19950699 Ver 1_Complete File_19950705

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JP, R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
May 30, 199
Jul- 51995
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Chatham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 145 over Rocky River on
SR 1010, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1010(3), State Project No.
8.2520701, TIP No. B-2527.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge number 145 over the Rocky River will be
replaced south along the existing alignment. Traffic during construction
will be detoured onto existing area roads. The project will not result in
any wetland impacts, however incidental fill of surface waters is
anticipated.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Th?'hefo're,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (.B-23),'
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regu1atigns vy?ill
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
0
May 30, 1995
`Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr.
Scott P. Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincere Y,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. F. E. Whitesell, P. E., Division 8 Engineer
-

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2527
State Project No. 8.2520701
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1010(3)
A. Pro.iect Description: THE PROJECT
COUNTY OVER ROCKY RIVER. BRIDGE
BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCA'
APPROXIMATELY 287 FEET LONG WITH
WIDTH. TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED
ROADS.
IS LOCATED IN CHATHAM
NO. 145 ON SR 1010 WILL
PION WITH A BRIDGE
A 30-FOOT CLEAR DECK
ONTO EXISTING AREA
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: BRIDGE NO. 145 HAS A SUFFICIENCY RATING
OF 2.0 OUT OF 100 AND AN ESTIMATED REMAINING LIFE OF 2
YEARS. THE BRIDGE IS POSTED FOR 15 TONS. BECAUSE OF THE
DETERIORATED CONDITION, BRIDGE NO. 145 SHOULD BE
REPLACED.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g.' 'Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
1

C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
3. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or"transportation purposes'where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
2
number of users.
D.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
Special ProAect Information:
ALL STANDARD PROCEDURES AND MEASURES WILL BE IMPLEMENTED
TO AVOID AND MINIMIZE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS.
WETLANDS WILL NOT BE DISRUPTED BY THE PROJECT.
THE CAROLINA CANOE CLUB HAS REQUESTED THAT CANOE ACCESS
BE PROVIDED ADJACENT TO THE BRIDGE SITE. THIS REQUEST
SHOULD BE FURTHER INVESTIGATED WHEN DESIGN DETAILS ARE
AVAILABLE.
ESTI?1ATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION
RIGHT-OF-WAY
TO AL
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
- $ 817,000
- S 19,000
$ 836,000
1994 - 1700 VPD
2016 - 3400 VPD
3
THE DESIGN SPEED IS APPROXIMATELY 60 MPH.
SR 1010 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MINOR COLLECTOR.
THE DIVISION OFFICE CONCURS WITH THE PROPOSED BRIDGE
REPLACEMENT PROJECT.
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved with the project,
the following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact a X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened F7x
species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary a
wetland taking less than one-third X
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
X
(5) Will the project require the use of ?
U.'S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resourpes be adversely impacted by F 7 X
proposed construction activities?
4
i
t
(7) Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
(3) Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated ? X
mountain trout counties?
(9) Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or ? X
hazardous materials sites?
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly ? X
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier X
Resources Act resources?
(13) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be X
required?
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL*AND ECONOMIC"
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts ' ? X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of X
any family or business?
5

(17) If the project involves the acquisition of ?
right of way, is the amount of right of way X
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in ? X
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent ? X
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on ?
?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an X
increase traffic volumes?
permanent local traffic patterns or X
community cohesiveness?
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
f
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the F X
National Register of Historic Places?
6

(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl x
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966) ?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated x
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
RESPONSE TO QUESTION
AS OF MAY 12, 1994 THE USFWS LISTS FOUR FEDERALLY
PROTECTED SPECIES FOR CHATHAM COUNTY: THE BALD EAGLE
(Haliaeetus leucocephalus), RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER
(Picoides borealis), HARPERELLA (Ptilimnium nodosum) and
CAPE FEAR SHINER (Notropis mekistocholas).
CONSTRUCTION OF THE PROJECT WILL NOT IMPACT THE BALD
EAGLE, RED-COCKADED WOODPECKER, OR HARPERELLA.
THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN THE AREA WHERE THE WILDLIFE
RESOURCES COMMISSION (WRC) HAS DESIGNATED CRITICAL
HABITAT FOR AQUATIC SPECIES. ADDITIONALLY, THE CAPE FEAR
SHINER HAS BEEN CAPTURED AT THIS CROSSING IN THE PAST.
AN ON-SITE MEETING WAS HELD ON NOVEMBER 15, 1994 TO
DISCUSS CONSTRUCTION OPTIONS TO MINIMIZE IMPACTS TO THE
CAPE FEAR SHINER. THE FOLLOWING RECOMMENDATIONS AND
COMid ITMENTS ',;ERE AGREED UPON:
- HIGH QUALITY WATER BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES WILL BE
I,%IPLEMENTED .
- THE NEW BRIDGE WILL SPAN THE ENTIRE STREAM.
- THE PIERS THAT ARE IN THE RIVER WILL BE CUT TO NORMAL
SURFACE WATER LEVEL.
7
4
- THE NEW END BENTS WILL BE BUILT BEHIND THE EXISTING
ONES.
- SPREAD FOOTINGS WILL BE USED.
- NO DEBRIS FROM DEMOLITION OF THE EXISTING BRIDGE WILL
ENTER THE STREAM
- COFFERDAMS WILL BE USED DURING EXCAVATIONS.
- THE EXISTING RIP-RAP WILL BE RETAINED.
- THE BRIDGE WILL BE BUILT FROM THE TOP DOWN.
- THE FILL NECESSARY FOR THE NORTHERN APPROACH WILL BE
STONE AND WILL BE TAPERED INTO THE EXISTING RIP-RAP.
- THE US FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE WILL BE SENT A COPY OF
THE PLANS BEFORE CONSTRUCTION BEGINS.
- THE CONTRACTOR WILL NOTIFY NCWRC, USFWS, AND THE NCDOT
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT, IN WRITING, OF THE CONSTRUCTION
BEGIN DATE.
f
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2527
State Project No. 8.2520701
Federal-Aid Project No. _BRZ-1010(3)
Project Description: THE PROJECT IS LOCATED IN CHATHAM
COUNTY OVER ROCKY RIVER. BRIDGE NO. 145 ON SR 1010 WILL
BE REPLACED IN ITS EXISTING LOCATION WITH A BRIDGE
APPROXIMATELY 287 FEET LONG WITH A 30-FOOT WIDTH.
TRAFFIC WILL BE DETOURED ONTO EXISTING'AREA ROADS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
TYPE I I (B)
Approved:
Date -? Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
9- 7-S wa A, 2. E//, .0 r/1
Date Projec Planning Unit Head
/_ y_ 9s ?EA?
Date Project Pla i g Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
c--
Date Division Administrat r
Federal Highway Admi istration
9
NORTH CAROLINA

:, so71
9 II ? 7
1
Fe
Cr WCnheIG 1 ros arnngto
+ 751
11'
Ila
*y ilk HOoe
ui IS p\\
ge Farrington, +

't' ,
r
m
r w
a - „
Jay

d
A.- CM-.?, nl?
i
=
ernon $ mgs Is , Bonsa
env
oae oonfee, _sot
we •fi yi
I Cree
lo
t
G ) ayaood
? \'?? C
lnl
o
.,
s
9o
Bennett a
C mrwca i
I
Glu
.w
0 11 Carti-ton
42
- _-?-?
C•
t _ If I
EnAraaa th 7 S,ly Y
21 +r Z7 ?// E ByAm,
U21
tMI y , .0 ? ',. - ,G
3n! 31
Lla
0 Qy
Lai I 1a
L?.
r ` Far;. . - ?' I
,a Mickov7. _ :. I]Ip. I , ° M !Q IJ? o / ._ -
MIM v I \ t r 3.I ]LL .s !LL
DL LUA
1 ?.\ !L1L. p ISI. Mirdrall. I y If
,fa. , 171 .3 fer N? \ _ Ora Dal : ? o I I 7 501 '
'S
ELI - ea
,e r.. ... -vr
21.f U14. 70 ` , Iles
:21i ??\ II I PITTSBORO
_ ZLu .] 4
POP. 7.777 I7
,er p
Lumt ^ 710.1
;.2L2 SL
L ? .191
7'e7 1 \Y) i
?~ Cr,rk I?i? M0?42191 s 1002) ."'1 '.• ?i:?, ?,
', •pLL2 Ifoe '. J 997 .j, ,
J
1012
"? ',yr" P LLt „r0 e, is
2171
' ryyL ?? ?? \) '°I° ABRIDGE NO. 145
r' .. •y ? r ,i: ?Orafrla,a L7 '?` ?\\•sr 5 /Son
?- 71'. Ir1 v LL2 '.,11 ?•f- Or,'.y n f
-ZZU
M7. V;.. ?
111 2117 - Cr,•.v ?p CMrN Gro.a
• av . o\?. y S. 1: 'e' , Motf 7Ifl. ?' / ?1 - -ef• ?,
. mss.
f .1 A ?}. Cfa Dai f
i
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTES ----
NORTH CAROL4,NA DEPARTMENT OF
a TR.-\:vSPOR AT:ON
JTGFWAY3
DP/ISION OF'
T PLlsNNItiG AND T.N-V RCnIE.`7 L
BRANCH
SR 1010
BRIDGE NO. 145
CHATHAM CCUNTf
B - 252;
0 miles 2 PG.' ' i
yye r SUTfy.,
5 ,n ? s
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 5, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
ATTENTION: Dave Unkefer
FROM: Michele L. James
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Field Inspection for Federally Endangered Cape Fear
Shiner; Bridge No. 145 over Rocky River on SR 1010;
Chatham County; Federal Aid Project BRZ-1010(3); B-2527
On November 15, 1994 NCDOT conducted a field inspection to discuss
provisions for protecting the Federally Endangered Cape Fear shiner. A list
of the attendees is attached. NCDOT project engineer Michele James began the
meeting with an introduction and biologist Tim Savidge elaborated on the
shiner and the project area habitat. A known population exits within
one-tenth mile downstream of the project area.
Mr. Jim Wilder of the NCDOT Bridge Construction Unit began discussion of
provisions to protect the Cape Fear Shiner. The following provisions were
agreed to by those present:
1. The new bridge will span the entire stream.
2. The piers that are in the water will be cut to normal surface water
level.
3. The new end bents will be built behind the existing ones.
4. Spread footings will be used.
5. When removing the existing deck, it will be sawed in sections and
provisions will be made to ensure no debris will enter the stream.
6. Cofferdams will be used during excavations.
7. Retain existing rip rap.

• December 5, 1994
Page 2
8. The bridge can be built from the top down.
9. The fill necessary for the northern approach work will be stone and
will be tapered into the existing rip rap.
10. High Quality Water Best Management Practices will be implemented.
MJ/plr
cc: Ms. Candace Martino, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Mr. David Cox, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. John Alderman, N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
Mr. Jim Wilder, P. E., State Bridge Construction Engineer
Mr. Jimmy Lynch, P. E., State Traffic Engineer
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Archie Hankins, Jr., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. Bill Moore, Geotechnical Unit
Mr. Randy Turner, Environmental Unit
Mr. Tim Savidge, Environmental Unit
Mr. 0. M. Clark, P. E., Division 8 Construction Engineer
Mr. Fred A. Sykes, Resident Engineer, Chatham County
B-2527 Field Inspection for the Cape Fear Shiner
NAME DEPARTMENT
Dave Boylston Construction Unit
Michael Merritt Roadway Design
LeRoy Smith Roadway Design
Ray Moore Structure Design
John Olinger NCDOT
Gerald White Structure Design
Jim Wilder Construction Unit
Kenneth Pace Roadside Environmental
Johnny Metcalfe Roadside Environmental
Tim Savidge Planning and Environmental
Michele James Planning and Environmental
UR
i
` 4 „ram
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 06, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: P. Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: Michele L. James, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Section 7 Biol.ogical'Conclusion for the
Federally Endangered Cape Fear shiner,
relating to Proposed Replacement of
Bridge 145 Over Rocky River. Chatham
County, State Project = 3.2520701.
TIP .. B-252°.
REFERENCE: Section 7 Field Meeting :Minutes. December
05. 1994 prepared by Michele James.
The reference report summarized the construction
provisions discussed and agreed upon at the field meeting
held on November 15. 1994. These environmental Commitments
will. be adopted by NCDOT during the construction phase of
this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
If provisions mentioned in the referenced report are
strictly adhered to, it can be concluded that construction of
this project is not lively to impact the Cape Fear shiner.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D
_M. Ra::daI' Turner, Lnv'_ronmental Supervisor
F_l? B-2;17
0--

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND `VILDLIFE SERVICE,
Ecological Ser-lces
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 4, 1994
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
to
TAKE
PRIDE INS
AMERICA
.. G
13
C3 13

5 1995
Q`." .
? CIVISICy OF
11 V4
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement #145 over Rocky River, Chatham
County, NC; Federal Aid/Project No. BRZ-1010/ TIP
fi B-2527
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
December 5, 1994, letter for the above-referenced proposed
bridge replacement over Rocky River in Chatham County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
We appreciate your efforts to minimize any possible impacts to
the Cape Fear Shiner(Notroois mekistocholas) that is known to
cccur within specific reaches of the Rocky River. However, the
commitments listed in your December 5, 1994 letter, did not
include adherence to High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines,
with details describing how this is accomplished. Furthermore,
we need to know when the project is scheduled in order to
determine if construction occurs during low flow periods. In
th-s case, and for future projects, we request that this
information always ze included in your commitment letters ana
provisions.

our most recent survey raport from July 1993
evidence exists of the Cape Fear shiners' occurrence above the
reservoir cn the Rocky River. M:. T--.n Savidge of
.. rarce_°ctr
v:,u_ staff has ?rid_Cated z hat t.'1'_s project located above the
th4s
hvdroelectric dam; therefore, any sediment generated from
!:: ro. ec- would be caot::red by the dam and pond.. Under these
indicates that no

circumstances, the Service believes that this project is not
likely to adversely affect the Cape Fear shiner
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Candace Martino at 919-856-4520 ext. 30. Thank you for your
continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
21
I
David Horning
Acting Supervisor
gigolo,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 09. 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Wayne Elliot. Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: ;Michelle James. Project Manager
FROM: Tim W. Savidge. Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for
Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 145
on SR 1010 over Rocky River. Chatham
County. Federal Aid No. BRZ-1010(3).
State Project No. 8.2520701.
TIP No. B-3527
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the
project area. and estimations of impacts likely to occur to
these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected
species is also provided. The federally protected Cape Fear
shiner is known to occur within the project area. An
informal consultation with Fish and Wildlife Service is
needed. It is requested that the Natural Resources Technical
Report be submitted in its entirety alone with the CE
document to the reviewing natural resource agencies. Please
contact me if you have any questions concerning this report.
or the informal consultation process.
cc: V. Charles Bruton. Ph.D
`I. Randall Turner. Environmental Supervisor
File B-2527
;E

Replacement of Bridge No. 145,
On SR 1010
Over Rocky River
Chatham County
TIP No. B-2527
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1010(3)
State Project No. 8.3520701
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2527
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
TIM SAVIDGE. ENVIRONMENTAL BIOLOGIST
Mav 15. 199.1
t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction ...........................................1
1.1 Project Description ..............................1
1.3 Purpose ..........................................1
1.3 Project Area .....................................1
1.4 Physiography and Soils ...........................1
1.5 Methodology ......................................1
2.0 Water Resources ........................................2
2.1 Waters Impacted ..................................2
2.1.1 River Characteristics ....................2
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification ................2
2.1.3 Water Quality ....... 3
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources .............3
. J
3.0 Biotic Resources .....................................
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ..........................4
3.1.1 Maintained Communities ....................4
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic Hardwood Forest Slope ...........5
3.2 Aquatic Communitiy ...............................5
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities .......... 7
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts .............
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts .................S
4.0 Special Topics ................... ....................9
4.1 Waters of the United States ......................9
4.1.1 Permits ..................................9
4.1.2 Mitigation......... ...................10
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ......................10
4.2.1 Federally Protected ...................... 10
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and
State Protected Species .................13
5.0 References ............................................15
Appendix A: Glossary of Terms .............................16
Appendix B: Species Observed List .........................is
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resource Technical Report is
submitted to assist in the preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE). This report inventories the natural
resources occurring within the project area and identifies
any environmental concerns which must be addressed in the
planning stages of this project.
1.1 Project Description
The existing 87 m (286 ft) long 8 m 28 ft. wide bridge
will be replaced in existing location, with a 87*x 9 m (286 x
30 ft) bridge. Traffic will be detoured via secondary roads
during construction. There are no other feasable alternates.
Proposed Right of Way (ROW) is 24.4 m (80 ft).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and
inventory the natural resources identified within the project
vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize
resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are
relevant only in the context of existing design concepts. If
preliminary design parameters change, additional field
investigation may be necessary.
1.3 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in central Chatham County
approximately S km (5 mi) southwest of Pittsboro (Fig. 1).
The project area is characterized as rural. with agricultural
fields and forested tracts dominating the landscape.
1.4 Physiography and Soils
Chatham County is in the east-central piedmont
physiographic province. and is characterized has having
highly variable topography, including broad. gently sloping
uplands. as well as sharp topographic breaks. such as knolls
and saddles. The project area lies within the Carolina Slate
Belt Soil System. These soils have a bedrock of volcanic
slates. basic and acid tuffs. breccias and flows. The soils
of the slopes are generally well-drained loams or sands of
the Georeeville-Badin Complex.
1.5 Methodology
Preliminary resource information was gathered and
reviewed prior to site visit. Information sources inc ude:
U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Pittsboro).
Soil Conservation Services (SCS) Soils Map of Chatham County.
NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). North
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING
?n?1D9 BRANCH AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRIDGE NO. 145
CHATHAM COUNTY
B-2527
r
1 L-- 0 mires L FIG. 1
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) water
quality classification for the Cape Fear River Basin. Fish
and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and N.C.
Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) database of uncommon and
protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project
alignment on October 13. 1993 by NCDOT biologists Tim
Savidge. Plant communities were identified and recorded.
Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture. visual observations
(binocular), and recording the identifying signs of wildlife
(sounds, scat, tracks and burrows). Cursory surveys of
aquatic communities were conducted using a hand held dip net
and tactile searches for benthic organisms. Organisms
captured were identified and then released.
2.0 WATER RESOURCES
This section describes the physical characteristics.
Best Usage Standards and water quality of the water resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed project. Probable
impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
2.1 Waters Impacted
The Rocky River is in the Cape Fear River drainage
basin. originating approximately 32 kin (20 mi) northwest of
project crossing near Liberty, in Randolph County. The Rocky
River joins the Deep River approximately 10 km (6 mi)
downstream of the project crossing.
2.1.1 River Characteristics
The riverbed is approximately 33 in (110 ft) wide at
crossing. The substrate is rocky. with areas of sand and
silt deposits. A rock bar island occurs within the streambed
just upstream of the bridge. Depth during site visit was 0.3
in (1 ft).
2.1.2 Best Usage Classification
The waters of the Rocky River carry a Best Usage
Classification of C as assigned by the North Carolina
Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR). 1993. Class C designates waters suitable for
aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified
as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW). WS-I. or WS-11 occur within 1.6 kin (1 nii ) of the
project area.

2.1.3 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN).
assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
Macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and
overall biomass are reflections of water quality. Two BMAN
stations occur on the Rocky River, one approximately 5 km (3
mi) upstream and the other 6 km (4 mi) downstream of
crossing. Both sites recieved "Good" biodiversity ratings in
July 1990.
The DEM National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) report lists no permitted discharge sources into the
Rocky River near the project area.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources include, decreases
of dissolved oxygen, and changes in temperature. The later
two impacts are due to removal of the streamside canopy and
removal/burial of aquatic vegetation. Sedimentation and
substrate disturbance, occurring during construction. can
significantly reduce water clarity.
If stream channel relocation is required. and if the
stream relocation is greater than 100 ft or > 50 ft on one
side. consultation with the FWS and NC'Wildlife Resources
Commission (WRC) will be required, per the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 [:SC 661-667d). Relocated
streams will be designed to have similar characteristics
(depth, width. and substrate) as the original stream. This
also includes re-establishment of streamside vegetation.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and
the relationships between vegetative and faunal components
within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of
the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications.
Representative animal species which are likely to occur
in these habitats are cited, along with brief descriptions of
their respective "roles" within that community. For complete
listings of flora and fauna which occur in Chatham county, a
composite of specific references listed in section 5.0 should
be consulted. Animals that were observed during site visit
are denoted by (*) in the text and are also listed in
Appendix B. Sightings of spoor evidence are equated with
sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and common
names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species
described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.

3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct biotic community types were identified in
the project impact zone, however there is some degree of
overlap between communities, particularly with the faunal
components. Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive
and populate a variety of habitats, therefore many of the
species mentioned may occur in all of the community types
described.
3.1.1 Maintained Communities
Maintained Communities are land parcels in which the
vegetation is kept in a low-growing, non-successional state.
These communities include the existing roadside and cleared
powerline corridor east of the roadway. The narrow roadside
shoulder has a limited amount of vegetative growth. which is
primarily fescues (Festuca spp.), along with dandelion
(Teraxacum officinale), chickweed (Stellaria media) and wild
onion (Allium canadense). The area extending from this into
the forest is less maintained, supporting rank vegatative
growth, especially at the woodland border. Species present
include sheep-sorrel (Rumex acetosella). winged sumac (Rhus
copal lina), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), nightshade
(Solanum spp.). pokeweed (Phvtolacca americans). poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans). blackberry (Rebus sp.) and Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica). Saplings of "weedy"
hardwoods such as sweet gum (Liquidambar stvraciflua). red
maple (Acer rubrum) and sourwood (Oxvdendrum arboreurn) are
also present.
The limited roadside area does not likely support much
of a resident faunal assemblage. Small animals such as house
mouse (plus musculis) and five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus)
are some of the more common species to inhabit this type of
habitat, however they are abundant in several other habitat
types as well. Birds such as rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
ervthrophthalmus), white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis) and grey catbird (Dumetella carolinensis)* are
some species which are found in dense cover, nesting close to
the ground. The dense vegetative growth also offers foraging
opportunity for several species residing in the adjacent
forest.
Roadways also become travel corridoors for many animal
species. other species take advantage of this in a variety
of ways. Predatory birds such as loggerhead shrike (Lanius
ludovicianus). red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaciensis) and other
raptors prey on a wide variety of small animals exposed
during their migrations across the roadway. Scavangers and
oppurtunistic feeders such as the common crow (Cori-us
brachvnci-nchos)*, turkey vulture (Cathartes aura)*, raccoon
(Proci-on lotor)* and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana)*
4
take advantage of the large amount of carrion associated with
roadkills. often these species become roadkills themselves.
3.1.2 Dry-Mesic Hardwood Forest Slope
Extending from the maintained roadside shoulder, this
community occurs on the steep banks grading toward the Rocky
River. The relatively young. uneven aged, canopy and the
abundence of species such as poison ivy, Japanese
honeysuckle, and blackberry indicates prior disturbances,
particularly on the upper slope. The canopy consists of
species typical of mesic conditions, such as red maple.
sweetgum. beech (Fagus grandifolia), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda) and water oak (Quercus ni€ra). however species such as
post oak (Quercus stellata) and white oak (Quercus alba),
which are usually found in dry habitats, are also present.
With the exception of species composition, there is no
gradient (topographic, hydrologic etc.) between the forested
slope and the streamside canopy. No floodplain is present in
this area, and a narrow strip of sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), American elm (Ulnaus americana) and box elder
(Acer negundo) occurs along the streambank.
Vines, including grape (Vitis sp.), green brier (Smilax
spp.) and cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata) are also
prominent in this community. Crane-fly orchid (Tipularia
discolor), partridge berry (Afitchella repens) and rattlesnake
plaintain (Goode'era pubescens) are some herbaceous species
observed.
The proposed replacement is to take place on existing
location, and thus this community will recieve minimal
impacts. Canopy-dwelling species comprise the majority of
the faunal assemblege of this community. Because of the
steep terrain, ground-dewelling species are expected to be
few. Tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor)*. northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardina.lis)*, Carolina chickadee (Parus
caroliniensis)*, red-bellied woodpecker (Afelanerpes
c.arolinus)* and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)* are the only
species observed in this community. The low number of
species observed is likely more reflective of survey time
(mid-afternoon), and conditions (unusually dry) than it is of
community diversity. Several other species of birds likely
reside in this community at various times of the year. Some
mammals likely to occur here include the grey squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia oppossum and raccoon.
3.2 Aquatic Community
The Rocky River provides habitat for a variety of
aquatic organisims. The rocky streambed creates a relatively
stable substrate for benthic organisms, such as freshwater
mussels (Family Unionidae), sphaeriid clams (Family
Sphaeriidae) and a variety of other invertebrates which

occupy the spaces between rocks. This group of organisims is
extremly sensitive to sedimentation. which limits their
ability to siphon food particles from the water column. or in
some instances buries the individuals. Many populations of
these species, particularly mussels are in serious decline
throughout the southeast, and sedimentation is recognized as
a major factor contributing to their decline. The Rocky
River is known historically to support several mussel
species, including the Atlantic pigtoe (Fusconia masoni) and
the brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), both of which are
candidates for federal protection (Sec. 4.2.2). These two
species may still occur in this stretch of the Rocky River,
however the date of the last observation was 1972. Living
mussels of the (Elliptio complanata) complex were observed to
be common in the river during site visit. as were the Asian
clam (Corbicula fluminea). This exotic sphaeriid clam.
introduced into this country in 1937, has invaded numerous
aquatic systems throughout the United States and has aided in
the decline of many native mussel species.
Small benthic fish such as the tesselated darter
(Etheostoma olmstedi) and piedmont darter (Percina crassa)
utilize the rocks for cover. Small invertebrates are the
primary item of prey for these species.
The substrate also serves to concentrate food sources.
The rocks trap organic debris (leaves. branches. detritus
etc.) which is produced outside the stream ecosvstem
(allochthonous) flowing down stream. This accumulation of
organic matter is then decomposed by heterotrophic
microorganisms. such as bacteria, and 'consumed by
macroinvertebrates. such as aquatic insects. as well as small
fish. Decomposers and primary consumers are, in turn.
consumed by larger organisms. The amount of allochthonous
energy input within a stream varies seasonally. and is
dependent on the extent of the streamside vegetation.
Autochthonous energy sources (produced within the stream
ecosystem) are also vital to the aquatic community. The hard
rocky surface supports a continuous algal grog;nth. which is
grazed upon by a.variety of aquatic snails (Class Gastropoda)
and fish such as creek chubsucker (Erimj,zon oblongus) and
redhorses (Moxostome spp.), which have modified mouth
structures adapted to grazing. Other aulochthonous food
sources include phytoplankton and aquatic vascular
vegetation. Water willow (Justicia americana) is relativlv
common within the study corridor. The federally protectd
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) often concentrates
around these beds of aquatic vegatation. This species has
been captured at this bridge crossing (Sec. 4.2.1).
In some areas of the stream, pools have been created by
debris (logs etc.) or stream action (scour). These pools may
be up to 1 m (3 ft) deep. Larger predatory fish congregate
6
in these pools usually near some type of cover. Game species
such as largemouth bass (Aficroptezrus salmoides)*. sunfishes
(Lepomis spp.) and catfish (Ictalurus spp.) are likely most
abundant in these pools, but will occur throughout the
riverbed.
Several animals such as crayfish (Family Cambaridae),
snapping turtle (Chelvdra serpentina). northern water snake
(Nerodia sipedon) and raccoon occupy the role of scavengers
in the ecosystem. These species will also take live prey
including frogs (Rana spp.), salamanders (Order Caudata) and
fish. Two species of frogs were observed during.-site visit,
bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana)* and pickeral frog (R.
palustris)*.
3.3 Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of this project will mainly impact the
aquatic community described. Because the replacement is to
take place on existing location, impacts to the terrestrial
communities mentioned will be minimal. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to these resources in terms
of area impacted (cleared/modified), and ecosystem effects.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here.
3.3.1 Terrestrial Community Impacts
Project construction will result in limited clearing and
degradation of portions of the Maintained Community (Roadside
shoulder) described. Disturbance to the adjacent forested
community is not anticipated, however because this community
is within the proposed ROW and will be considered to be
impacted. The estimated loss to these communities is listed
in Table 1. It should be noted that estimated impacts were
derived using the entire proposed right of way. Project
construction often does not require the entire right of way
and therefore actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Biotic Community
Alternate MS MC
1 0.1 (0.3) 0.3 (0.7)
Impacts in hectares (acres) are based on 24 m (SO ft) of ROW:
MS and MC denote Steep Mesic Hardwood Slope and Maintained
Communities, respectively
The plant communities found along the project alignment
serve as shelter, nesting and foraging habitat for numerous
species of wildlife. Loss of habitat is likely to reduce the
number of faunal organisms, and concentrate them into a

smaller area. which causes some species to become more
susceptible to disease, predation and starvation. As
mentioned however, the extent of impacts to these communities
will be minimal.
Individual mortalities during construction. are likely
to occur to animals closely associated with the ground
(snakes. small mammals, etc.). Mobile species will be
displaced during construction activity.
3.3.2 Aquatic Community Impacts
Anticipated impacts to the Rocky River aquatic
communitiv can be attributed to construction-related habitat
disturbance and sedimentation. Although disturbance and
sedimentation may be temporary processes during the
construction phase of this project, environmental impacts
from these processes may be long-lived or irreversible.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source
for many terrestrial organisms such as raccoons, various
species of snakes. birds. turtles and amphibians. It also
serves as a means of predator avoidance for amphibians (frogs
and salamanders), reptiles (snakes and turtles), and mammals
(muskrat and mink).
Benthic. non-mobile organisms, such as filter and
deposit feeders. and macro and micro alga, are particularly
sensitive to construction activities such as dredging.
filling, pile driving operations and slope stabilization.
These construction activities physically disturb the
substrate, resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms.
Many of these aquatic organisms are slow to recover, or
repopulate an area. because they require a stabilized
substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a
long time to develop, therefore, changes in community
composition will occur.
Populations of photosynthetic species. the primary
producers in the food chain. can be greatly effected by
siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the
water column reduces the photosynthetic ability, by absorbing
available light. Clogging of feeding apparati of suspension
feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these
organisms, are other effects of siltation. These species are
often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major
step in the aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may
directly effect organisms higher in the food chain, such as
fish. amphibians. reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects
of siltation, however gills of fish, crustaceans and larval
amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and
dysfunctional as a result of sedimentation. Spawning
8
habitats for these mobile species may become filled with
sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably
reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely
detrimental to aquatic ecosystems. Best Management Practices
(BMP's) for protection of surface waters, must be strictly
adhered to, to ensure the biological integrity of the water
body impacted by this project. High Quality Waters (HQW)
erosion control measures will also need to be implemented
during the entire life of the project, to avoid impacts to a
federally protected species (Sec. 4.2.1).
Additionally, if measures are not taken to reduce the
amount of probable increased concentrations of toxic
compounds (gasoline, oil, etc.) in the stream. coming from
construction related machinery and road paving activities.
mortalities to numerous types of aquatic organisms are
likely.
4.0 SPECIAL TOPICS
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. in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344).
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using the
criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps 'of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual" For an area to be considered a
"wetland", the following three specifications must be met;
1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), 2)
presence of hydrophytic vegetation (Appendix A), and 3)
evidence of hydrology, including; saturated soils. oxidized
rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water marks on trees,
buttressed tree bases and surface roots. No jurisdictional
wetlands will be impacted by the proposed action.
4.1.1 Permits.
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23. for impacts to surface
waters of the Rocky River, is likely to be applicable. This
permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted,
authorized. regulated, funded or financed in whole, or in
part, by another Federal agency or department. That agency
or department has determined that the activity is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation.
because it will neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect. Approval of this permit
application will be contingent on a finding of "No Effect"
9
R
concerning protected species issues (Sec. 4.2.2). A North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 (1665) Water Quality General Certification is also
required, prior to issuance of the Nationwide permit.
4.1.2 Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do
not require compensatory mitigation according to the 1989
Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action. which has the
potential to jepordize the continued existence of any species
classified as federally protected, is subject to review by
the FWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS),
under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended. Rare species receive additional protection
under separate state statutes. In North Carolina protection
of plant species falls under N.C. General statutes (G.S.)
106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls
under G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and Animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and
Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
section 7 and section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. As of May 12, 1994 the FWS lists four
Endangered species, the red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides
borealis), the bald eagle (Naliaeetus leucocephalus). Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) and harperella
(Ptilimnium nodosum) for Chatham Countv. A brief description
of these species' characteristics and habitat requirements is
provided, along with a Biological Conclusion addressing
potential impacts to these species from the proposed project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker)
Status: E
Listed: 10/13/70
The adult RCW's plumage
except for small red streaks
male. The back is black and
and the breast and underside
There is a large white cheek
cap, nape. and throat.
is entirely black and white
on the sides of the nape in the
white with horizontal stripes
are white with streaked flanks.
patch surrounded by the black
RCW's use open old growth stands of southern pines,
particularly longleaf pine for foraging and nesting habitat..
A forested stand must contain at least 50°1. pine. These birds
10

nest exclusively in trees that are >60 years old and are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The
foraging range of the RCW is from up to 202 ha (500 ac). and
this acreage must be contiguous with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees
and usually in trees that are infected with the fungus that
causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies
from 3.6-30 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-
15.2 m (30-50 ft) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. which is
referred to as "candle-sticking". This is arguably used as a
defense against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers
usually consists of one breeding pair and the offspring from
previous years. The eggs are laid in April, May, and June
and hatch 35 days later. Clutch size is from 3-5 eggs. All
members of the clan share in raising the young. RCWs feed
mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
No pine dominated stands will be impacted by the
proposed project. Construction of this project will have no
effect on the red-cockaded woodpecker.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle)
Status: Endangered
Family: Acciptridae
Listed: 3-11-67
These large predatory birds are found in North America
from Florida to Alaska. The only major nesting populations
in the southeast occur in Florida: however mierants and rare
nesting pairs do occur in North Carolina. Adults are dark
brown except for the white head and tail. Immatures are
brown and irregularly marked with white until their fourth
year.
Eagles nest close (within 0.5 mile) to large expanses of
water usually in the largest dominant tree of an old-growth
stand. Nests constructed in marine environments have been
shown to be more successful than nests on lakes and
reservoirs (Stocek and Pearce 1981). The nests may measure
two meters (6 ft) across and are often as deep. 'pests are
often used for many years and may increase in size as the
birds continue to add to it.
In the southeast, nesting activity usually begins in
early September. with breeding taking place in December or
January (Murphy 1959). Breeding and incubating is usually
later (Nov-!March) in the Chesapeake Bay area (Cline 1985).
Usually two eggs are laid. which are incubated for 35 days.
The young remain in the nest at least 10 weeks. althoueh
parental care may extend 4 to 6 weeks after fledging.
11
Studies of post-fledging movements of southeastern nesting
eagles demonstrate extensive northward migration.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION:
No Effect
The Rocky River is not a large enough body of water to
support an eagle population. No signs of eagles utilizing
the area were observed at the project site. It can be
concluded that construction of this project will not impact
the bald eagle.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Status: E
Listed: 9/26/87
The Cape Fear shiner has the most limited range of all
Notropis species, and is restricted to the Cape Fear River
basin, near the fall line. The Cape Fear shiner is a small,
moderately stocky minnow that rarely exceeds S cm in length.
Its body is pale silvery yellow, with a black band running
along its sides. The fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed.
The upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along
its margin. It is easily distinguished from other similar
species by having an elongated digestive tract to accommodate
its diet of plant material.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in large streams and
small to medium sized rivers. Preferred habitat is wide
shallow sections of streams, with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools.
riffles, and slow runs associated with water willow beds.
Juveniles can be found inhabiting slack-water, among large
rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools.
Biological Conclusion: May Effect
The area of the Rocky River crossed by this project
falls within the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) proposed
Critical Habitat areas for aquatic species. Additionally the
Cape Fear shiner has been captured at this crossing in the
past. Consequently. informal consultation with the FWS will
be initiated by NCDOT in the near furture.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella)
Status: E
Family: Apiaceae
Listed: September 28, 1988
Flower: late July - August
The historic range of harperella included the states of
Maryland, West Virginia. Kentucky, North Carolina. Alabama,
and the coastal plains of Georgia and South Carolina. It has
been eliminated from over half of its known range. North
Carolina currently has populations of harperella, in
12
Granville and Chatham Counties.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family. with
fibrous roots and erect to spreading stems. The stems are
green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and may
branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow, cylindrical,
and septate, with broadly clasping bases. Flowers are 5-15
compound umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of
small lanceolate bracts 0.5cm long.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky
or gravel shoals on the margins of clear, swift-.flowing
stream sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland ponds
or low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is
always found in saturated substrates and tolerates periodic.
moderate flooding. There is a preference for sunny areas and
this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream
erosion, usually on the downstream side of large rocks or
amidst thick clones of water willow.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: No Effect
The rocky bar islands occurring near the existing bridge
offer suitable habitat for harperella. These areas were
surveyed by NCDOT biologist Janet Shipley and Marge Boyer of
the Plant Conservation Program on December 03, 1993. No
plants were found. Given the survey results, it can be
concluded that construction of this project will have no
impact on this species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are a total of eight federal candidate (C2)
species listed for Chatham County (Table 2). Candidate
(C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some
evidence of vulnerability, but for which there are not enough
data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened. Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time.
The North Carolina status of these Federal Candidate
species is also listed in Table 2.. Plants or animals with
state designations of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC). are given protection by the State
Endangered Species Act and the N.C. Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979, administered and enforced by the
?Forth Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and the North
Carolina Department of Agriculture respectively. Species
with state designations of Candidate (C), Significantly Rare
(SR) and Watch List (W) are not protected under state laws.
but there is evidence of declining populations.
These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become protected in the future.
Specific surveys for these species were not conducted during
13
site visits, however the Atlantic pigtoe was found outside of
the project area.
TABLE 3. Federal

Scientific Name Candidate Species Chatham County

Common Name Habitat
NC
Status
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow N Sc
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater Y T
Fusconia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Y T
Lampsilis cariose yellow lampmussel N T
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail Y SR
dragonfly
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort N C
Monotropis odorate sweet pinesap Y C
Nesti•onia umbellula nestronia Y SR
NC Status: T, E denote Threatened and Endangered. C and SR
denote Candidate and Significantly Rare, which are not
Protected by state laws.
A search of the NC-NHP data base of rare plants and
animals resulted in records of two state protected species.
the Atlantic pigtoe and the brook floater. and one federally
protected species the Cape Fear shiner in the project area.
The Cape Fear shiner is also protected under North Carolina
law as an Endangered species.
1.4
5.0 REFERENCES
Cowardin, L.N., V. Carter. F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979.
Classifications of wetlands and deepwater habitats of
the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, U.S. Dept. of Int. Washington D.C.
Daniels, R.B., H.J. Kleiss, S.W. Buol. H.J. Byrd and J.A.
Phillips. 1984. Soil Systems in North Carolina. N.C.
Agricultural Research Service, N.C. State Univ. Raleigh
N.C. Bulletin 467.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. "Technical report Y-87-1, U.S. Army
Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. Vicksburg, Miss.
Hvnes, H.B.N. 1970. The Ecology of Running Waters.
University of Toronto Press, 555 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer. J.R. Bailey and J.F. Harrison III.
1950. Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and
Virginia. Chapel Hill, The Univ. N.C. Press.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993 Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Raleigh Dept. of Environment. Health and Natural
Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1991. Biological Assessment of Water Quality in
North Carolina Streams: Benthic Macroinvertabrate Data
Base and Long Term Changes in Water Quality, 1983-1990.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1950. Birds of
the Carolinas. Chapel Hill. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Radford. A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.F. Bell. 1965. ?Manual of the
Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The Univ. N.C. Press.
Schafale. M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classifications of
the Natural Communities of North Carolina, Third
Approximation. NC Nat. Heritage Program, Div. of Parks
and Rec.. NC Dept. of Envir., Health and Nat. Resources.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
1954.
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture. Soil Conservation Service. 19S4.
Soil Survey of Chatham County, North Carolina. N.C.
Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1955. Mammals of
the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland. The Univ. N.C.
Press.
15
46
APPENDIX A
Glossary of Terms
abiotic pertaining to nonliving or physical (air, water.
soil) aspects of an environment.
alluvial sediments deposited by flowing water, as in river
bed floodplain or delta.
allochthonous of foreign origin: transported into an area
from outside of area.
autochthonous formed within the place where it is found.
benthic pertaining to the bottom of a body of water: a
benthic organism lives on or in the bottom substrate.
biotic pertaining to living aspects or specific life
conditions of an environment.
canopy the uppermost layer of vegetation in a plant
community.
carnivore an organism that feeds on animals.
channel an open conduit either naturally or artifically
created which periodically or continuously contains moving
water.
ecosystem a biological community plus its abiotic (nonliving)
environment.
Endangered a taxa that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
fauna animals collectively, of a particular region.
flora a treatise describing the plants of a region.
fluvial produced by the action of a river or stream
food chain specific sequence of organisms, including
producer. herbivore, and carnivore.'through which energy
and materials move within an ecosystem.
herbivore an animal that consumes plant material.
hydric soil soil that is wet long enough to periodically
produce anaerobic conditions. thereby influencing the
growth of plants.
hydrophytic vegetation plants which grow in water or on a
substrate that is at least periodically deficient in
ox`aen as a result of excessive water content.
nocturnal animals that feed or are active at night.
omnivore an animal which feeds on both plant and animal
material.
photosynthesis conversion of radiant energy (sunlight) into
chemical energy (food).
piscivore an animal that feeds primarily on fish.
primary consumer organisms that are the second step in a
community food chain, feeding on the producers.
primary producer organisms capable through photosynthesis to
manufacture their own food through direct capture of light
energy: producers compose the first step in a community
food chain.
Proposed Endangered a species that has been formally proposed
as Endangered; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
16
•
Proposed Threatened a species that has been formally proposed
as Threatened; species formally proposed receive some
legal protection.
sessile an organism which permanently attaches itself to the
substrate.
spoor the track or trail of an animal, particularly a wild
animal.
succession The process of community change through time,
with an orderly sequence of seral stages, the organisims
(plants, animals) of each stage modify the environment.
making it less suitable for themselves, and more suitable
for the next. The end point or climax perpetuates itself.
Threatened a taxa that is likely to become Endangered in the
foreseeable future.
17
APPENDIX B
ORGANISMS OBSERVED DURING SITE VISIT
Class Common name
Mollusca Asian clam
" Elliptio complanata
Osteichthyes largemouth bass
Amphibia pickeral frog
it bullfrog
Aves American crow
" blue jay
it Carolina chickadee
northern cardinal
red-bellied woodpecker
" tufted titmouse
" turkey vulture
Mammalia Raccoon*
of Virginia opossum
Habitat
RR
,
MC
MS
MS. MC
MS
MS
Mc
CPS
MC, rk
MC. MS and RR denote Maintained Communitv. Drv-Mesic
Hardwood Slope and Rocky River respectively. rk denotes
roadkill
* denotes spoor evidence only
is
I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT II I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 06, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: P. Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Unit
ATTENTION: Michele L. James, Project Manager
FROM: Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
SUBJECT: Section 7 Biological Conclusion for the
Federally Endangered Cape Fear shiner,
relating to Proposed Replacement of
Bridge 1- 145 Over Rocky River. Chatham
County. State Project = 5.2530701.
TIP n B-2527.
REFERENCE: Section 7 Field Meeting Minutes, December
05, 1994 prepared by Michele James.
The reference report summarized the construction
provisions discussed and agreed upon at the field meeting
held on November 15. 1994. These environmental Commitments
will be adopted by NCDOT during the construction phase of
this project.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
If provisions mentioned in the referenced report are
strictly adhered to, it can be concluded that construction of
this project is not likely to impact the Cape Fear shiner.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D
M. Randall Turner, Environmental Supervisor
File B-2527
0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS 9
WILMINGTON DISTRICT
Action ID. County
GENERAL PERMIT (REGIONAL AND NATIONWIDE) VERIFICATION
Property Owner/Agent ti000-C L?O\\? S? \O \C)
`Address 0 N\` , \\. ?cc rk?.?. (?l \c\? ? .`? .y M??•?.?e`c \c??,<:,r,?
Telephone No. L °\\°?? ?3 3 \V \
Size and Location of project (waterbody, road name/number, town, etc.) SCZ \O\O , c?c?c?c n,4\
\ c?c,,\e ?? E c ?? •? \?`? cud'\ctc e c,? o A \?e\?..>
--, \ y . \ \ S W ?? ?\S?xc o ?1L.
max. cY.? c .i r?., e
Description of Activity
o\ctc er<.Qylt C? ?c\e\?e ?c\5y ?e?.?
?Section 404 (Clean. Water Act, 33 USC 1344) only.
Section 10 (River and Harbor Act of 1899) only.
\N e`1\QnL \ MSPC C'tS Gc'\ ,C \ P'\ ec? ,} C'?
\rc er.?C\X -\, \\\ \,\o wc.Xec 5 c ??e S
Section 404 and Section 10.
1 Regional General Permit o ationwide Permit Numbe?
Any violation of the conditions of the Regional General or Nationwide Permit referenced above may subject the
permittee to a stop work order, a restoration order, and/or appropriate legal action.
This Department of the Army Regional General/Nationwide Permit verification does not relieve the undersigned
permittee of the responsibility to obtain any other required Federal, State, or local approvals/permits. The permittee
may need to contact appropriate State and local agencies before beginning work.
By signature below, the permittee certifies an understanding and acceptance of all terms and conditions of this
permit.
Property Owner/Authorized Agent
Regulatory Project Manager Signature
Da \
Date \°R_'?
SURVEY PLATS, FIELD SKETCH, WETLAND DELINEATION FORM, ETC.,
THE YELLOW (FILE) COPY OF THIS FORM, IF REQUIRED OR AVAILABLE.
CESAW Form 591
Ow 1993

1- ,
N: C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP OAT!
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, SLOG.
AA
FROM: REF. NO. O ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR PEQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ASOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? 'TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS: O?
o-v

?
lk
n
n

3P'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA I P 11UI1 "'i,?I
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMCS It. IIUNi IR. DIVISION OF IiIGI IWAYS SAM I IUNT
GOVIRNOR ICRI IARY
P.C. .O. BOX 25201. ItALLIGi I. N.L. 27611-5201
February 18, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 145 on
SR 1010 over Rocky River, Chatham County, B-2527
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for March 25, 1993 at 9:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process. If
there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please call
Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
?1?3 coo
MJ/plr
Attachment s k' vey L 4 s C
y .?

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 2-19-93
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING x
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2527
STATE PROJECT 8.2520701
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1010(3)
DIVISION _ 8
COUNTY -Chatham
ROUTE SR 1010
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 145 on SR 1010
in Chatham County over Rocky River
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) O
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1700 VPD DESIGN YEAR(2016) 3400 VPD
TTST __1 % DT __ 2
TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC TION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 287 FEET; WIDTH 20.3 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE ___ @ _-_ INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES AND
ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL, COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $1,500,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 14,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $1,514,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................$1,514,000
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: The hydraulic information will be provided
at the scoping meeting.
SR 1010 is classified as a minor collector.
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 2-19-93
BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 145
CHATHAM COUNTY
B-2527
miles 2
Fir 1
_s
e,w ST?TF ?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
)AMiS B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Go vl'RNOR
P.O. BOX 2520E RALHGf I. N.L. 276115201
April 12, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: Michele James
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Chatham County, Bridge No. 145 on SR 1010 over
Rocky River; B-2527
SAM HUNT
SPCRIITARY
A scoping meeting was held on March 26, 1993 to initiate the subject
project.
A list of those attending is as follows:
Cynthia Joyner
LeRoy Smith
Charles Mullen
Danny Rogers
Ray Moore
Jerry Snead
John P. Taylor
Don Sellers
Betty Yancey
Robin Stancil
David Foster
0. M. Clark
David Yow
Michele James
Wayne Elliott
M. Randall Turner
The possibility of reusing the
the deck of the bridge was discusse
thorough investigation by Structure
structure should be replaced in the
alternative to be studied. Traffic
roads.
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Control
Program Development
Structure Design
Hydraulic Design
Location and Surveys
Right of Way
Right of Way
Right of Way
DEHNR-DEM
Division 8 Construction Engineer
NCWRC - Habitat Conservation
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
Planning and Environmental
existing substructure and replacing only
J at the scoping meeting. After a
Design, it was concluded that the entire
existing location. This is the only
should be detoured onto the existing area
A preliminary cost estimate for the replacement is $831,000. The
estimated cost in the Transportation Improvement Program is $1,514,000.
MJ/sdt
4v 1$ Iii
11 i

7 1
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE • 2-19-93
REVISION DATE 4-12-93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING x
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2527
STATE PROJECT 8.2520701
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-1010 3
DIVISION
COUNTY Chatham
ROUTE SR 1010
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 145 on SR 1010
in Chatham County over Rocky River
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE x
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR _
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO x
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , („)

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 1700 VPD DESIGN YEAR(2016) 3400 VPD
TTST DT 2
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 287 FEET; WIDTH 20.3 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 287 FEET; WIDTH 30 FEET
OR
CULVERT - SIZE _ FEET BY _ FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE PIPES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $ 817,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $ 14,000
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $ 831,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ............................... $1,500,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 14,000
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................$1,514,000
BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS:
PREPARED BY: Michele James
DATE: 4-12-93