19951303 Ver 1_Complete File_19951222

' 22
WE'LANDS GRt???P
WATER UAUTY SEv`
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 9 51303
JAMES B. HUNT JR DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 20, 1995
401 ISSUED
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Orange County, Replacement of Bridge No. 109 over New Hope Creek on
SR 1734, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1734(2), State Project
8.2500801, T.I.P. No. B-2852.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 109 will be replaced at its existing
location with a bridge 37 meters (121 feet) long and 12 meters (40 feet)
wide. Traffic will be maintained during construction using a temporary
on-site detour located approximately 12 meters (40 feet) south of the
existing bridge. Construction of the proposed project will result in
approximately 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres) of wetland impacts consisting of
0.11 hectares (0.26 acres) of permanent fill and 0.09 hectares (0.24 acres)
of temporary fill in jurisdictional wetlands.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR Appendix A (B-23). The
provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A(C) of these regulations will 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.
15
?
?r
December 20, 1995
Page 2 ?-
s
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
Sincere y,
v
. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, Corps of Engineers, 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. J. W. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Y. Baldwin, P.E., Planning & Environmental Project Planning
Engineer
a
r- >
Orange County
SR 1734
Bridge No. 109 Over New Hope Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1734(2)
State Project 8.2500801
T.I.P. No. B-2852
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
O
DATE H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
jvb/b-l
DDATLz( Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA

Orange County
SR 1734
Bridge No. 109 Over New Hope Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1734(2)
State Project 8.2500801
T.I.P. No. B-2852
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October 1995
Documentation Prepared By:
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Unit H a
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. Baldwi
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
?.•`oRZN CA
:ate q:
SEAL
19732 =
CNEN
Orange County
SR 1734
Bridge No. 109 Over New Hope Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1734(2)
State Project 8.2500801
T.I.P. No. B-2852
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored
to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
During the design phase, impacts to the gas station property will be minimized and the underground
storage tanks will be avoided if possible.
All standard procedures and measures including Best Management Practices will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Orange County
SR 1734
Bridge No. 109 Over New Hope Creek
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-1734(2)
State Project 8.2500801
T.I.P. No. B-2852
Bridge No. 109 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown
in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a
Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SLMEVIARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page I.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 109 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 37 meters (121 feet) long and 12 meters (40
feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this
location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet) will be
paved, on each side throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,409,500. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $501,000 ($470,000-construction;
$31,000-right-of-way).
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the southeast portion of Orange County, approximately 1.6 kilometers (1
mile) northeast of Chapel Hill, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural forested in nature.
SR 1734 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not a
Federal-Aid Highway. This route is located on a county-wide bicycle route that is a part of a state
TIP Project, E-2913 (Triangle Region Improvements) and also on the Durham-Chapel Hill-Carbarro
Regional Bicycle Plan.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1734 has a 6-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 1.5- to 1.8- meter
(5- to 6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat across the bridge
and south approach and increases to the north from the bridge. The existing bridge is located on
tangent which extends approximately 60 meters (200 feet) in each direction from the structure. The
roadway is situated approximately 5 meters (17 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 7200 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 13800 VPD by
the year 2018. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 70 kilometers per hour (45 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 109 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on concrete encased timber piles. The existing bridge (see Figure
3) was constructed in 1955.
The overall length of the structure is 36.9 meters (121 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.4 meters
(24.2 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 15 metric tons (16 tons) for single vehicles and
18 metric tons (20 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 109 has a sufficiency rating of 41.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines are located
on both sides of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There is a gas station with underground tanks in the vicinity of the project. Water quality is being
monitored south of the gas station.
One single vehicle accident, resulting in no fatalities and one injury, has been reported in the vicinity
of Bridge No. 109 during the period from April 1991 to March 1994. The vehicle lost control due
to icy bridge conditions and left the road.
There is no school bus traffic crossing this bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Duke University Forest is located on the upstream side of the existing bridge and in order to avoid
impacts to the forest, two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 109 were studied on the downstream
side. Each alternative consists of a bridge 37 meters (121 feet) long and 12 meters (40 feet) wide.
Typical sections of the approach roadway and structure are included as Figures 4 and 5. The
proposed shoulder widths as shown will be sufficient to accomodate bicycle traffic.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 120 meters
(400 feet) to the north and 60 meters (200 feet) to the south. A temporary on-site detour will be
provided during the construction period south (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary
detour will consist of a bridge 15 meters (49 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about
12 meters (40 feet) south of the existing structure. The design speed for this alternative is 80
kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it maintains the
existing horizontal alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative 2.
Additionally, Alternative 1 has less impact on the wetland environment due to the additional roadway
approach work for Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the bridge at a new location immediately south of the existing
structure. Improvements to the alignment on the bridge approaches include approximately 135
meters (450 feet) to the north and 135 meters (450 feet) to the south. The design speed of this
alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). The existing structure will serve as an on-
site detour during the construction period. This alternative is not recommended because of the
reverse horizontal curves that will be required to tie into the existing roadway at each end of the
project.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1734.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 7 concurs that traffic be maintained on-
site instead of closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 1734 and
the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 396,300 $ 396,300
Roadway Approaches 122,800 371,050
Detour Structure and Approaches 448,250 0
Structural Removal 22,650 22,650
Engineering and Contingencies 160,000 135,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 259,500 89,000
Total $1,409,500 $1,014,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 109 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with
a new structure having a length of approximately 37 meters (121 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 120 meters (400 feet) to the north and 60 meters
(200 feet) to the south from the bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended
alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders, of which 1.2 meters (4 feet)
will be paved, on each side will be provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 12-meter (40-foot)
clear width is recommended on the replacement structure in accordance with the current North
Carolina Department of Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1734 is classified as a rural local;
therefore, criteria for a rural local was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter
(24-foot) travelway with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 80
kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is necessary.
Otherwise, traffic will have to be detoured along existing secondary roads. This detour route is
considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using SR 1734 and the excessive length of additional
travel required.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately 37 meters (121 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge
so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain elevation. The length and height
of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 15, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to: 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Mixed Hardwood Forest:
This community type (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Piedmont Subtype) is a forested area west
of the existing bridge forming a border with the Korstian Division of Duke University Forest. This
community is a riparian area composed of a mixture of large old trees with >30" dbh (diameter at
breast height), and a lush understory. A trailhead for a foot-trail into the Korstian Division of the
Duke University Forest occurs within the subject project study area. The canopy is composed of
American beech (Fagus grandifolia), northern red oak (Ouercus rubra), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciua), yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and hickory (Carya spp.). Loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) were found along the
forest edge adjacent to the existing road. Sub-canopy trees include the canopy species plus American
elm (Mmus americana), southern sugar maple (Acer floridanum), redbud (Cercis canadensis),
sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), sassafras (was albidum), and flowering dogwood (Corpus
florida). The shrub/sapling layer is composed of red maple (Acer rubrum), hickory, red mulberry
(Morus rubra), sparkleberry (Vaccinium arboreum), and downy arrowwood (Viburnum
rafinesquianum). The herb/vines layer is composed of cunila (Cunila origanoides), five-fingers
(Potentilla canadensis), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans), and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
5
Floodplain Hardwood Forest:
This plant community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest) is adjacent to New Hope Creek and
on low-lying areas in the floodplain. There was standing water in a portion of the floodplain
hardwood forest. The canopy is dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and includes
ironwood (Ccupmus carohniam), nverbirch (Betula nigra), and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica).
The sub-canopy is composed of the canopy trees and boxelder (Acer negundo). The shrub/sapling
layer includes boxelder and green ash. The herb layer is composed of mint (Mentha spp.), cane
(Arundinariagigantea), beggar's tick (Coreopsis spp.) and Japanese honeysuckle. Water-primrose
(Ludwigia spp.) occurs along New Hope Creek.
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed roadside and bridge margins, powerline right-of-
way, residential lawns, and a service station/convenient store along the existing road. This area is
characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: fescue grass (Festuca spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), crabgrass (Digitaria spp.), grape (vitis spp.), clover
(Trifolium spp.), plantain (Plantago spp.), greenbrier (Smilax spp.), and aster (Aster spp.). The
shrub/sapling layer is composed of raspberry (Rubes spp.) and red maple. Adjacent to the service
station is a lawn composed of fescue grass and a sparse canopy of large white oak (Ouercus alba)
and red oak.
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, forested, residential, and commercial
development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for commercial and residential uses has
eliminated cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species east of the project area. Even
so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area within the Korstian
Division of the Duke University Forest and adjacent to New Hope Creek and associated ecotones,
do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering New Hope Creek has all the necessary components
(food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) was noted for the following species of
mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). Mammals
likely to inhabit the area include deer (Odocoileus virginianus), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis),
and mice (Peromyscus spp.)
The observed bird species are typical of rural Piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types
is available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby New Hope Creek include pine
warbler (Dendroica pinus), yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica), Kentucky warbler
6
(Oporornis formosa), and common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula). Species seen along the roadside
areas include the common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), pickerel frogs (Rana palusiris), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), and Fowler's Toad
(Bufo woodhousei).
Aquatic:
New Hope Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational fishing.
Aquatic invertebrates observed included craneflies (Tipulidae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), and
caddisflies (Trichoptera). A number of small fish observed in the creek include the eastern
mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and shiners (Notropis spp.).
New Hope Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians
and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), frogs (Rana spp.), snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), corn
snake (Elaphe guttata), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Crayfish (Procambarus spp.)
mounds were observed adjacent to the creek.
Physical Resources
Soil
Orange County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is characterized
by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project
area range from approximately 79 meters (260 feet) along the creek bottom to 85.3 meters (280 feet)
along the forested upland areas.
Orange County is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt and Triassic Basin Systems. These two
systems meet near the immediate project area. The major rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt are
volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and flows. Triassic rocks are shales, and dark and light
colored sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and conglomerates. Local changes in subsurface geology
are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Altavista fine sandy loam, Chewacla loam, Congaree fine sandy
loam, Creedmoor fine sandy loam, and White store clay loam. Altavista fine sandy loam is a well-
drained soil found on broad stream terraces. Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly drained soil found
on long, flat areas parallel to streams on the floodplain. Congaree fine sandy loam is a well-drained
soil found on narrow bands parallel to streams on floodplains. Creedmoor fine sandy loam is a well-
drained soil found on broad ridges on the uplands. White store clay loam is a well-drained soil found
on side slopes adjacent to major drainageways. Chewacla loam, Congaree fine sandy loam, and
Altavista fine sandy loam have mapped units with inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
7
Water
Bridge No. 109 crosses New Hope Creek approximately 4.8 kilometers (3 miles) downstream of its
origin in northeast Orange County. New Hope Creek flows southeast into the B. Everette Jordan
Reservoir which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
New Hope Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a supplemental classification for
nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report lists nine sources (Carolina Friends School, Timothy Barber
Residence, Baumam and Carbrey Residence, Robert G. Mays Residence, Daniel R Dalcorso
Residence, William L. Triplett Residence, Hilltop MHP, Triangle Care Center, Inc./Briarwood Rest
Home, and Birchwood MHP) within four miles upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. New Hope Creek was sampled at the
SR 2220 crossing approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 miles) downstream of the study bridge crossing
(March 1987), and given a Fair bioclassification rating.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of New Hope Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
8
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, gravel
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 12.8 meters (42 feet)
Water Depth 15 centimeters (0.5 feet) to 30 centimeters (1 foot)
Water Color Brown
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation Water-primrose
Adjacent Vegetation Sycamore, ironwood, river birch, green ash
Wetlands Palustrine Forested
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by
project construction. Approximately 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres) of Palustrine forested broad-leaved
deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted (filled) by the construction of the
recommended alternative. Field observations indicated wetlands were associated with low lying land
adjacent to the bridge. Standing surface water was observed near the roadway embankment south of
the bridge.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army 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; and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion (5
percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. Table 2 lists the federally protected species for Orange County as of March 28, 1995.
9
TABLE 2
Federally Protected Species for Orange County
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis E
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata E
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii E
Brief descriptions of each species characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the southeast. The
bird measures 18 to 20 centimeters long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 centimeters. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap and
stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are white.
Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of open pine
stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pinelhardwood stands, (50 percent or more pine). Longleaf
pine (Pines palustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study area.
It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded woodpecker.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 10/8/92
Smooth coneflower is currently known from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia.
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line right-of-ways, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
gabbro in North Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition
in the herb layer. The Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 1.5
meters tall from a vertical root stock. The stems are smooth with few leaves. The rays of the flower
are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and the flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering
occurs from May through July.
10
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins, powerline right-of-ways, and cleared land along the project offers
suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along these habitats were conducted on
October 25, 1994. No dried flower heads from, the summer bloom or plants were observed. A
review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the
project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this species.
Miichaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28/89
Mchaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower Piedmont of North
Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia. Thirty-five populations have been reported in North Carolina.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on some sort of disturbance to
maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight and
it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese honeysuckle.
N ichaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 meters in height.
The narrowly winged or wingless rachis support 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to oblong-lanceolate leaflets
that are each 4 to 9 centimeters long, 2 to 5 centimeters wide, acute and acuminate. It bears small
flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which
develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe, 5 to
6 millimeters across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins and powerline right-of-way along the project offers suitable habitat
for this species. Plant by plant surveys along these habitats were conducted on October 15, 1994.
No plants were observed. A review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program data revealed no
records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this
project will not impact this species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There are four C2 federal candidate species listed for Orange County. The North Carolina status of
these species is listed in Table 3.
11
TABLE 3
Federal Candidate Species for Orange Coun
Common Name Scientific Name Suitable NC
Habitat Status
Atlantic pigtoe Fusconaia mason Yes T
Savannah lilliput Toxolasma pullus Yes T
mussel
A liverwort Plagiochila columbiana Yes C
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Yes C
NC Status: T, C and SR denote Threatened, Candidate, and Significantly Rare, respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are mentioned here for information
purposes, should they become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for any of these
species were not conducted, nor were these species observed during the site visit. The North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program has a record (August 1989), for sweet pinesap on a
Piedmont/Coastal Plain Acidic Cliff within the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest
approximately three-quarters of a mile from the subject project study area. Sweet pinesap was not
observed in the subject project study area.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate that the state listed species shown in Table
4 have been found within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site but, not within the proposed
alignments.
TABLE 4
State Listed Species in Project Area
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Record Date
Thorey's greyback Tachopteryx thoregi SR August 1989
Four-toed salamander Hemidactylium scutatum SR July 1989
Pursh's Wild-petunia Ruellia purshiana
SR August 1990
Sweet pinesap Monotropis Odorata C August 1989
NC Status: C and SR denote Candidate and Significantly Rare, respectively.
Impacts
impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. 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
12
may be less. Table 5 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement.
TABLE 5
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative 1 in Hectares (Acres
Plant Communities Permanent Impact Temporary Impact
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.05 (0.14) 0.11 (0.26)
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.11 (0.26) 0.13 (0.34)
Urban/Disturbed 0.06 0.16 0.21 0.53
TOTAL 0.22 (0.56) 0.45 (1.131
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Temporary Impacts are based on an 18-meter (60-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement will affect a rural buffer to the forest
and a trailhead entrance to the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest. The North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program has classified the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest as a
natural area site with statewide significance. The Mixed Hardwood Forest canopy near the existing
road exhibits several large trees and natural cut areas with a diversity of plant species. This area will
be impacted by construction activity which occurs west of the existing road. Other impacts in the
project area are restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway segments,
powerline right-of-way, commercial and residential areas.
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or animal habitat.
Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood Forested areas. The
Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as Japanese honeysuckle and
mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover quickly from construction impacts.
The forested edge of the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest will receive impacts. The
hardwood forest areas bordering New Hope Creek will receive disturbances next to the existing
bridge area. These areas should continue to provide adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and
birds.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit effects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
13
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching wherever possible.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that
this project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually nor cumulatively has a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented. Fill
material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to
the extent reasonably possible, to promote the regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
14
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that
no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the Area of Potential Effect
(APE), depicted in Figure 2.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
The Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer concurred regarding archaeological resources in the
proposed project, in a letter of September 29, 1995 (see Appendix) by stating "no effect upon
archaeological sites 310R13 and 31OR438**". If the recommended bridge replacement alignment
changes, the new data shall be forwarded to the North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
as soon as possible for review.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. With the exception of the
construction of a temporary detour, all work will be done within the existing right-of-way. Therefore,
the project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland acreage.
The project is located in orange County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. Noise levels could increase during construction but will be
temporary. If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
15
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste
Management Section revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. An underground storage
tank for the gas station is located at the southeast quadrant of the bridge, however, it is not listed on
the records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environment Management, Groundwater Section.
The temporary detour alignment does not appear to have an impact on the underground storage tank
at the gas station. Final refinement of the detour alignment will be performed during the final design
stage to eliminate any possibility of impacts to the underground storage tank.
Orange County is a participant in the National Flood Regular Insurance Program. The approximate
100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be
affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
16
I /
,0011 00 00 00? 0000
RA o OUth
' 98
IM-In al ill o,k o.o.t
0
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Orange County
SR-1734 over New Hope Creek
Bridge #109
B-2852
rlkjuxr- I

SIDE VIEW
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3
• r
U-
O
E-
Z
IL)

F- 2
0
'4
N .
cn cn ? 3 > U
~ ~ zoxZ a
?'
?
<
o
rno
?
cn uozz v z 00
,
CL ° M-2EU g i C4
ti
a > 0
O o CU
z F. C2

e V]

J J
Z z
O p
U U
W
(n W
U)
o u
Z U ul
I
Q
N
UJ Q U) tOi>
d O ?"
v C
co
? O
CC N N
Ci X
CL W CL O `
CL CC
tL Z

ch --? y

>
Q `'

Q N
U U co
CL a v
f}- }

a?
C ? ?p

H CT
C ?
C'7
X
W 00
G
4
70
-
N Q
s
N
CL N
IL a
o
Z;
t 3 'O
r O 7
- O
7
Cn a Cn
co
a F-
II II 11
Y J a F-
w
t
Lc.
O J
F- Q
Z F..
w
? w
H ?
? y Z
a
o
r
w ¢ a x

U

CL

y
p x a 0 Z ?N
00

BO Z, L.
O q
00.1
r O
Z H A a m eh
C'41 F
En

111/?
i
(V
^' s
.. N
N
-° U

H

z w
o H

z o
. o ?
U
a
W
?
o W U

s N a

M F" O
W

n O O O
F- 00 N
cn
C ` 00
'
ov0 .3
Q? --
o
O
lqr
N
rn
cn `? II II it
Q > ? 00 00

U Q 0% rn o
N

z
0
R
H
U

w
N
C5
r-r
w
Il II '?i
/I it 11 \ cSA
1? 1
II ? ?o
320 Orange County
SR-1734 over New Hope Creek
Bridge #109
316 B-2852
315
310
II ?? 303 1
ri
\ II ZONE A4 ill
30.3 •
301 ZONE C
RM74
Piuer ;llowirai77 •
I' Creek 29 •
ZONE C / I! 8
I ?\ X92
1 i
l - 290
LU "S: lzr
Z
14 114vPe N? Vn ? I =
010
ZONE A8? o
g3? //r ZONE C
1crere BRIDGE NO. 109
>rd II ZONE A8
• / // 1737
1303 '
ll v ?
1f
100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT ??? / 26$
i l 265
I! ?? I
vz7 %\ RM73 266 '
I? ??\ ?' \ \\ 1731 New Hope
?? `1 Il ?? \U I! Creek,
lVcu• Hope Creek
ZONE A
MT MORIAH Town of
CHURCH !Chapel Hill
AREA NOT
?' II ROAD I
NCLUDED
IF SCALE: V= 1000'
FIGURE 6
V
1.a
?? Or gip.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
September 29, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
-?: Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Federal-Aid Project BRSTP-1734(2), TIP 8-2852,
State Project 8.2500801, Archaeological
Consultation, Bridge No. 109 over New Hope
Creek, Orange County, ER 96-7470
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of September 5, 1995, and the accompanying
background information concerning archaeological sites 31OR13 and 31OR438**
As noted in your letter, Dr. Novick of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation and Ms. Hall of the State Historic Preservation Office previously
consulted and reviewed this information. It is our understanding that the
replacement of bridge number 109 will involve construction of a temporary detour
structure and the acquisition of forty{ feet of additional right-of-way to the east of
the existing bridge. All ground disturbing activities are to take place within the
limits of this right-of-way. As currently proposed, we concur that the bridge
replacement will have no effect upon archaeological sites 31 OR 13 and
31OR438**. Please note that your letter referred to the Patterson Mill Site as
31 OR430. The correct number is 31 OR438**.
If plans for the bridge replacement change, the new information should be
forwarded to us for review as soon as possible.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.

Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
1 1?
David brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick.
,l'Vovick
t
?STA
is
20
r ;" D EC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources . . `S1r R1
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ;? ± J r
Deputy State HlNstofr reservation Officer
" ib"JA ,
Division of Arc 'M?71 ist o William SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen

bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830; Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Ear!ey to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street • Ralcigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q3
r I
H_ F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange County
Archaeological site 31OR438** is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 *on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact .Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley , Q-&?6
Environmental RevievJ (Coordinator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms

Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-11.00(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1 100 over Barnards Creek
?<",
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 Q11-/
y, 16
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 aver .Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
TIP u. ?' 2gti2
Federal Aid #,t t P,5T P -171x4 (2?
County 0(W,1C-E
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
V_e_mAtr, »P.itxe Ov. lol or3 5x-1-134 ayex a ew H •Pe. Ct2eV-
On ?JANuAiJ loo 1115 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
? there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as Qre a ib are
considered not eli&ibl -for the National Register and no further evaluation of thenris necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.
S igned:
z/2
Representative, NCDOT Date
7-./ E
FHw , f e Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, SHPO
/ oZ
Date
z //?
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this forrn and the attached list will be included.
it ...+.. +.?. .
Replacement of Bridge # 109
On SR 1734
Over New Hope Creek
Orange County, North Carolina
T.I.P. No. B-2852
State Project No. 8.2500801
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
B-2852
Prepared for.
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Prepared by:
Ecological Consultants
3403 Long Ridge Road
Durham, North Carolina 27703
March 1995

PAGE
1.0 Introduction ............................... ...................... 1
1
1.1 Project Description .................... ......................
1.2 Purpose.......... ................. ...................... 1
1
1.3 Methodology ......................... ......................
2
1.4 Project Area .......................... .................... .
2
1.5 Physiography and Soils ................. ......................
2.0 Biotic Resources ............................ ...................... 2
2
2.1 Plant Communities .................... .......................
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities .. ....................... 3
2.3 Wildlife ............................ .......................4
2.3.1 Terrestrial ..................... .......................4
2.3.2 Aquatic........ ............. .......................5
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife .......... ....................... 5
5
3.0 Water Resources ........................... .....................
3.1 Waters Impacted ..................... ....................... 5
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality ....................... 5
3.3 Stream Characteristics ................. ....................... 6
3.4 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ... ....................... 6
4.0 Speci al Topics ............................. ...................... 7
4.1 Waters of the United States ............. ....................... 7
4.1.1 Permits ...................... ....................... 7
4.1.2 Mitigation .................... ....................... 7
4.2 Rare and Protected Species .................................... 7
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ....... ....................... 7
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species ........ ....................... 9
4.2.3 State Protected Species .......... ....................... 10
11
5..0 References ............................... .......................
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
..past., of a Categorical FYrlnc'on (CF)document for the nraiec
1.1 Project Description
One alternative is proposed. Alternative 1 is to replace the bridge at the existing location
with a two-lane bridge approximately 38.7 m (127 ft) long and 7.8 m (25.5 ft) wide. The .
recommended temporary on-site detour structure is a bridge approximately 38.7 m (127 ft) long
and 7.8 m (25.5 ft) wide located east of the existing bridge.
1.2 ose
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. Specifically, the
tasks performed for this study include: 1) an assessment of biological features within the study
corridor including descriptions of vegetation, wildlife, protected species, wetlands, and water
quality; 2) an evaluation of probable impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary
determination of permit needs.
1.3 Methodology.
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from the
following sources including: North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
water quality classification (Cape Fear River Basin), DEM Point Source Discharge Report for
New Hope Creek, DEM Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) survey for the
Cape Fear River Basin, U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Chapel Hill,
N.C.), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NC-NHP) data base of uncommon and protected species and unique
habitats, and aerial photography (scale l: 1200) furnished by the NCDOT.
Field surveys were conducted along the proposed project alignments on October 15,
1994. Plant communities likely to be impacted by proposed improvements were walked and
visually observed for significant features. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques; active searching and capture, visual observations (binocular), and recording
identifying signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, and burrows). Cursory surveys of the aquatic
habitats were conducted using a long-handled triangular sweep net. Organisms captured were
identified and then released. Alternative 1 impact calculations include 24 m (80 ft) width for the
existing alignment and 18 m (60 ft) width for the temporary detour alignment.
1.4 Project Area
The proposed project occurs in a rural area of Orange County approximately 1.6 km (1
mi) northanst of- C ape 1, North Carolina (Figure!) Land-use is forested (Knrctian Division
of Duke University Forest is west of existing bridge and road), and urban/disturbed areas. The
Korstian Division of Duke University Forest is an undeveloped woodland area along New Hope
Creek between SR1712 and SR1734. Urban/disturbed areas are lands adjacent to the existing
bridge and road, powerline Right-of-Way (ROW), residential, and a service station/store
adjacent to the existing bridge.
1.5 Physio=Rhy and Soils
Orange County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is
characterized byrolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in
the immediate project area range from approximately 79 m (260 ft) along the creek bottom to
85.3 m (280 ft) along the forested upland areas.
Orange County is underlain by the Carolina Slate Belt and Triassic Basin Systems.
These two systems meet near the immediate project area. The major rocks of the Carolina Slate
Belt are volcanic slates, basic and acid tuffs, breccias and flows. Triassic rocks are shales, and
dark and light colored sandstones, mudstones, siltstones and conglomerates. Local changes in
subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Altavista fine sandy loam, Chewacla loam, Congaree
fine sandy loam, Creedmoor fine sandy loam, and White store clay loam. Altavista fine sandy
loam is a well drained soil found on broad stream terraces. Chewacla loam is a somewhat poorly
drained soil found on long, flat areas parallel to streams on the floodplain. Congaree fine sandy
loam is a well drained soil found on narrow bands parallel to streams on floodplains. Creedmoor
fine sandy loam is a well drained soil found on broad ridges on the uplands. White store clay
loam is a well drained soil found on side slopes adjacent to major drainageways. Chewacla
loam, Congaree fine sandy loam, and Altavista fine sandy loam have mapped units with
inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots.
2.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
2.1 Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical
characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described
below.
Mixed Hardwood Forest
This community type (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Piedmont Subtype) is a forested
area west of the existing bridge forming a border with the Korstian Division of Duke University, 2

II
II
II '??
S4 ?? ,rr:?
t?
? -w
Ilk*
.L -

^' ?,• `..` NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
Orange County
SR-1734 over New Hope Creek
Bridge #109
B-2852
A-Tr"r
Forest. This community is a riparian area composed of a mixture of large old trees with >30"
dbh (diameter at breast height), and a lush understory. A trailhead for a foot-trail into the
Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest occurs within the subject project study area.
1116 Gfi11V?Jy iJ vvaur+vub?a va a-aaaavaavaaaa arvvv.a ?? .. ?. .y, -.-.-.. ____ .,_a'- --'-r-- ?- ---
floridanum), northern red oak ( uercus cobra), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
yellow-poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), and hickory (Cava s,Qp.). Loblolly pine (Pin taeda
shortleaf pine (Pin-us echinata), and Virginia pine (Ping vir 'niana) were found along the forest
edge adjacent to the existing goad" ;Su .; cano X jt fees in, lude the canopy species plus American
elm ( mus ami r can ;° " ' ? i+; cabs n? to As o (Oxydendrum arboreum),
( i'flvwering;dogwood (Coriius'florida). The shrub/sapling
sassafras 5as - aibidum
layer is comps etl of bbd nrlapl . ?Ade iubriiin , 'hickory' ;''red mulberry (Morus rubra),
sparklebeltS(atciri?iun''aiio4?ein,°and`cl4o'why44o'ru{dd (Viburnum rafinesquianum). The
herb/vines layer is composed of cunila (Cunila g ganoides), five-fingers (Potentilla canadensis),
Virginia creeper.Parthenocissus quinquefolia); poison.ivy.(Toxicodendron radicans), and
trumpet creeper am sis radicans).
Fooodplain Hardwood Forest
This plant community (Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest) is adjacent to New
Hope Creek and on low-lying areas in the floodplain. There was standing water in a portion of
the floodplain hardwood forest. The canopy is dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis)
and includes ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), riverbirch (Betula ni a), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). The sub-canopy is composed of the canopy trees and boxelder (Acer nggundo).
The shrub/sapling layer includes boxelder and green ash. The herb layer is composed of mint
(Mentha spy.), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), beggar's tick (Coreopsis spy.) and Japanese
honeysuckle. Water-primrose (Ludwieia spp.) occurs along New Hope Creek.
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed roadside and bridge margins, powerline
ROW, residential lawns, and a service station/convenient store along the existing road. This area
is characterized primarily by invasive vines, grasses and herbs including: fescue grass (Festuca
Vp,), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera jaVD-nig-a), crabgrass (Digitaria spy.grape (Viti spy.),
clover (Trifolium spy.), plantain (Plantaso greenbrier (Smilax sQ.}, and aster (Aster
The shrub/sapling layer is composed of raspberry (Rubu spy.) and red maple. Adjacent
to the service station is a lawn composed of fescue grass and a sparse canopy of large white oak
( uercus albs and red oak.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system
present in the study area. 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 less. The following table summarizes potential plant
community impacts which could result from the proposed bridge replacement.
3
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
nru.
q
T
IES ESTT MAXED -1MP e CT
MUN
-
-
PLANT Alt. 1 Perm. Alt. 1 Temp.
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0,05 (0.14) 0.11 (0.26)
Floodplain Hardwood Forest 0.11 (0.26) 0.13 (0.34)
4;
Urban/Disturbed ;?i t'aR ij?,?, } 0.21 0.53
i
T(?TA aiig !1
? , 0.45(
1.13)
in
::+t3 r tia :.1. ii 15
.
, t = ?' i rt '+. t '+.q.cS S { i ?_
t. .. ,i i• ril ?: _'?l 41
slues to hectaTe4ti(s ; + emN
Notes empora* tid {at Term. =Permanent impacts.
.. ... 2 ., .. .t ? : ?.,.. ^ w': .1p1!' „i ? . •{r.
,. ?'i d: 1
., ? .. i.i i.:ii i i
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement will affect a rural buffer
to the forest and _a trailhead entrance to the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest.
The NC Natural Heritage Program has classified the Korstian Division of the Duke University
Forest as a natural area site with statewide significance. The Mixed Hardwood Forest canopy
near the existing road exhibits several large trees and natural cut areas with a diversity of plant
species. This area will be impacted by construction activity which occur west of the existing
road. Other impacts in the project area are restricted to narrow strips adjacent to the existing
bridge and roadway segments, powerline ROW, commercial and residential areas.
2.3 Wildlife
2.3.1 Terrestrial
The project area consists of a combination of rural countryside, forested, residential, and
commercial development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for commercial and
residential uses has eliminated cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species east of
the project area. Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the
forested area within the Korstian Division of the Duke University Forest and adjacent to New
Hope Creek and associated ecotomes, do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering New
Hope Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals,
birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc,) were noted for the following
species of mammals including Virginia opossum (Didelnhis vir ing iana) and raccoon (Procyon
to r .
~ The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of
habitat types are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby New Hope
Creek include pine warbler (Dendroica in , yellow-throated warbler (Dendroica dominica ,
Kentucky warbler ( orornis formosa), and common grackle ( uiscalu uiscula . Species seen
along the roadside areas include the common crow ( rvus brach3ghvnchos).
4
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake
hamnophis sirtalis), pickerel frogs (Rana palustris), Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis),
eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo woodhousei).
2.3.2 Aquatic
New Hope Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for
recreational fishing. Aquatic invertebrates observed included craneflies (Tipulidae), mayflies
(Ephemeroptera), and caddisflies (Trichoptera). A number of small fish observed in the creek
include the eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki) and shiners (Notropis.).
New Hope Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat
for amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notol2hthalmus viridescens),
northern dusky.salamander (Desmo agn thus fuscus), frogs (Rana sue.), snapping turtle ( heC lydra
serpentina), and several snake species. Crayfish mounds were observed adjacent to the creek.
2.4 Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
The proposed action will result in loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or
animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed and Hardwood
Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such as
Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover
quickly from construction impacts. The forested edge of the Korstian Division of the Duke
University Forest will receive impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering New Hope Creek
will receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. These areas should continue to
provide adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles and birds.
The proposed action can potentially have substantial affects on the aquatic ecosystem
unless strict sediment control measures are taken. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life, (fish, mollusks, and benthic
invertebrates) both at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
3.0 WATER RESOURCES
3.1 Waters Impacted
Bridge #109 crosses New Hope Creek approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) downstream of its
origin in northeast Orange County. New Hope Creek flows southeast into the B. Everette Jordan
Reservoir which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
3.2 Best Usage Classification and Water Quality
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing
or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD
1993). New Hope Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a
5
supplemental classification for nutrient sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs.
The DE M N ` - -t Pollutant Bisc arge Elimination Syuavaaa ?a.a ar .rv? `ate port li S,?ns+
Ol b'L/ Lllllillic?u II?TDT ES) report
(Carolina Friends School, Timothy Barber Residence, Baumam & Carbrey Residence,
Robert G. Mays Residence, Daniel R. Dalcorso Residence, William L. Triplett Residence,
Hilltop MHP, Triangle Care Center, Inc.Briarwood Rest Home, and Birchwood MHP) within
four miles upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II
Waters occur within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in
water quality. at &ed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain
organisms are sensitive to very subtiie changes in water quality. Good water quality is
associated with high taxa richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence
of many intolerant species. Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive
species and leads to a community structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody.
New Hope Creek was sampled at the SR2220 crossing approximately 3.2 km (2 mi) downstream
of the study bridge crossing (March, 1987), and given a Fair bioclassification rating.
3.3 Stream Characteristics
New Hope Creek originates approximately 4.8 km (3 mi) upstream above the subject
bridge in northeast Orange County. The stream was approximately 12.8 m (42 ft) in width
below the existing bridge. Depth varied from approximately 15 cm (0.5 ft) to 30 cm (1 ft).
Flow was moderate below the bridge. The water color was brown. There were many tree snags
in the creek. Substrate was sand and gravel below the existing bridge.
3.4 Anticilated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related
activities, which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts can be minimized by the use
of best management practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation
control measures during construction.
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements. The new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity.
Increased runoff from roadway surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated
road shoulders and limited use of ditching where ever possible.
6
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). Surface waters and wetlands will be impacted by project
construction. Approximately 0.20 hectares (0.50 acres) with 0.11 hectares (0.26 acres)
permanent and 0.09 hectares (0.24 acres) temporary wetland impacts for Alternative 1 of
Palustrine forested broad-leaved deciduous wetlands (see Cowardin et al. 1979) will be impacted
(filled) with the current project design.
Wetland communities were identified using the criteria specified in the 1987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland",
the following three specifications must be meet; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology at or near the soil
surface for a portion (5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
4. 1.1 Permits
Section 404 impacts to wetlands will occur. A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(A)23,
for impacts to surface waters of the New Hope Creek, is likely to be applicable if the WRC
certifies that construction of this project will not adversely affect these waters. 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 the environmental documentation, because it will
neither individually or cumulatively have a significant environmental effect.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.2 Mitintion
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. However, utilization of best management
practices (BMP's) is recommended in an effort to minimize impacts.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected
under the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988
Amendments). Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned
7
due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected species are listed as of
November 17, 1994 for Orange County:
pec
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata.) - E
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) - E
Brief descriptions of these organisms characteristics and habitat requirements are
provided below.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: ;,10/13/70
This federally Endangered woodpecker is found in scattered locations throughout the
southeast. The bird measures 18 to 20 cm long with a wing span ranging from 35 to 38 cm. The
male has a small red spot on each side of the head. Both males and females show a black cap
and stripe on the side of the neck. The throat is also black while the cheeks and under parts are
white. Black and white horizontal stripes are visible on the back. Nesting habitat consists of
open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood stands, (50 percent or more
pine). Longleaf pine (Pin-us a1Q ustris) is most commonly used, but other species of southern pine
are also acceptable.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No suitable habitat exists along the bridge replacement alternative. Also, a review of NC
Natural Heritage Program data revealed no records of this species in the subject project study
area. It can be concluded that project construction will have no impact on the Red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 10/8/92
Smooth coneflower is currently known from Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina
and Georgia. The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides,
ciearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line ROW s, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich
soils associated with gabbro in North Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant
sunlight and little competition in the herb layer. The Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous
perennial herb that grows up to 1.5 m tali from a vertical root stock. The stems are smooth with
few leaves. The rays of the flower are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and the flower
heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from May through July.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
8
The disturbed roadside margins, powerline ROW's, and cleared land along the project .
offers suitable habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along these habitats were-
conducted on October 25, 1994. No dried flower heads from the summer bloom or plants were
otserveti. A review of NC NatULat HCLitag(Z PLUgLWLI data Leveaied 110 records of this species 111
the project study area. It can be concluded that construction of this project will not impact this
species.
Michaux's sumac (Rhos michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiacene
Listed: 9/28189
Michaux's sumac was known historically from the inner coastal plain and lower
piedmont of North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.. Thirty-five populations have been
reported in North Carolina. This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. It is dependent on
some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It grows only in open habitat
where it can get full sunlight and it does not compete well with other species such as Japanese
honeysuckle.
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub that grows 0.2 to 1.0 m in
height. The narrowly winged or wingless rachis supports 9 to 13 sessile, oblong to
oblong-lanceolate leaflets that are each 4 to 9 cm long, 2 to 5 cm wide, acute and acuminate. It
bears small flowers in a terminal, erect, dense cluster. The flowers are greenish to white in
color. Fruits, which develop from August to September on female plants, are a red densely
short-pubescent drupe, 5 to b mm across.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The disturbed roadside margins and powerline ROW along the project offers suitable
habitat for this species. Plant by plant surveys along these habitats were conducted on October
15, 1994. No plants were observed. A review of NC Natural Heritage Program data revealed no
records of this species in the subject project study area. It can be concluded that construction of
this project will not impact this species.
4.2.2 Federal Candidate Species
There are five C2 federal candidate species listed for Orange County. The North
Carolina status of these species is listed below.
9
Federal Candidate Species Orange County
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Toxolasma up -1us Savannah liiliput Yes T
Plagiochila coiumbiana A liverwort Yes C
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap Yes C
Nestronia um ellula Nestronia Yes SR
NC Status: T, C and SR denote Threatened, Candidate, and Significantly Rare,
respectively.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of
vulnerability, but for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. These species are
mentioned here for information purposes, should they become federally protected in the future.
Specific surveys for any of these species were not conducted, nor were these species observed
during the site visit. The NC Natural Heritage Program has a record (August, 1989), for sweet
pinesap on a Piedmont/Coastal Plain Acidic Cliff within the Korstian Division of the Duke
University Forest approximately three-quarters of a mile from the subject project study area.
Sweet pinesap was not observed in the subject project study area.
4.2.3 State Protected Species
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202.
12 et seq.). NC Natural Heritage Program records indicate the following four records of the
following state listed species occurring within 1.6 km (1 mile) of the project site but, not within
the proposed alignments.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Record Date
Tachopteryx thore ' Thorey's greyback SR August, 1989
H=idac lium sc to Four-toed salamander SR July, 1989
R e lia purshiana Pursh's Wild-petunia SR August, 1990
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap C August, 1989
NC Status: C and SR denote Candidate and Significantly Rare, respectively.
10
REFERENCES
Beal, E.O. 1977. A Manual of Marsh and Aquatic Vascular Plants of North Carolina. The North
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Goiet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual, Technical
Report Y-87-1, USACOEWES, Vicksburg, Miss.
Gibbs, L.C. 1987. Weeds of the Southern United States. Univ. of Georgia College of
Agriculture.
LeGrand, H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1993. Natural Herita?.e Program List of the Rare Animal Species
of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distribution Survey of North Carolina
Mammals. Museum of Natural History, North Carolina.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, J.R. Harrison, 111, and J. Dermid. 1986. Amphibians
and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, The University of North Carolina Press.
Murie, O.J. 1975. A Field Guide to Animal Tracks. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
NCDNRCD. 1993. Classifications and Water Oualily Standards Assigned to the Water of the
Tar-Pamlico River Basin. Division of Environment Management, Raleigh, N.C..
Peterson, R.T. 1980. A Field Guide to the Birds. Houghton Miffin Co., Boston.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and RP. Jeulings. 1986. Birds of the Carolinas. The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina Third Anproximntion. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
SCS, 1993. Soil Survey for Orange County North Carolina. Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A.S. 1993. Natural Henrita e Pro=m List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr.. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas Virginia
and Mary_land_, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
11