
Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas will be discussed in
each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range of habitats
found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each
community description.
3.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community includes types of habitat that have recently been or are currently
impacted by human disturbance including regularly maintained roadside shoulder,
agricultural fields, power line right-of-way, and residential areas. These habitats are kept
in a low-growing, early successional state. The maintained roadside shoulder is mowed
frequently and is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. The dominant species include
Bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), fescue (Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), and cudweed (Gnaphalium
sp.). The agricultural fields within the project area were not planted with crops on the day
of the site visit and appeared to have been fallow during the last year. Tall remnants of
beggar tick (Bidens sp.) were present in the fields adjacent to Mountain Creek. The
pastures were mowed or cropped close by livestock, although tufts of broomsedge were
common. Along the field edges, Japanese honeysuckle, blackberry (Rubes sp.), tag alder
(Alnus serrulata), and various weeds were the dominant vegetation. The residential. area
includes maintained lawns and waste places near outbuildings. The residential areas are
dominated by various turf grasses, ornamental shrubs, loblolly pine, and red maple (Acer
rubrum).
April 2004
10
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
3.1.2 Bottomland Hardwood Forest
This community occurs along the banks of Mountain Creek and on the floodplain north of
Davis Chapel Road. This forest is immature and somewhat dense, most likely indicating
past logging or other disturbance. The canopy height is 40 to 50 feet (12 to 15 m). A
buffer of taller more mature trees is located along the banks of Mountain Creek. Canopy
species include tulip poplar, sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple, sweetgum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), and river birch (Betula nigra). The shrubs and vines are
scattered. Greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), wild grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) are the dominant woody vines. Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense) was also observed. The herbaceous layer contains Indian woodoats
(Chasmanthium latifolium), eastern bottlebrush grass (Elymus hystrix), and sedges (Carex
sp.).
This community probably represents a marginal example of a Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest as described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The ICEC classification is
most likely I.B.2.N.d.12 Liquidambar styraciflua - (Liriodendron tulipifera, Acer
rubrum) temporarily flooded forest alliance (Piedmont Small Stream Sweetgum Forest).
3.1.3 Upland Hardwood Forest
An upland hardwood forest is located on the uplands both southwest and east of the
bridge. This is a relatively mature forest reaching to 70 feet (21 m). The canopy species
in this community include northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak, sweetgum, red
maple, American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and loblolly pine. Some areas do not
contain pine in the canopy. The mature pines are most likely remnants of the earlier
successional community. Understory species include American holly (Ilex opaca), red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), hickory (Carya sp.), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and
seedlings of the canopy species. Vines of green briar (Smilax glauca, S. rotundifolia),
and Japanese honeysuckle are also present. Herbaceous vegetation was not observed
because the fieldwork was done in the dormant season and presence of leaf litter.
This community represents an example of a Dry-Mesic Mixed Oak-Hickory Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990). The ICEC equivalent is most likely
I.B.2.N.a.27 Quercus alba - (Quercus rubra, Carya spp.) Forest Alliance (Dry-Mesic
Piedmont Oak - Hickory Forest).
3.1.4 Faunal Component
Species that prefer open areas to feed and nest in can be found in the disturbed
communities. The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic
and capable of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to both living
and dead faunal components. The European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and American
robin (Turdus migratorius) are common birds that use these habitats to find insects,
April 2004
12
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
seeds, or worms. The American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos) and the Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana) are true opportunists and will eat virtually any edible
items including vegetation, fruits, seeds, insects, and carrion.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefers a
mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation
or out in the roadside, and residential areas. White-tailed deer* (Odocoileus virginianus)
will utilize the forested areas as well as the adjacent open pastures and fields. The black
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) will come out of forested habitat to forage on rodents in open
areas. Indigo bunting (Passerine cyanea) and common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas)
are neotropical migrants that inhabit dense, shrubby vegetation along transitional areas.
Blue jays (Cyanocitta cristata), song sparrows* (Melospiza melodia), white-throated
sparrows* (Zonotrichia albicollis), and bluebirds (Sialia sialis) also utilize edge habitat.
Forested areas are important habitat for many species. Neotropical migratory birds, in
particular, are dependent on these areas. Species such as prothonotary warbler
(Protonotaria citrea) and Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus motacilla) thrive in wooded
wetland locations, while black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia) and red-eyed vireo
(Vireo olivaceus) prefer the upland woods. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the
Northern short-tailed shrew (Blarina brevicauda) and the white-footed mouse
(Peromyscus leucopus) may be found. Gray squirrels* (Sciurus carolinensis) are often
observed in wooded areas. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) can be found under forest
litter and in brushy undergrowth. The Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a
terrestrial turtle but will be found near streams in hot, dry weather. The five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus) may also be found in forested communities. The forested wetland is
especially appealing to mud salamanders (Pseudotriton montanus), southern cricket frogs
(Acris gryllus), and the mud snake (Farancia abacura).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Mountain, Creek is a low to medium-gradient, second-order
stream. The bed material consists of mostly of sand, gravel with outcrop of bedrock
below the bridge. Above the bridge, water was deeper because of a large woody debris
jam lodged on the central concrete sill. On the day of the site visit, the water was clear
and tannic with no suspended sediment. The riparian community is mostly deciduous
trees and shrubs, and is described in Section 3.1.2. Unidentified aquatic vegetation was
observed in Mountain Creek.
According to a communication from Brian McRae, District 5 Biologist for the WRC,
there is no fishery survey data for Mountain Creek. Fish (1968) lists the stream as too
small to be of fishing significance. No threatened or endangered aquatic species are
April 2004
13
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
documented in Mountain Creek. It likely supports a typical Piedmont stream fishery
including shiners, minnows, dace, and sunfish.
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Project construction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential
impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted
and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities in the project area will be impacted permanently by project
construction from clearing and paving. Estimated impacts are based on the length of the
alternate and the entire study corridor width. Insert Alternate dimensions here. Table
1 describes the potential impacts to terrestrial communities by habitat type. Because
impacts are based on the entire study corridor width, the actual loss of habitat will likely
be less than the estimate. Table 1 should be completed following project design.
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Community Area of Impact in Acres (Hectares)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Type Vercent
project
area Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Disturbed 36
Bottomland
Hardwood 15
Upland Hardwood 40
Total Impact 91
*Does not include existing roadway
Destruction of natural communities along the project alignment will result in the loss of
foraging and breeding habitats for the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal
species will be displaced into surrounding communities. Adult birds, mammals, and
some reptiles are mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. Young animals
and less mobile species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during
construction. The plants and animals that are found in the upland communities are
generally common throughout central North Carolina.
Impacts to terrestrial communities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
April 2004
14
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
consequence of erosion. Construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities
in which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities.
Efforts should be made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site.
Furthermore, tall fescue is not suitable for erosion controls along stream banks.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
Impacts to aquatic communities include fluctuations in water temperature as a result of
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affected by losses in the
terrestrial communities. The loss of aquatic plants and animals will affect terrestrial
fauna that rely on them as a food source.
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during construction and
recolonize the disturbed area once it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to
affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the clogging and abrading of
gills and other respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of pools
and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete should not come into contact with surface water during bridge construction
as it can adversely affect aquatic life. Potential adverse effects can be minimized through
the implementation of NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface
Waters.
WRC made the following comments:
• The NCDOT should replace this bridge with a bridge and not a culvert.
• WRCs standard recommendations for bridge replacement projects apply.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses for two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR § 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344). These waters are regulated by the USAGE. Any action that
proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or wetlands falls under these
provisions.
April 2004
15
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Jurisdictional wetlands occur within the project area and will be impacted by project
construction. Wetlands are present along the western edge of the floodplain in the
headwater of UT 1 (wetland W) and in eastern portion of the project area at the headwater
of UT 3 (wetlands A, B, and C) (Figure 2). These forested wetlands are described in
Section 3.1.2 and would be classified as a palustrine forested broadleaf deciduous
seasonally flooded/saturated wetland (PFOlE) under the Cowardin Classification system.
Wetlands A and B were given a DWQ rating of 27 out of a possible 100 points, and
wetlands C and W were given a DWQ rating of 35 out of a possible 100 points.
Mountain Creek meets the definition of surface waters, and is therefore, classified as
Waters of the United States. The channel ranges from 35 to 40 feet (10.7 to 12.2 m) wide
within the project area.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
A forested wetland was identified within the project area. Alternate 1 would impact XX
acres (XX hectares [ha]) of the wetland community. Alternate 2 would impact XX acres
(XX ha) of the wetland community. Project construction cannot be accomplished without
infringing on the surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the
jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ. Within the project area, Mountain Creek is 40
feet (12.2 m) wide. Assuming a study corridor of XX feet (XX m) for each alternate, the
construction of the new bridge will impact XX linear feet (XX m) of stream, and a total
area of XX sq feet (XX sq m) of surface waters. Table 2 lists the estimated area of
impacts to surface waters. Add information re-arding stream impacts here.
Table 2. Estimated Area of Impact to Surface Waters
Area of Impact in Linear Feet (Meters)
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Surface Waters Temporary Permanent Temporary Permanent
Mountain Creek
UT 1 to Mountain Creek
UT2 to Mountain Creek
UT3 to Mountain Creek
Total Impact
Forested wetlands (were identified within the project area. Wetlands A and B were given
a DWQ rating of 27 out of a possible 100 points, and wetlands C and W were given a
DWQ rating of 35 out of a possible 100 points. Add information regarding wetland
impacts here. Table 3 lists the estimated area of impacts to wetlands.
April 2004
16
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Table 3. Estimated Area of Impact to Wetlands
Area of m pact in Acres (Hectares)
Permanent Temporary Total
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
4.2 Permit Issues
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
Permits and certifications from various state and federal agencies may be required prior to
construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23, as
promulgated under 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or in part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality Regulations for Implementing the
Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions that neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment; and
• the Office of the Chief Engineer has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Construction may also require authorization by NWP No. 33, also as promulgated under
67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes temporary structures, work,
and discharges, including cofferdams, necessary for construction activities or access fills
or dewatering of construction sites; provided that the associated primary activity is
authorized by the USACE or the U.S. Coast Guard (USCG), or for other construction
activities no subject to the USACE or USCG regulations.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification No. 3403, from the
DENR prior to issuance of the NWP 23. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
results in a discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the
USACE.
April 2004
17
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
4.2.1 Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.2.1.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and USACE, in
determining "appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in
terms of costs, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.2.1.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Practical means to
minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project
include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of
surface waters and wetlands
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
• Judicious pesticide and herbicide usage
4.2.1.3 Compensation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.
Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of
the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous
to the discharge site (i.e., compensatory on-site mitigation). The UT 2 may have potential
for restoration because of the channelized nature and proximity to the edge of the right-
of-way.
April 2004
18
Natural Resources Technical Repor.
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Because this project will likely be authorized under a NWP, mitigation for impacts to
surface waters may or may not be required by the USACE. In accordance with the DWQ
Wetland Rules [15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h)] "Fill or alteration of more than 0.1 acre of
wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and fill or alteration of more than 150
linear feet of streams may require compensatory mitigation." Written approval of the
final mitigation plan is required from DWQ before the regulatory agency issues a Water
Quality Certification. Furthermore, in accordance with 67 FR 2020; 2092; January 15,
2002, the USACE requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that
adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed.
project impact and function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors
considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation. Final compensatory stream mitigation requirements will be determined by the
USACE under the statutory provisions of CWA §404 and the January 15, 2002 Final
Notice of Issuance of Nationwide Permits.
Impacts to Mountain Creek and its associated wetlands can be avoided by utilizing an off-
site detour during bridge replacement. If an on-site detour or a new alignment is
necessary, then placement of the detour or new alignment to avoid impacts to jurisdiction
wetlands is recommended. If it becomes necessary to construct an on-site detour through
wetlands, degradation of certain wetland functions may occur though soil compaction or
other distortion. These functions may include water storage capacity and erosion control
capability, sediment removal, filtration of nutrients from agricultural areas, and biological
productivity.
Add information regarding stream and wetland impact quantities here. If the final
length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear feet (45.7 m), or if impacts to wetlands
are greater than 0.1 acres (0.2 hectares), compensatory mitigation may be required. The
environmental regulatory agencies will ultimately provide final permit and compensatory
mitigation decisions for the project.
4.2.2 Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge over Waters of the United States must be
addressed when applying to the USACE for a permit. A worst-case scenario of dropping
components of the bridge in the water is assumed. Effective 9/20/99, this issue is
included in the permit application for bridge reconstruction. The permit application
henceforth will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential impacts to the
body of water in the planning document for the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications for
Roads and Structures stipulates that the dropping of parts or components of structures
into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical method of
removal. The removal of the existing bridge should be by sawing or other non-shattering
methods. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure shall be
April 2004
19
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum. To meet these specifications,
NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters,
as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case 1) In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of ORW or
threatened and/or endangered species, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-
structure below the water. The work is carefully coordinated with the responsible agency
to protect the ORW or T&E species..
Case 2) No work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3) No special restrictions other than those outlined in Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition
document, dated 9/20/99.
Mountain Creek is a tributary to Grassy Creek in the Roanoke watershed and has a water
quality classification of C. No instream moratorium on this stream has been requested by
the WRC. However, stringent sediment and erosion control methods should be
implemented at all times. Therefore, Case 3 applies to the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 200 over Mountain Creek.
The existing superstructure consists of timber floor and timber joists while the
substructure is made of timber caps on timber piles and concrete sills at 5.6-foot (1.7 m)
centers. No fill is expected from bridge demolition.
The streambed in the project area is sand, gravel, and bedrock. Therefore, conditions in
the stream do not raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is not recommended.
4.3 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural forces
or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
for Granville County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
4.3.1 Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
April 2004
20
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
The USFWS lists (List updated February 18, 2003) four species under federal protection
for Granville County. These species are listed in Table 4.
Table 4. Species Under Federal Protection in Granville County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucoce halus T
Invertebrates
Dwarf-wedge mussel Alasmidonta heterodon E
Vascular Plants
Ha erella Ptilimnium nodosum E
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E
Notes: E Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range.
T Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range.
T(S/A) Similarity of Appearance-A species that is listed as threatened due
to similarity of appearance with other rare species.
* Historic record-the species was last observed in the county more
than 50 years ago.
** Incidental/Migrant record-the species was observed outside of its
normal range or habitat.
USFWS - List updated February 18, 2003
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirements of each species follows,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact. All surveys for federally
protected species should be conducted at least one year prior to the scheduled
construction let date. Surveys are valid for two years from the survey date. If the project
is not constructed within those two years, then the area may need to be resurveyed prior to
the let date.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald eagle)
Family: Accipitridae
Federally Listed: 1995
Proposed for delisting
Threatened
The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan reaching 7 feet (2.1 m). Adults have
a dark brown body with a pure white head and tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is
chocolate brown to blackish with white mottling on the tail, belly and under wings.
Adult plumage is fully acquired by the fifth or sixth year.
April 2004
21
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
The bald eagle is primarily associated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting
near large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys primarily on fish, but will feed on
birds, mammals, turtles, and carrion when fish are unavailable.
In the southeast, the nesting and breeding season runs from September to December.
Large nests up to 6 feet (1.8 m) across and weighing hundreds of pounds are
constructed from large sticks, weeds, cornstalks, grasses, and sod. Preferred nesting
sites are usually within one-half mile of water, have an open view of the surrounding
area, and are in the largest living tree, usually a pine or cypress. Excessive human
activity may exclude an otherwise suitable site from use. Wintering areas generally
have the same characteristics as nesting sites, but may be farther from shores.
The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the
southeast are concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana,
and sporadically located elsewhere.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
No rivers or lakes exist within one-half mile of the project area. The Grassy Creek
arm of Kerr Reservoir is 4.8 miles (7.7 km) from the project area. Although the
project has large and moderately large conifers, it is too distant from foraging habitat
to serve as potential bald eagle nesting habitat. A search of the NHP database found
no occurrence of this animal within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not impact this threatened species.
Alasmidonta heterodon (Dwarf-wedge mussel) Endangered
Family: Unionidae
Federally Listed: 1990
The dwarf-wedge mussel rarely exceeds 1.5 inches (3.8 cm) in length. It is the only
American freshwater mussel that has two lateral teeth on the right valve, but only one
on the left. The shell's outer surface is usually brown or yellowish brown in color,
with faint green rays that are most noticeable in young specimens. The male and
female shells differ slightly, with the female being wider to allow greater space for
egg development.
The dwarf-wedge mussel inhabits creeks and rivers of varying sizes (down to
approximately 6 feet (1.8 m) wide), with slow to moderate flow. A variety of
preferred substrates have been described that range from coarse sand, to firm muddy
sand to gravel (USFWS 2003). In North Carolina they often occur within submerged
root mats along stable streambanks. The wide range of substrate types used by this
species suggests that the stability of the substrate is likely as important as the
composition. These areas must be silt free. The dwarf-wedge mussel occurs in at
April 2004
22
Natural Resource-, Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
least 25 stream reaches along the Atlantic Coast from New Brunswick, Canada, to
North Carolina.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of the species include water
quality degradation and loss of habitat. The mussel needs slow to moderate currents
and a silt free environment, conditions that often are modified by dam construction.
Another significant factor is the exclusion of its anadromous fish host from some
habitat areas by impoundment and dams. Increased acidity, runoff of agricultural
chemicals and fertilizers, and the mussel's sensitivity to potassium, zinc, copper,
cadmium, and other elements associated with industrial pollution also contribute to
its decline.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP files found no occurrences of the dwarf-wedge mussel in the
project vicinity. The current is moderate to fast and the stream appeared to have a
minor silt load. It is also upstream of two dams (Kerr Reservoir and Roanoke Rapids
Lake). Although Mountain Creek is not in a river basin where this mussel has been
found, marginal habitat exists at the site. Therefore, it is unresolved pending a
survey of the stream by NCDOT biologist.
Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower)
Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: 1992
Endangered
The smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 4.9 feet
(1.5 m) tall. The largest leaves are the basal leaves, which reach 7.8 inches (19.8 cm)
in length and 3 inches (7.6 cm) in width. The basal leaves have long stems, are
elliptical to broadly lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth to slightly rough.
The plant has smooth stems with few cauline leaves. The rays of the flowers (petal-
like structures) are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and 1.9 to 3.1 inches (4.8
to 7.9 cm) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from May
through July.
The known range of smooth coneflower consists of 22 populations found now only
in Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Six of the populations are
in North Carolina and are found in Durham and Granville counties. Most of the
populations are small, containing less than 100 plants each. Four of the populations
contain less than 10 plants each.
In North Carolina the habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens,
roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on
magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with gabbro and diabase. Optimal
sites are characterized by full sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer
April 2004
23
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
(Gaddy 1991). Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, are part of the history of the
vegetation in this species' range and many of the associated herbs are also sun-loving
species, which depend on periodic disturbances to reduce the shade and competition
of woody plants (Kral 1983 and Gaddy 1991).
The major factors contributing to the endangered status of this species are collecting,
residential and industrial development, shade from woody vegetation, highway
construction and improvement, and certain types of roadside and power line right-of-
way maintenance. Like most coneflowers, this species is intolerant of dense shade.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
A search of the NHP files found no occurrence of smooth coneflower in the project
vicinity. Although open habitat is present along the sides of Davis Chapel Road, the
soils mapped in the project area are not typical of this species. However, it cannot be
concluded that the project will not impact this endangered species. Therefore, the
biological conclusion will remain unresolved pending a survey of the area at an
appropriate survey time (late May through July).
Ptilimnium nodosum (Harperella)
Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: 1988
Endangered
Harperella is an annual herb that grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches (15.2 to 91.4).
The leaves are hollow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur in heads,
or umbels, not unlike those of Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota). It is found in
pond and riverine habitats. Flowering begins in May in the pond habitats, late June
or July in the riverine habitats, and continues until frost. Seed set is apparently
profuse and populations in localized areas can achieve a high density and number of
individuals each year.
Harperella appears to prefer periodically disturbed sites. It typically occurs in two
habitat types: (1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-flowing stream
sections; and (2) edges of intermittent pineland ponds in the coastal plain. It does not
compete well with other species without periodic disturbance.
Major factors contributing to the endangered status of this plant are its tolerance and
possible requirement of a very specific and unusual water regime. This includes
moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce or eliminate competing
vegetation. Harperella is readily eliminated from its habitat by alterations of the
water regime resulting from impoundments, water withdrawal, and drainage or
deepening of ponds. Other factors such as siltation, pollution, and shoreline
development also threaten harperella populations.
April 2004
24
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
Biological Conclusion:
Unresolved
Marginal habitat for harperella exists along the rocky margins of the stream bank
within the project area. The stream is fast flowing and does have rocky or gravelly
shoals in the project area. A search of the NHP database found no occurrence of this
plant within the project vicinity. However, it cannot be concluded that the project
will not impact this endangered species. Therefore, it is unresolved pending a survey
of the area at an appropriate survey time (late June or July).
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Table 5 includes FSC species
listed for Granville County and their state classifications. Organisms that are listed as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) on the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern in Granville County
Common Name Scientific Name State Status Habitat Present
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis le idinion SC Yes
Pinewoods shiner Lythrurus matutinus SR ** No
Invertebrates
Atlantic i toe Fusconaia masoni E Yes
Brook floater Alasmidonta vancosa E Yes
Green floater Lasmigona subviridis E No
Yellow lam mussel Lampsilis cariosa E Yes
Yellow lance Elliptio lanceolata E Yes
Vascular Plant
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri SR-T Yes
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum E-SC Yes
Torre 's mountain-mint Pycnanthemum torrei SR-T * Yes
T = Threatened
E = Endangered
SC= Special Concern
SR= Significantly Rare
-T = Fewer than 100 populations throughout the species' range
* = Historic record; the species was observed over 20 years ago
** = Obscure record; the date and/or location of observation is uncertain
Sources: Amoroso, ed., 2002; LeGrand, Hall, and Finnegan, 2001
NHP - list updated 1/04, USFWS - list updated 2/18/03
April 2004
25
Natural Resources Tech,,ical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, and none are recorded at NHP as
occurring within 2 miles (3.2 km) of the project area.
April 2004
26
Natu!al Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. "The A.O.U. Checklist of North American Birds,
Seventh Edition." http://www.aou.ore/aou/birdlist.html#tina (19 Dec 2003).
Amoroso, J.L., ed. 2002. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh,
North Carolina.
Conant, Roger and Joseph T. Collins. 1998. A Guide to the Reptiles and Amphibians of
Eastern and Central North America. Houghton Mifflin Company. Boston, New York
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, Office of
Biological Services, FWS/OBS-79/31. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Gaddy L.L. 1991. The status of Echinacea laevigata (Boynton and Beadle) Blake.
Unpublished report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Asheville, North Carolina. 24
pp., plus appendices and maps.
Kral, R. 1983. A report on some rare, threatened, or endangered forest- related vascular
plants of the South, U.S. Forest Service Technical Pub. R8-TP2. 1,305 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of
the Rare Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison, III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill,
North Carolina.
NatureServe. 2002. International Classification of Ecological Communities: Terrestrial
Vegetation. Natural Heritage Central Databases. NatureServe, Arlington, VA.
NCDENR. "Permits Database on Mainframe Computer." Water Quality Section, Division
of Water Quality http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/NPDES/documents.html (13 Jan. 2004).
April 2004
27
Natural Resources Technical Report
Mountain Creek, Granville County, North Carolina
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
Quality Section. http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wghome.html (9 Jan. 2004).
NCDENR. 2003. Basin-Wide Assessment Report of the Tar River Basin. Environmental
Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
NCDENR, Division of Parks and Recreation, North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
County Status Database. Raleigh, North Carolina. (January 2004)
North Carolina Office of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State
Demographics." http://www.ospl.state.nc.us/lemogl (July 2002).
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
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, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
Thorpe, James H. and Alan P. Covich. 1991. Ecology and Classification of North
American Freshwater Invertebrates. Academic Press, Inc. San Diego, California.
USDA, Soil Conservation Service. 1997. Soil Survey of Granville County, North
Carolina. Raleigh, North Carolina.
USFWS. "Endangered Species/ Section 7 Program in North Carolina." North Carolina
Ecological Services. http://nc-es.fws.gov/es/countyfr.html (25 February 2003).
USDA, NRCS. 2004. The PLANTS Database, Version 3.5 http://plants.usda.gov National
Plant Data Center, Baton Rouge, LA 70874-4490 USA.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
April 2004
28
*NCD'WQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: 1i u ,,.,c,
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream:
Date: I?(D 04 USGS QUAD:
5'a?rv?h?
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
1 V\. +? -V-, L r? if
County:' Evaluator: 14
C,
Latitude:
Longitude:

Signature:
U- 5 2 G
i o?Z w.1\?aw.c
Location/Directions:
5? Lf -. 5_
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
*NOTE: g Bed & Bank Caused By Ditching And WITHOUT Sinuosi Then Score=0*
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On To o Ma And/Or In Field Present? Yes=3 No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
1 2 3
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
2
2
3) Does Topography Indicate A
0 .5 1 '!^1 3'' ,
Natural Drainage Way?
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: -T
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE.- If Ditch bidicated In #11 Above Skip This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
Conditions Or In Growing Season)?.
6) Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In Headcutt)? Yes=1 5 No=O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = Z I (If Greater Than or =19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent).
2 Lt 52.4
III: Il ology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
/? h+, C t-ee-k
0 Are Iron Oxidizing Bacteria/Fungus Present? .5 1 1.5
7) Is Filamentous Algae Present? 0 .5 1 "5
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly-pBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mosfly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants ht Streambed 2 75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Skip This Step UNLESS SAV Present*).
J
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: =
L 1CDW(2 Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: ?Zoa,v,otV
??j 4 5 2
DWQProjectNumber: N??stNam d???a :
Date: USGS QUAD: 1
y C q ,ruoC'
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
L VI I c-
2 Evaluator: ?,
County: Cal
Latitude: Signature:
Longitude: Location/Directions:
Geomor bolo ti t
1 Weak Moderate Strong
.
1) Is There A Riffle Pool Seguence9 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed 2 3
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 3
3 Are Natural Levees Present? CO 1 2
2
,J 3??
4) Is The Channel Sinuous? 1
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
>
Floodplain Present? 0
0 1
1 2
2
3
6 Is The Channel Braided?
2 -
3
7 Are Recent Alluvial Deposits Present? 0 1
8 )Is There A B ankfull Bench Present? 0 1 3,_ _ 1
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0
*NOTE: I Bed & Batk Caused B Ditchin And ITHOUT Simtosi Then Scare=O*
10) Is A 2"d Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
On To o Ma And 0 In Field Present? Yes=3 No=
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater -
3
Flow/Discharge Present? 0
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:_ 1 ?
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 .5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:- -"
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 0
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE. If Ditch Indicated ht #ll Above Skip This Step And #S lleloty*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
I
4

8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostl OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 l__% .75 .5 0 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: L?
TOTAL POINTS (Primary + Secondary) = _3q (If Greater Than or = 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent).
?, - Lt

t ?

o ?-

v
V ' ` lam-- r? 'l j ?- 5-
'NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
Project Name: River Basin: County !l Evaluator: A. "r
`?- (?f ?p?'1 V l l ? 6 . L.cI lk_-?o rr?
DWQ Project mb r: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature:
?l1JlRJ? 4-t'{Z CAS'°-2?Y .
Date: 1?1?2 ?O?i USGS QUAD: Longitude: Location/Directions:
5 ?2 l4 3-5
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle Otte Number Per Line)
I Geomorphology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
IN T? T'hAra A Riffle-Pnnl Senuence? 0 2 3
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed U
Different From Surrounding Terrain? 0 3
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2 U
(*NOTE !f Bed & Bank Caused ByDitehine And WITHOUT Sinuosity Then Score=0*) - ---
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated -?
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: )1)
II Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater 7 /? 2 3
Plnw/r)ischsrge Present? I 0 (PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:

A
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
Secondary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Drainage Way? 0 5 1.5
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 2,
I_I Hydrology Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
D-- t T. Qt-.-1,Af19 1 5 1 .5 0
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 J.
Last Known Rain? *NOTE: I Ditch Indicated In #ll Above Ski This Ste And #5 Beloty*
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:-'
3
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU MostUPL
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 .75 .5 0 ( 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
TOTAL POINTS (Prtmary + Secondary) (If Greater Than or = 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent).
t- (45;tf.
,It?14 UT-2-
A14
NCDAQ Stream_ Classification Form
Project Name: 4 S DL 6 River Basin: R10o,v.01L.2
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named S - Je p ci-eeK
Date: 1 1 1 tp) D 4 USGS QUAD:
( Sae
Primary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number PerLitte)
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
v ? S t? K ? dm?
County: &c.pf1V I I-e Evaluator: T
6. ??c-rU `
Latitude: Signature:
Longitude: Location/Directions:
S12 i43s
Moderate Strong
8 Is There A Bankfull Bench Present? 0 1 2 3
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 ^2
*NOTE: I Bed & Batik Caused B, Ditchin And WITHOUT Sinuosi , Then Score=0*
10) Is A 2nd Order Or Greater Channel (As Indicated
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:! 2
II Hvdrolofv Absent Weak Moderate Strong
1) Is There A Groundwater
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ?
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
?SeCOndary Field Indicators: (Circle One Number Per Line)
eak
2 Is There A Grade Control Point In Channel? 0 .5 1 1.5
3) Does Topography Indicate A -
.',% 1 C
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
II. Hvdrolou Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter a^-.
Present In Streambed? 1.5 1 .5 .- 0.., 1
2) Is Sediment On Plants (Or Debris) Present? 0 5 1 1.5
3 Are Wrack Lines Present? 0 .5 1 1.5
4) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .5 1 1.5
Last Known Rain? (*NOTE. If Ditch Indicared In #II Above Skin This Step And #5 Below*)
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5 1 1.5
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 1.'J''
,?vJ
G'
trot
/ 15 P11C11111-11wua A1C4v .....,...... -- -
8) Are Wetland Plants In Streambed? SAV Mostly OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU N?nstly,UP,
(* NOTE: If Total Absence Of All Plants In Streambed 2 1 •75 5 ` 0
As Noted Above Ski This Ste UNLESS SAV Present*).
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:
mary + Secondary) = 9)D . (If Greater Than or = 19 Points The Stream Is At Least Intermittent).
TOTAL PINTS (Pn
l j
q S a,f-
v 7~ 3
?USACE AID# DWQ # Site # - (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET. -
lull
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: /
1. Applicant's name: t\lCOuT 2. Evaluator's name: I Lu << (a t c.G. r/? r' `?
3. Date of evaluation: l 1 l tl)04 4. Time of evaluation: 1 D '. 3 OL1yV1
5. Name of stream: Mcq l.i l' w ccanY-- 6. River basin: 121.) all 7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ?-?
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?? ?ePk 10. County: C71 r?'v':7^,
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any): ?-
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS C Sheet rtho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note n Arb oads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
Sew /52 I q 35-
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions: N lQ lkf CJ;.) ; (? 1d,51 ?GI.fS
16. Site conditions at time of visit:
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map?lYE NO 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey?.-'YE f NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _%o Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): LJ` ?V 4-C 24. Channel slope down center of stream / Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight / Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 5A - Comm
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
. A . ...
? 4;
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET M N? CA L
ECOIZE i f N POINT RANG
SCORE
# CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal
"Pied'
onE
N loantain
Presence of flow /,persistent pools in stream 0-5 0 -4 0 - 5 Ll
1 (no flow or saturation - 0; strop flow= max ' oints)
-
Evidence of-past human alteration,,,.,
?
0 - 6-
0-5
0 - 5 -
oints ,_
(extensive alteration= Oi no alteration= max
Riparian zone, <
, 0-6 0-4 0-5
=O'conti uous wide buffer =max oints
(no buffer

4 Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges

:
5
0
0 _4'
- 0• no discharges max points)
(extensive discharges

5 T<
Groundwater discharge
0._ 3
0-4
0- 4
(no discharge = 0; springs, seeps, wetlands etc. = max points)
Presence of adjacent floodplain _ 0 -4' 0-4 0-2
4
(no flood lain = 0• extensive flood plain ="ztiax points) "
En'tre'nchment /'floodplain access 0= 5 0-4 0_2
A-+ dee Iv entrenched 0, fre went floodin max points) - J
Presence of adjacent wetlands 0'- 6 0 - 4 0 - r?
(no wetlands= .0; large adjacent wetlands "max ointsy.-
9 : 7Channel sinuosity, ?-
' 0 0 4' 0-3
rnaX oints}
extensive channeGzation= 0; tiIatural meander=
Sediment inpuE"
' 5', 0-4 0-4
or no sediment= max°
(extensive de"`o'sition 0 little
points) Size&' diversity of channel bed substrate Na* 0-4 0-5

'az oints
( fine, homogenous =A; lar e diverse sizes.= m
Evidence of channel incision or widening
'
' 0 - 5 0-4 0-5
y{
),
tablebed'& banks = max points
I incised =b; s
dee'
E"
r-? .:Presence of major bank failures `

'
0,5
0-
0-5
13 O; no erosion,stable hanks= max points)
(severe erosion
P2
14 Root depth and density on banks 0-3, 4 0-5
: no visible roots = 0, dense roots throiu hout = max, points)
fi
1S Impact by agriculture, livestock, oraimber production
, .
,
0-5 0 = 4 . 0 - 5,
, (su
bstantial im act =0; no evidence - max oints)
16 Presence 'of riffle-pool/ripple-pool complexes 0-3 0 - 5 0,- 6 ` ' L
(no riffles/ripples or pools = O; well-developed -max oints
F-+
?.
17 Habitat complexity ,
? .
i
'
(
0-6
'0"=6_
0-6
E-+ oints
frequent, varied' habitats _ max
little or no habitat = 0;

18 Canopy coverage over, streambed 0 g 0-5 0-5,.
5
(no shading vegetation = 0; continuous' canopy - max points
19 Substrate embeddedness 0-4 0- 4
(deeply -embedded= 0' loose structure = max
20 -
,
Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4)
0-4
0-5
0_5
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)

C7 , 21 Presence of amphibians
` 0-4 0-4 0 - 4
numerous types = max points)
no evidence = 0; common,

22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4
0-4 !
/
(no evidence = 0; common numerous types ° max points)

23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-6
0-5
0-5
(no evidence _ 0; abundant evidence - max points)
Cotal Points Possible.: 100,
100.'' '
1.00,
-

'TOTAL SCORE : (also "enter on first page)
F77
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
rpC?C?o? ?. 2
Oroa? ?,
USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET A .F
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment:
1. Applicant's name:- 2. Evaluator's name: 17--FIN '.I lo,w Ca La.,/???
3. Date of evaluation: ) I (D_T? 4. Time of evaluation: 0
o P?4
5. Name of stream: l/ i 1 4, A4-t- Cn e?K 6. River basin: ?10 0;,\
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order:
?rV
9. Length of reach evaluated: ?0 10. County:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo Sheet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (no earb? roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: 04
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES IN )?
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential
% Forested
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
_% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared/ Logged _% Other
22. Bankfull width:< 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank)
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment- section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): Comments:
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
IS-HS-2-6
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET L/7- 1
ECOREG ION Y4TNT RANGE ' SCORE
## CHARACTERISTICS
Coastal -
Pic Mont,,

Moudtain
Presence of flow / persistent pools in stream
0-5
04
0-5
1 (no flow 6r saturation ,0; strong flaw= max points)
Evidence of past human alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5 -?
_
(extensive alteration0; no alteration = max points)
Riparian zone 0-6 0-4 0- 5
(no buffer = 6;,c ntiuous;-wide buffer =n aX "oints?
Evidence of nutrient or chemical discharges.,; 0-5 0-4 0-4
'
(extensive discharges" 0; no discharges =mar points)

-a 11
Groundwater discharge

0-3

0-4

0-4
5 (no discharge-0 spring s;seeps,'wetlands, et`.-'=maxpoints)
Presence of,adjacent floodplain 0 _ } 0 - 4 0-
-
L!
6 (no floodplann = 0"' extensve flood lain = niax oinis) .
'
x " Entrenchment / floodplan access . - p, 5? 0-4 0-2
dee ly entrenched =?0;"frequent floodin = rnax oints
Presence of adjacent wetlands: „ " 0-6 0-4
0 -2
8 (no wetlands ` -0; larg e'ad'acent wetlands = max : points)

9 :Channel, sinuosity '• " '
'
' 0 " 5 0-4 0-3
. -
extensive cbanneltzation = 0; natural imander = max points)
10 Sediment input 0-5 0-4 0-4
t
(extensive deposition= 0,liftle.or nvse"diment = max points)
Size & diversity of channel bed substrate,-!,-
B-?
;
0-4
0- 5
-
11
fine homo enous.='0 'lag e,"dive'rs6, sizes= max " points) .)
Evidence of channel ineision?'or widening" ,
0
5
0-4_
0-5
? . 12 (dee 1 incised = 0,` stable bed &" banks = max oints -
Presence of major bank failures 0--5 4-5 0-5 r
severe:erosion 0; no erosion,stable`banks=max dints)
p 14` Root depth'and density on banks 0 ?- 3 0-4 0 -5
'-I
no visible roots 0; dense roots throughout -= max points ,
Impact by agriculture,- livestock, or timber, production
0
5
0 4 `
, 0-5'
IS Jsubstantial irri act =0;?no evidence =-rnax oints) - -J
16
= ooUriPPle- Pool compIexes`
-Presence' of riffle P
p
,. 0-3,
0-5
0 6',

Q
oints
opools = O;<well=develo ed = max
no nffleshi les or

17 ,
ftabitat complexity
0-6
Q-6.
0_6
C
." (tittle of no habitat = 0;fre went varied habitats = max points)
"
19 Canopy coverage over stream bed
-°S
0 5
?0 - 5
no shadin v6 etation= 0; continuous canopy - max'points
19 " Substrate etnbeddedness
NA*
04''
0-4- .
(deepl embedded = O; loose structure = max)
20 Presence of stream invertebrates (see page 4),
O- 4
,0-5
0-5

L?
no evidence= 0• common numerous types = max oints

21 Presence of amphibians
' 4- 0'- 0-4
- 0• common, numerous tYpes = max points)
(no evidence

O
; 22 'Presence of fish

p
0-4
0 4
0-4
a..?
-+ ± oints)
(no evidence- 0; common numerous types = max
"
23 Evidence of wildlife use
0-'6,
0 5
0-5
(no evidence '= 0;; abundant evidence = max points)

Total Points Possible I00` l00 100

TOTAL SCORE (also enter bn first page)" .:°?., `
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams,
xVJ ??2a
J n. . ;
USACE AID#
DWQ # Site #,
(indicate on attached map)
M STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET F
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: .?
1. Applicant's name: n ? eg o 7 2. Evaluator's name: / 1
3. Date of evaluation: X11 ????
5. Name of stream: ?T? ?v A J (r- -,-1e
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated: n D
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
Latitude (ex. 34.872312):
Method location determined (circle): GPS
13. Location of reach under evaluation
14. Proposed channel work (if any):
15. Recent weather conditions:
16. Site conditions at time of visit: ?? (C l `? T 3
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (MV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES NO If yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES (l?) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential _% Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested _% Cleared / Logged _% Other
t-
22. Bankfull width: 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): "'
, t
24. Channel slope down center of s ream: Flat (0 to 2%) Gentle (2 to 4%) Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: S'traig t ? Occasional bends Fregtienfmeander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): 5-0 Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
4. Time of evaluation: 10toW 1 1
6. River basin: ( u (Le
8. Stream order:
10. County: GOINOOV-2
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Longitude (ex. -77.556611):,
ty j Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
? 14 S?-(11
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET u T 2-
.. Presence of lioiv / persistenfpools to stream 0 5 0-4
0 - 5
1?
1 (no Y]ow.orsaturafiostron flow 'max.points)

2 Evidence'ofpasthuman alteration
0-6
0-5
0-5 i
fextensive'alterahon ?0, n&"alteration -Max -01h S)

.:
-3 Riparian zone - f
0?-6
0.-4
0-5
F (uo"bnffer 0 cOiAiuous;'wide buffer . max points
:k : Evidenci of nutrient or, chemical discharges
0=5
0-4 ti
0=4
e?-ter sive discharges O;,nb discharges -max points)

5" Groundwater discharge
0-3
0-4
0-4
no dischar e , 0 springs, seeps .wetlands, etc.'- max'poinis
Preseneeof adjacent floodplam 0= 4 0-4 0- 2
3
6 (no flood lairs, 4•, extensive flood"lain =,rnax oints
utrenchinent Cfloodplain access 0-5 0 ` 4 0-2
deepl enfrenched 0 -fie cent floodin -`max oints .

' l'resenceof adjacent wetlands
0-6
0=4
0-2
8
- no?wetlands'= Qlai``e ad acentwetlands .max points) °
"Channel sinuosity
0-5
0-4
0-3
?., 9 ? extmsive channelization 0,• naturalfneander=inaz oints) _

10 Sediini nt input ;
• 0 -5 0-4 U - 4 ;
dints)
eSctensive deposition=0 slittle`or nosentment° max
Size 8c diversity ofchannel bed substrate
N?
0'` 4 :
0 - 5 ;
1 l
ar diverse`:sizes -'max dints
-"0;:
(fine homogenous e . )

2 Evidence bUchannel incisioin or widening
0-5
0-4 .
0-5:
1 deetnt ised 0,'st -b le bed & banks rnax points)

N Presence of major bank failures
0-5
0-5
0-5
j
13 (severe erosion O,?n'o erosto"n, stable banks-- max dints)
zi 14 Root depth and density on` banks 0 -3
_
0-4
0 - 5
no visible toots 0 dense roots throe bout = max omts`
Impact by agriculture, livestock, or-timber; pi'oduchon
0 - 5
0 - 4
U 5
15 .
substantial im ` aat =0 `no evidenoe = maz pints j,
Presence of riffle pooUripple pool complexes'
0 - 3
0
5
0 - 6
Z
l6 no riffles1 ' le§ or' cols well-d'evelo ed--= rnax oints = -

17 :Habitat complexity
" 01- 6 0 =6 0- 6 a
, dints
little or no habitat = 0' frequent varied`habitats max
''18 Canopy coverage over streambed

_
`
i
0-5
0=5'',
0"=5"

cano max oints
ii 0 contmuous
ve etatio
no shadm
7L.
?
19 ,E Substrate embeddedness

.
*
_
0

-4
0 L

?
. _
(dee 1 embedded - 0• loose structure -max

20 Presence of stream invertebrates (seepage 4)

'
0
-0-5
=_max oints
no evidence = 0' common numerous types

21 ' -Presence of amphibians
0-4
0=4
0-4
Q . no evidence = 0; common numerous es = max pmts

Q
. 22 Presence'of fish .
0-4
0-4
0'-4
D
(no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
23 Evidence of wildlife use

'
06
0=5
0-5
= 0; abundant evidence = max points) =
(no evidence
6tal.Po16ts7 osslble <1Ob Ir00 I00
v
TOTAL SCORE (also enter on first page} rD
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.
cc,k
Lp.?V; 2
- 4S ?k- ( UT 3 -fa
USACE AID#,
DWQ #.
Site # (indicate on attached map)
FEB STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET F LL
Provide the following information for the stream reach under assessment: F `
1. Applicant's name
0 C119a 1-
3. Date of evaluation: I I) Lb ?l
5. Name of stream: UA- 4o ,44, f C r,-
7. Approximate drainage area:
9. Length of reach evaluated:
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees.
2. Evaluator's name:
4. Time of evaluation: 3 O rn
6. River basin: ?-1)
8. Stream order:
10. County:
T
12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (ex. -77.556611):
Method location determined (circle): GPS opo heet Ortho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads and landmarks and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
(.,,',",?,, ttlrw,OrN F)
14. Proposed channel work (if
15. Recent weather
16. Site conditions
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries Habitat
-Trout Waters ----Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters Water Supply Watershed (I-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YE NO f yes, estimate the water surface area:
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES(!?O) 20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey? YES NO
21. Estimated watershed land use: _% Residential % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Forested % Cleared / Logged _% Other ( )
22. Bankfull width: I- z f?- 23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank):
24. Channel slope down center of stream: Flat (0 to 2%) -Gentle (2 to 4%) ? Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (>10%)
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of 100 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
Total Score (from reverse): (a-2- Comments
Evaluator's Signature Date
This channel evaluation form is intended to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data required by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change - version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.
Cr-k
STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
3
A
1tu.u
6
7.' d
Sr
717777
ext
10 ext
v73
'resence of floiY / persisfentpools in stream
"
0 5
0 4 y
0 5, T
Dints)
flow orsaturation;:= 0 strong flow= max
Evidence of p'ast.human alteration _
'
' 0 - 6 0 5 ,0 °5 a
s)
.
ensive alterat0• no alteration =max Dint {y
Riparian zone t
'
? 06 0 4 0' 5
max points
buffer =
buffer - 0`'conti tout wide t
ence 'of ngtrie4t or chemical discharges . '
evid
> ?. ,4 . .. 0'_ 5 r p 4 0 - 4
;nsive dischar es0 ,no;dischar es =max omts) .
---- 7777 7777--7777T,
Grour?dwafer discharge
_
'
'
?

0

0 4
"
0 4
'
ints
etc. _-,max p
o
liar e. 0-?s iin`'' s= see s r-6tlands,

P #loodplain ,
resence oEadjacent
0'y 4
0 - 4
0 = 2
flood lain;- 0° extenstye flood lain =max points) -
Entrenchment / floodplam access. 0 - 'S 0 - 4 0 - 2 _-I
51 entrenched 0fre4 nt flooiiin = max points
Presege? of adjacent wetlands 0'- 6 0 4 0 -2 ?;.
ds 0 lac e:ad acentwetlarid max omts
etl
w
an
Chitiinel sinuosity- 0- 5 0- 4 0 3
ive'channelization - 0 :natural. meander max points
Scc iment::input .
0 5
0 = 4
0 ` 4
f;
little or.na sediment =max Dints) .,
give de osition 0 :
.
,'Size & diversity of Ghannei bed substrate,
7
k omb enous''_0;1ar a ',diverse sizes :max Dints 7,
't Evidence of channel incision o wi;ctcuing
7 4
12 dee' l inetsed 0;'stable bed & banks `max ' Dints)
''
yt Presence of mayor bank failures
0-:5
0-5
0 5
•I severe erosion= 0; no erosion stable,banks .;max, oints}

14t Root depth and density on.banks:r
".
h
"
0-3
0-4"
0-5
,
•oofs 0 'dense roots throw bout max points
'rib visible Y
.
Impact by agriculture,` hvesfock, or timber production :-
0 - 5
0 -'4.'
0 ",5
15
ry:
! substan.tial.im `act'=0• no evidence max ointsj`
;

Y •
n
ee.
' P PP P P
c
o
i 0- 3 -5
0 0- 6
,h 16 ints
ed °max o
0/well-develo
ools.
les or
no riffles/ri .
Q
> Habitat complexity.
0-6 =6
0 6
0`? t j
17 little or no habitat 0 fie went vaned habitats =max points)
18 Canopy coverage over, streambed 0 - 5 0 - 5
(no shadirive eta ton - 0 continuous cano max oints
Substrate er?6eddedness NA* p -4 0 -!4 1i
1,9 (dee l emfiedded . 0? loose structure =max) : ,
2 Presenee,of stream invertebrates (see page 4) 0 - 4 0 - 5 0 . `5
0 : no evidence - 0 common,. numerous types =max points
0 21 amphibians:
Presence of
04

0=.4

0-4

j
O
no evidence = 0• common numerous types = max points)
?-a
22 Presence of fish
0-4
0-4.
0-4
.. (no evidence = 0 common, numerous types = max points -
Evidence of wildlife use

6
0-

0 '5
-

0 5
-
23 (no evidence= 0; abundant evidence= max points)

t
"
Total Points Possible

00}
ly:

100

00

`r

TOTAI SCORE (also enter on first page)
* These characteristics are not assessed in coastal streams.

?? t?

k"k Nearest road: 12 Ll
Project Name:
County: Wetland area: acres Wetland width: feet
Name of evaluator:???° ?? Date:
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other:
Soil series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
_ steep topography
ditched or channelized
total riparian wetland width >_ 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/z mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation ?t 0/1
agriculture, urban/suburban %
impervious surface '2-2%
Dominant vegetation
3) M«ruS •t
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
?' eadwater forest W- kt,-' Freshwater marsh
r
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream. channels; ..........................
weight
0 =
R Water storage x 4.0
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization _ I x 4.00 = Total Scoi
T Pollutant removal x 5.00
1 Low flow augmentation -
N Wildlife habitat 2. x 4.00
G Aquatic life Z x 1.00 = 2-
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within %Z mile radius.

777
t{ ?i T S h e r.,.? W jv
WETLfiAr1D RAT G `QR S T fourth ,"7r, qn
Z{ 5 ?.fo w C Nearest road: S? 3S
u.Project Name: ? -
County: car..-,-I N Wetland area: acres Wetland width: feet
Name of evaluator: C - Lc nk-F° r C Date: " 16 _
Wetland location
on pond or lake
r,- on perennial stream
?on intermittent stream
_ within interstream divide
other:
Soil series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
- steep topography
Neditched or channelized
?total riparian wetland width > 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation GO %
agriculture, urban/suburban 346 %
impervious surface 2%0
Dominant vegetation
1) 5???-?- Cam..
2)
31
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
,:seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
1Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
_
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels:-- --
...........
.. weight
R Water storage - x 4.00 = 1"2-
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization x 4.00 = gnrf,
T Pollutant removal I x 5.00 = J -3-5-
- n
nn
1 Low flow augmentation .
N Wildlife habitat _7 x 4.00 = 1
G Aquatic life 2 x 1.00 = -2-
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within % mile radius.

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
5' Date: 2 - - O Lf
Project/Site: '
Applicant/Owner: d County:
Investigator: State: V1
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes ? No Community ID: ? J.3 A. fst?,r? v r r:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No ?L Transect ID:
-
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No ? Plot ID: V?
(If needed, explain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
f^vt,
?
?'fj Ltd
vi T, 5
',tl V
??. r FA c.Qj
?
?l L?O j 4 i? ?
fl/ ? r"
e
t f'v /v w
Jl ,?t
t- A- r
... F'Acu-

h, d n'-G W ?CC
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC (excluding FAC-) I . 7
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Qther
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
__,-Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: `?- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Projecd5ite:
Community ID: 011- R.-O _V
Transect ID: Date:
Plot ID: 1 7
t-
SOILS
Cl
Map Unit Name l) !! ry
cI t L
d '?
"
""
?
C ass:
Drainage
e?
d T
M
C
f
A n
- s+
- f
+
t
O a? r
(Series and Phase): appe
yp
on
irm

Al Ua t 1, V ,ew% -r
:
rou
Sub
om
T Yes
No
p
g
y
axon
? _
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.

V9, fN. el I= ?, !A

I? ` I 0 <1 I C ! OG!. 4 -.

W
C ? m 'f S4

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
1 +
Remarks: iv Q U J S t ?)1 ct? J I
f
l Lv.
.
J

WETLAND DETERMINATION
hytic Vegetation Present?
i Hydrology Present?
Soils Present?
_ Yes No
t?es No
-Yes V'-'No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes V No
Remarks: C J, Uic v? U t ) f;4 Z -

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual).
A I/ S2- L Date:
Project/Site: 41 C D° T County:
Applicant/Owner: or?
/
L State: /-/C
Investigator: ? -
am
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Yes No Community ID: ?. ,4 ,
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes No !/ Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes No Plot ID: -
(if needed- exnlain in remarks.)
VEGETATION
c
es
l
S Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
pe
i
ant
Dominant P F AC' -
VACW

n FL nr 1 rw L ?-
S
rtu

rr
i
Cw
?
,
s
T ? ? ?L
4

Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL. FACW or FAC (excludingFAC-)
Remarks: Da n t '` tie r rv't'"^
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks:)
Stream, Lake or Tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
V No Recorded Data Available Wetiand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Inundated
_ ,-'Saturated in Upper 12 inches
Water Marks
Drift Lines
Field Observations: Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Depth of Surface Water: ?- (in.) Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
n Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 in.
Depth to Free Water in Pit: (in.) Water-Stained Leaves
Local Soil Survey Data
Depth to Saturated Soil: (in.) FAC-Neutral Test
Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

Community ID: 61 , r We 4 (c,,,-6 ProjectiSite: ?;?j - ? S2 6
Transect ID: Date: 6
Plot ID: `11)
SOILS
Drainage Class: MO L oAe.(b. wG ?? P j-- Y
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): c !!
(`Ge 4QN (oq+-. d Confirm Mapped Type?

Taxonomy Subgroup:
? ?^ t J(
Wt-
v ?-F1 l ?i/?I L 4 Yes
No
Profile Description:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
(inches) Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Structure, etc.
,
t" ` 2 YI 131 Z 1 . j""'

(C? C"Z /
x SLk $ „ rf -8 o L+ L .. r

Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sultidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
Reducing Condi tions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
e
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? J/fes No
Hydric Soils Present? ::`°s No
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? _j,,,fes No
Remarks:
0
.p
w
N
O
O
P.
O
W
N
A
O
CT