20000916 Ver 1_Complete File_20000717

Op091
LTyy .??

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
June 30, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office ,
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 J j"to""Ir ] 7
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer ? ??'? r`^"'

NCDOT Coordinator WAT
tr ?.?
SUBJECT: Chatham County, Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek;
Federal Aid No. BRZ-1010(5); State Project No. 8.2521501; TIP
No. B-3133.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on January 1998. The project involves
replacing Bridge No. 170 over Bear Creek on SR 1010, Chatham County. The new
structure will be a bridge approximately 46 meters (151 feet) long and 9.1 meters (30
feet) wide at approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the existing
bridge. The travelway on the bridge will include two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1
meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will consist of resurfacing and widening the
roadway to two 3.6 meter (8 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate.
The total project length will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet). Traffic will be
detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
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 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by the Corps of Engineers
(COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.

It is not anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an
approved CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on
permits, Section 404 Nationwide 6 and Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE
document has been provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health
and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
Bridge No. 170 is located on SR 1010 over the Bear Creek in Chatham County. It
has three spans totaling 151 feet in length. The deck and bridge railings for the
superstructure are composed of concrete. The interior bents are also composed of
concrete. The bridge rail will be removed without dropping it into Waters of the U.S.
There is potential for components of the deck and interior bents to be dropped into
Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
concrete deck and interior bents is approximately 35 cubic yards. This bridge demolition
has been classified as a Case 1 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R attachment). The
Case 1 designation was a result of designated critical habitat present for the federally
endangered Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). A biological conclusion of NOT
LIKELY TO ADVERSELY EFFECT was rendered for the Cape Fear Shiner based on
the following commitments:
1. High Quality Waters- Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to
clearing and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
2. Bents in the river channel will be cut off at the riverbed. If possible, new bents will
not be located in the river channel.
3. Removal of the bridge deck will be done from the top down.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
Aa C - A
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
2 Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
!'
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Dave Cox, NCWRC
Mr. Marella.Bunsick, USFWS
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1- "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
r1%
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
• Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
• Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL ?.
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
• In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
• All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
0009'6
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3133
State Project No. 8.2521501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1010(55)
A. Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek in
Chatham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 46 meters
(151 feet) long and 9.1 meters (30 feet) wide at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will include
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with
2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total
project length will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet). Traffic will be detoured
along surrounding roads during construction.
B. P=ose and Need:
Bridge No. 170 has a sufficiency rating of 15.7 out of 100. The structure is a two
lane bridge with 6.1 meters (20 feet) of bridge roadway width. Modern design
standards specify a width of 9.1 meters (30 feet). The bridge is posted for 16 tons for
single vehicles and 19 tons for truck tractor semi trailers. "Do nothing" is not a
practical alternate because it would require the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
C: Proposed Improvements:
The improvements which apply to the project are circled:
Type II Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains

f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering device
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
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.
2
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special PWject Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or
fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide
Permit # 23.
.. %
A Biological Conclusion of Not Likely to Adversely Effect was rendered for the
endangered species Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). This conclusion was
based on the following commitments:
1) High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to
clearing and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
2) Bents in the river channel will be cut off at the river bed. If possible, new bents will
not be located in the river channel.
3) Removal of the bridge deck will be done from the top down.
Estimated Costs:
Construction $ 600,000
Right of Way $ 18,000
Total 9--618,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 2100 VPD
Year 2020 - 6000 VPD
TTST - 3%
DUAL - 7%
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
Travelway - two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes
Shoulders - 1 meter (3 feet) on the bridge
2.4 meters (8 feet) on the approaches
Design Speed:
100 km/h (60 mph)
Functional Classification:
Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division 8 Engineer concurs with the recommendation of replacing the bridge in
place and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction. The estimated
additional cost ($600,000) of maintaining traffic on-site is not justifiable.

4
E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in 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 on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X
(HQW)? -
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any N/A
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? j , X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned ,-
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
4
•

6
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land
use of any adjacent property? X
l
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X j
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local
laws, relating to the environmental aspects of the action. X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
7
(30) 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)?
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined x
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for x
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Question 2:
A Biological Conclusion of Not Likely to Adversely Effect was rendered for the
endangered species Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). This conclusion was
based on the following commitments:
1) High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed prior to
clearing and grubbing and properly maintained throughout project construction.
2) Bents in the river channel will be cut off at the river bed. If possible, new bents will
not be located in the river channel.
3) Removal of the bridge deck will be done from the top down.
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3133
State Project No. 8.2521501
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1010(5)
` Project Description:
The project consists of replacing Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek in
Chatham County. The new structure will be a bridge approximately 46 meters
(151 feet) long and 9.1 meters (30 feet) wide at approximately the same location and
roadway elevation as the existing bridge. The travelway on the bridge will include
two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with 1 meter (3 foot) shoulders. Approach work will
consist of resurfacing and widening the roadway to two 3.6 meter (12 foot) lanes with
2.4 meter (8 foot) shoulders, and installing guardrail where appropriate. The total
project length will be approximately 122 meters (400 feet). Traffic will be detoured
along surrounding roads during construction.
(See the attached location map.)
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approve
1-16-98 ?-V
Date Assistant Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
/-?s 98 O d 0? 7 &1 41L Z7/11 A -
Date Project Planning Unit Head ,
1-15-98
Date
Date kbivision Admini trator
ederal Highway Administration
9

/ s
2164 (' Nat/a?5
7 ? ? 2
2 ,
,
2175
~ ?' 2 2176
30 1.
2 2 215
•? 2178 / .8
2187 2177 21°9 2176 1010
??_ ?••?_.??'1 2196ra 2155
1 tD 2181 22 •?? _ f?
•7 2182 •2184 "?-.?," • r ' .,?, L. ?
,•\?a 2129 2.2 cr' •? ?1 l
2187 •
a/ Mays
a Chapel 21
\n 21 83
to CO
? 2186 I
e?J • 2:85 %
7- ?-
? 2188
1010 kMtl0 1Ch. T
ay
2197.7 '
?? `, 1.2 2142 / ? IZ•
2153
,Jrl`,c, ;7 1
? Crutchfield z-rds earringt ? ? 11 t{??
5 8 1C.? 751 ,
?CIS !N-_Silk Hove 8115 ,p. Villa Alit
enl • '?
1?-
' =ice !._ ;Wilsonville 7/
r ' Siter City At:oori?ol?q; calm -? , S
-1:t \ s02 r. + '9 x.eanC"Newh
IC A 1 A cM`'eoncai ,? •?^ V 21
Vernon Sprint :1 ?`?. r+" 49eiry Oaks ,
Ice I?Bonle ncure Zy+j
ce ?? ? ?' // a 7,d Studied Detour Route
Goldsto 90 9 Cum l
(Bennett
11 0l\ Carbonton•
`I 42 -?-
e'..:„ .
North Carolina
Department Of Transportation
7P:
Planning & Environmental Branch
CHATHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 170 ON SR 1010
OVER BEAR CREEK
B-3133
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
EN7 OF Ty?'Zm
? A
N
? °
_ra _-
n a9
RCH 3 '6
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
January 14, 1998
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
ATTN: Mr. Jeff Ingham
"-(s P/ N
?O
JAIv S 1998 r X h'`c'r%Wq yQF
-0-NM
SUBJ: Bridge Replacement No. 426; TIP No. B-3135, over Bear Creek; and Bridge
No 170; TIP No. 3133, over Bear Creek in Chatham County
r
Dear Mr. Vick:
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your December 16,
1997 and December 17, 1997 technical reports for the above-referenced
projects over Bear Creek, 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).
Based on North Carolina Department of Transportation's adherence to the
project commitments which include High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion
Control Measures, to protect the Cape Fear Shiner, the Service believes that
these two projects are not likely to adversely affect the Cape Fear Shiner,
or any other federally-listed species, their formally designated critical
habitat, or species currently proposed for federal listing under the
Endangered Species Act, as amended.
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.
Thank you for your continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely,
ohn M. H ner
Field Supervisor
FWS/R4:CMartino:cm:1-14-98:919/856-4520:WP51\NCDOT\B170-426.NE

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
February 20, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek,
Chatham County, B-3133, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1010(5), State Project 8.2521501, ER 97-
8195
Dear Mr. Graf:
On February 4, 1997, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
If replacement of the bridge is to be at the existing location with an off-site detour
on existing roads, then no archaeological investigation is recommended. If the
other alternate which includes a temporary detour structure to the west of the
existing bridge is selected, we recommend an archaeological survey of the area of
potential effect prior to project implementation.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
r .
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??3
r
nank 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,
avid Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
C. Bruton
T. Padgett
,
Natural Resources
Technical Report
Proposed Replacement of Bridge
No. 170 on 5R 1010 over
Bear Creek, Chatham County
Prepared for:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Environmental Unit
Prepared by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
November 3, 1997
TIP No. B-3133
State Project No. 8.2521501
F.A. Project No. BRZ-1010 (5)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
FOR PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 170 ON SR1010
OVER BEAR CREEK, CHATHAM COUNTY
TIP NO. 13-3133
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2521501
F.A. PROJECT NO. 13RZ-1010(5)
Prepared for:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
Prepared by:
KCI Associates of North Carolina, Inc.
Raleigh, North Carolina
November, 1997
r
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1.0 INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................... 1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................... 1
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY ............................................................ 1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ....................................................................................... 2
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR ............................ 3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................ 3
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS ............................................................. 3
2. 1.1 Soils .................................................................................................. 4
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ............................................................................... 4
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics .............................................. 4
2.2.2 Water Quality ................................................................................... 4
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality .............................................. 5
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................. 6
3.1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 6
3.2 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................... 6
3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ....................................................................... 8
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................... 9
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ................................................................... 10
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ........................................................ 10
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................ 11
4.1.2 Permits ............................................................................................. 11
4.1.3 Water Permits .................................................................................. 13
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ......................................................... 13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................................................ 13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ..................... 17
5.0 REFERENCES, ........................... _0 ... 0 .... 0 ..... 00-0-0 ... 00 ................. 00 ... 00.0..0.. 19
TABLES
Table 1 - Summary of Community Impacts ................................................. 10
Table 2 - List of Federally-Protected Species in Chatham County ............... 14
Table 3 - List of Species of Federal Concern and Special State
Status ............................................................................................. 18
APPENDICES
Appendix A - Figures
Appendix B - Site Photographs
Appendix C - Alternate Plans and Proposed Impacts
Appendix D - Wetland Information and Site Maps
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report outlines the findings of both the
literature review and a field investigation of the natural resources identified within the
project area for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear
Creek, B-3133, in Chatham County. The findings of the report, including any anticipated
impacts to the surrounding environment as a result of the proposed project, will be
included as part of the environmental documentation required under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) for federally funded transportation projects. In
addition, general avoidance and/or mitigation recommendations are provided for each
environmental resource described in this report.
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
Initially built in 1950, Bridge No. 170, which spans over Bear Creek (B-3133), is being
considered for replacement by the North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT). The bridge is located on SR 1010, approximately 2.1 kilometers (1.3 miles)
northeast of the intersection of SR 1010 and SR 2188. Currently, there are two proposed
alternates for the project. Both alternates consider replacing the bridge on the existing
location, however, each of the alternates propose different detour patterns during
construction. The alternates are as follows:
Alternate 1:
Replace Bridge No. 170 on the existing location with a bridge approximately
46 meters (151 feet) in length. Traffic would be detoured along secondary roads
during construction.
Alternate 2:
Replace Bridge No 170 on the existing location with a bridge approximately 46
meters (151 feet) in length. Traffic would maintained with a temporary on-site
bridge and alignment during construction to the west of the existing bridge. The
temporary structure would require a bridge 41 meters (135 feet) in length.
1.2 DEFINITION OF TERMINOLOGY
For the purpose of this document, the following terms are used concerning the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denotes the area bounded by the
proposed right-of-way limits along the full length of each alternate alignment. "Project
vicinity" is defined as an area extending 1.0 km (0.6 miles) on all sides of the project
area, and "Project region" denotes an area equivalent in size to the area represented by a
7.5 minute series USGS Quadrangle map (163.3 sq. km or 61.8 sq. miles).
1.3 METHODOLOGY
The evaluation of environmental resources throughout the project area included
reviewing existing data and literature, as well as, conducting a field investigation. Data
and literature sources were reviewed prior to conducting the field investigation. Project
specific information that was reviewed included USGS Quadrangle maps (Siler City,
NC; Pittsboro, NC), United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland
Inventory (NWI) maps (Siler City, NC; Pittsboro, NC), the unpublished National
Resources Conservation Service soils map (Chatham County, NC), North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photography, the USFWS list of protected
species, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) data base of rare species
and habitats, and the North Carolina Department of Water Quality (DWQ) water resource
information.
The field investigation considered the area encompassing the limit of disturbance for each
of the alternates. Within these limits, terrestrial and aquatic habitats were examined.
Evidence of wildlife was noted and when possible, species were identified (excluding
fishes). A review of adjacent landuses and landscapes was conducted to evaluate the
relationship and the ecological connectivity between the project vicinity and the project
area. The review considered an approximately 1.6 kilometer (1.0 miles) radius from the
project area.
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species, in the study
area, was gathered from the USFWS list of protected and federal species of concern and
from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
Terrestrial community classifications generally follow Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible, and plant taxonomy follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy
follows Collins (1981). Aerial photography was utilized to map vegetative communities.
These communities were than verified during the field reconnaissance.
Jurisdictional wetland delineations were performed in accordance with the delineation
criteria outlined in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual"
(Environmental Laboratory, 1987) and in "Guidance and Rating the Values of Wetlands
in North Carolina" (Division of Environmental Management, 1995). Wetlands were
classified based on the classification scheme of Cowardin, et al. (1979). Wetland
determinations included identifying the presence of hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils
and hydrology.
On August 15, 1997, George Swearingen and Gary Mryncza conducted a field
investigation of the project area. This work was, thereafter, verified on September 4, 1997
by the principal investigator, Joseph J. Pfeiffer, PWS. This investigation focused on flora,
fauna and overall habitat structure. The flora, including dominant species per stratum,
were identified and recorded. In addition, the relationships between strata were evaluated
2
for overall plant dynamics, value as wildlife habitat and a general level of biodiversity. A
separate review of the vascular flora associated with floodplains was conducted along
South Fork Little River as part of the wetland determination process.
The investigation also considered the fauna observed throughout the project area.
Techniques used to identify the presence of species included direct visual/audible
observations and indirect observations such as the presence of tracks, cavities, nests, fecal
material, carcasses, etc. Investigations for aquatic species included sampling from a
number of micro habitats throughout portions of Bear Creek. Techniques included
performing kick seining from riffles of different depths, substrate types and velocities. In
addition, coarse particulate organic matter samples were evaluated from different
locations along the stream. From these samples, general species diversity, including
general trends in population richness and uniformity, was recorded. No formal
methodology was followed for the collection and evaluation of aquatic species.
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR
Name(s): Joseph J. Pfeiffer, PWS (9927)
Education: A.A. Wildlife/ Fisheries, Garrett Community College, 1986
B.S. Natural Science, Towson State University (1988)
M.A. Environmental Planning, Towson State University (1996)
Experience: Southeast Region Environmental Manager, a registered Professional
Wetland Scientist possessing a diverse background in environmental
assessment, wetlands, environmental planning, and wildlife inventories.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
A general description of the regional characteristics, including geology, topography, soils
and primary landuses is provided in this section. In addition, this section contains
detailed information concerning water resources, especially, water characteristics,
potential impacts, and overall water quality.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
Chatham County is located in central North Carolina. It is situated in the Piedmont
physiographic province, which is characterized by rolling topography with rounded hills
and long, low ridges. Elevations, within the county, range from 45 to 236 meters (150 to
774 feet) above mean sea level (MSL) following a trend of increasing elevation to the
northwest part of the county.
The project area rests in the Cape Fear River Basin, as does all of Chatham County. The
Cape Fear Basin is the largest basin in the state covering over 23,000 square kilometers
(9,000 square miles). It is formed at the confluence of the Haw and Deep Rivers on the
border of Chatham and Lee Counties just below the Jordan Reservoir dam. From there
the river flows across the coastal plain past Fayetteville and Wilmington, and is fed by
3
the Black and Northeast Cape Fear River watersheds (two major blackwater systems) and
finally enters the Atlantic Ocean at Cape Fear.
Current land use in the vicinity of the project includes forest cover, agriculture and low-
density residential. Feed crops and tobacco tend to dominate the agriculture portion of
the land uses.
The elevations in the project area range from 107 to 110 meters (350 to 360 feet) above
MSL.
2.1.1 Soils
According to the Natural Resource Conservation Service of Chatham County, North
Carolina, the soil association encompassing the project area is the Cid-Nason-Badin
association. This unit is characterized by a gently to sloping topography, with moderately
well to well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a loamy to clayey subsoil.
These soils range in landscape position from floodplains to uplands.
The specific soil series' that are likely to be impacted by this project include: Riverview
_ silt loam (13A), Nason-Badin complex (130C, 130D) and Cid loam (525C). Riverview
silt loam is classified as a secondary hydric soil and is considered to be well drained with
inclusions of poorly drained soils. The depth to the seasonal high water table ranges from
0.91 to 1.52 meters (3.0 to 5.0 feet).
2.2 WATER RESOURCES
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Streams and tributaries, within the project region, are part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
The Cape Fear River Basin is further subdivided by watersheds. Bear Creek (located in
subbasin #03-06-12) is part of the Deep River Watershed. In addition to impacts at the
project area, it is assumed that project operations may potentially impact Rocky River
further downstream.
Bear Creek (Index # 17-43-16) is classified as a class "C" stream from its source to
Rocky River. Class "C" streams are those defined as best suited for propagation and
survival of aquatic life, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
2.2.2 Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is part of an ongoing ambient
water quality monitoring program which studies long term trends in water quality. The
BMAN program assesses water quality by sampling for selected benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Benthic macroinvertebrates are
4
sensitive to subtle changes in water quality, and therefore, can be used as indicators to
evaluate the overall health of stream systems.
The most recent sample taken within the project region was conducted in 1990 (July),
immediately downstream of the project area, where SR 2155 crosses Bear Creek. That
sample received a BMAN bioclassification of "Good-Fair." No point source dischargers
were identified within the project area or immediate surrounding area. A review of point
source dischargers, permitted through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination
System Program (NPDES), was conducted. The nearest discharger identified was the
Barry Parker Residence, Facility NPDES # NCG550360, located outside of the project
vicinity, approximately 5.0 kilometers (3.1 miles) upstream of the bridge.
2.2.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Quality
Each of the alternates have the potential to impact water quality. However, with erosion
and sediment control measures set in place, impacts can be reduced to a negligible level.
Minimal disturbance to existing vegetation, especially forest cover, will reduce water
quality impacts as well. From an ecological perspective, Alternate 1 is the preferred
alternate, primarily due to the limited amount of clearing and grubbing that will be
_ required. Clearing, grubbing, and filling activities in the floodplain and adjacent upland
forest cover will increase the potential for erosion and subsequent degradation of water
quality. In addition, potential impacts may occur from the removal of stable vegetation
along the streambank. Mature trees and shrubs with well established root systems are
effective protection for streambanks against erosional forces. Loss of this type of
vegetation creates the potential for both short and long term erosion.
Alternate 1 proposes to replace the bridge on the existing location, and therefore, would
require only minimal clearing on either side of the bridge. Alternate 2 requires impacts
to the streambanks, floodplain and forest cover. This option proposes creating a
temporary bridge [approximately 41 meters (135 feet) in length], to the west of the
existing bridge, to detour traffic during project construction. Alternate 2 has the potential
to clear approximately 30 linear meters (100 linear feet) of streambank and floodplain
vegetation along Bear Creek.
With each alternate, total long term impacts to water resources and aquatic communities
resulting from the proposed project are expected to be negligible, given that proper
erosion and sediment control measures are taken. In addition, the size of the project and
typical construction methods required pose minimal large scale or long term impacts.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced during the actual construction of the
project when vegetation removal and the addition of fill material on the site, will cause
the soil to be exposed. After completion, prompt revegetation and restoration of the
disturbed area to its original condition will reduce the potential for erosion and water
quality degradation. However, sedimentation guidelines should still be implemented and
strictly enforced throughout the construction period to reduce the potential for excessive
5
soil erosion and the degradation of downstream water quality. In order to minimize
potential impacts, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface
Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction phase of the project. This
would include:
1) Installation of temporary silt fences, dikes, and earth berms to control runoff
during construction.
2) Placement of temporary ground cover or re-seeding of disturbed sites to reduce
runoff and decrease sediment loadings.
3) Reduction of clearing along streams
Non-point source runoff from agriculture is likely to be the primary source of water
quality degradation in the project vicinity. Water quality, in North Carolina, is
significantly influenced by nutrient loading. Long term impacts on streams, as a result of
road construction, are not expected.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
3.1 INTRODUCTION
This section describes the biological components and communities identified as part of
the field investigation. Communities are divided into either terrestrial or aquatic systems.
The flora and fauna identified for each community is provided, as well as, the fauna
likely to be present based on vegetation and habitat.
3.2 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
The field investigation resulted in the identification of seven terrestrial communities.
These include three riparian forests, two upland forests, a utility buffer and a roadside
shoulder. The riparian forests meet the definitions of a Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest, a Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest and a Piedmont Bottomland Forest as
described by Schafale and Weakley .(1990). The utility buffer consists primarily of
primary successional species, in addition to some invasive inclusions and other species
common to the adjacent forested areas. The roadside shoulder is a small, approximately
six meters (20 feet), buffer between SR 1010 and the adjacent landuses (forest cover,
agriculture fields, and rural low-density residential).
A
The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest community comprises an area of approximately 53
meters (175 feet) beyond the southwest streambank; 15 meters (50 feet) beyond the
northwest bank; and 23 meters (75 feet) beyond the streambank in the area to the
southeast of the bridge. In general, the dominant canopy species is sweet gum
(Liquidambar sryraciflua). Dominant trees are, on average, between 30 and 45
6

centimeters (12-18 inches) in diameter at breast height (DBH) and are approximately 30
to 60 years of age. Ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple (Ater ratbrum) and
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida) dominate the midstory, while microstegium
(Microstegium vimineum), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans) and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia) dominate the groundcover.
The Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community comprises an area of
approximately 106 meters (350 feet) beyond the northeast streambank (in relation to the
bridge). In general, the dominant canopy species are tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera),
American elm (Ulmus americana), American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river
birch (Betula nigra) and green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). Dominant trees are, on
average, between 30 and 45 centimeters (12-18 inches) in diameter at breast height
(DBH) and are approximately 30 to 60 years of age. Ironwood and red maple dominate
the midstory, while poison ivy and trumpet creeper are woody vines present.
Microstegium comprises the herbaceous layer and dominates the ground cover.
The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest community is situated in the far southwest
portion of the project area. It measures approximately 2,090 sq. meters (22,500 sq. feet)
and is contiguous to the Levee Forest community which separates it from Bear Creek.
The canopy is dominated by tulip tree, sweet gum, American elm, and green ash.
Dominant trees are, on average, between 30 and 45 centimeters (12-18 inches) in
diameter at breast height (DBH) and are approximately 30 to 60 years of age. The
midstory is made up of ironwood, red maple, American holly (Ilex opaca), and flowering
dogwood. Microstegium, poison ivy, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense) and Virginia creeper are the primary species present in the
groundcover.
The Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest is located in the far northwest portion of the project
area and comprises an area of approximately 2,440 sq. meters (26,250 sq. feet). The
dominant canopy species in this community include tulip tree, sweet gum, green ash,
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), white oak (Quercus alba), black oak (Quercus
velutina), American elm, pignut hickory (Carya glabra) and shagbark hickory (Carya
ovata). The midstory consists of ironwood, red maple, and Eastern red cedar (Junipertis
virginiana), while the ground cover is dominated primarily by microstegium.
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest community is situated in the far southeast portion of
the project area and comprises an area of approximately 1,625 sq. meters (17,500 sq.
feet). The canopy in this community consists primarily of tulip tree, red oak, red maple
and sweet gum. Red maple, flowering dogwood, and American holly make up the
midstory and microstegium dominates the ground cover.
Fescue (Festuca spp.) and several primary successional species, including tulip tree and
sweet gum, are the prevalent vegetation within the roadside shoulder community.
7
The majority of the observed wildlife, especially throughout the forested areas, are
common edge dwelling avian species. Tufted titmouse (Partrs bicolor), chipping sparrow
(Spizella passerina), song sparrow (Melospiza melodia) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis) were identified in the project area. Other species observed include gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) and red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus). Indications of
beaver (Castor canadensis) were also present in the project vicinity.
The forest cover within the project area serves as part of the ecological connectivity along
the Bear Creek riparian corridor. The presence of large parcels of forest throughout the
project vicinity, as well as, along Bear Creek suggest that the corridor is likely to serve as
important foraging and breeding habitat for a diversity of wildlife species. Wildlife
known to associate with the amount and type of forest cover within the project area,
vicinity, and region would include a diversity of songbirds, including migratory species,
forest interior dwelling birds, raptors, amphibians and reptiles (frogs, snakes and turtles).
This habitat would also be suitable for many mammals such as red fox (Vulpes vulpes),
beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern rabbit (.Sylvilagus floridanus), shrews (Sorex spp.,
Blarina spp., and Cryptotis spp.), mice (Peromyscus spp.), voles (Clethrionomys spp. and
Phenacomys spp.) and eastern chipmunks (Tamias striatus). Nesting and breeding
opportunities are present within the project area, however, this area serves as more of an
edge habitat, and therefore, would not be ideal for forest interior dwelling species.
3.3 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Three aquatic communities which have the potential to be impacted were identified
within the project area. The first aquatic community that may be impacted consists of a
portion of Bear Creek which is a lower perennial stream. This section of Bear Creek is
characterized as a slow moving stream with an average width of approximately 18.2
meters (60 feet). This section of stream consists of several riffle pool complexes of
different size, depth, and velocity. Overall, streambanks appear to be stable with
vegetation covering greater than 50 percent of their surface.
The second aquatic community is an intermittent stream flowing into the southwest
streambank of Bear Creek. This system has the potential to be impacted by the proposed
project. The intermittent stream totals approximately 38 meters (125 linear feet). This
intermittent stream originates downslope of the forested wetland located in the southwest
portion of the project area. The intermittent channel ranges in depth from approximately
0.5 meters (1 foot) in the upper portion to approximately 1.4 meters (4.5 feet) where it
empties into Bear Creek. The width of the intermittent stream averages approximately
1.5 meters (5.0 feet). The intermittent stream was dry at the time of inspection. The lack
of flow could be directly related to the time of year of the investigation, as well as, the
unusual drought conditions of August, 1997. The banks of the intermittent stream
appeared to be relatively stable, with some evidence of erosion in a small area of the
upper portion.
8
The third aquatic community consists of a palustrine forested wetland associated with a
bottomland hardwood forest. The wetland system is located in the southwest portion of
the project area. The wetland measures approximately 3,251 sq. meters (35,000 sq. feet),
and would be classified as a seasonally flooded, broad-leafed deciduous, palustrine
forested wetland (PFOIA). Only a portion, approximately 930 sq. meters (10,000 sq.
feet) will be impacted by the proposed project. Hydropyhtic vegetation present in the
canopy includes tulip tree, sweet gum, and American elm. Red maple and flowering
dogwood are the dominant species in the midstory. The herbaceous layer is dominated
by microstegium, poison ivy, and Virginia creeper. Hydric soils were evident, including
low chroma soils and reducing conditions. Hydrologic indicators included sediment
deposition, buttressing, and stained leaves.
Observation of aquatic fauna was limited to mollusks and benthic macroinvertebrates.
An abundance of Asiatic clam shells (Corbicula manilensis) were dispersed along the
river banks and shells of freshwater mussels (Uniondae) were evident as well. Based on
a random, but qualitative sampling, along portions of Bear Creek within the project area,
the diversity of benthic macroinvertebrates is moderate to high. Organisms found and
identified include the following: damselfly larvae (Order Odonata), mayfly larvae (Order
Emphemoptera), whirligig beetle (Order Coleoptera family Gyrinidae genus Dineutus),
riffle beetle (Order Coleoptera family Elmidae), caddisfly larvae (Order Trichoptera) and
hellgrammite (Order Megaloptera family Corydalidae genus Corydalus spp.). Of these
organisms, caddisfly larvae dominated the sample.
Based on a general assessment of habitat and water quality, it can concluded that a
number of species of fish would typically inhabit Bear Creek. Some of the common
fishes that occur in similar Piedmont streams are: golden shiner (Notemigonzrs
crysoleucas), whitefin shiner (Cyprinella nivea), spottail shiner (Notropis alborus),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), silver redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), Eastern
silvery minnow (Hybognathus regius), tesselated darter (Etheostoma acuticeps), fantail
darter (Etheostoma flabellare), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), bluehead chub
(Nocomis leptocephalus) and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
3.4 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS
Construction of the subject project may have several impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources, in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these communities.
Impacts were determined by using the entire right-of-way width for each alternate.
Impacts may be less, depending on the final sequence of operations.
9
Anticipated impacts to the biotic communities, in the project area, vary depending on the
alternate selected. Alterations of the current environment will be temporary if the
affected areas are revegetated and returned to their original state as quickly as possible.
The aquatic community may be more sensitive to the effects associated with the
construction process. Protection of water resources is critical to ensure that any impacts
are minimal, short term and localized.

Table 1. Summary of Community Impacts
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Piedmont/Low Mt. 325 sq. meters 650 sq. meters
Alluvial Forest (3,500 sq.ft) (7,000 sq.ft)
Piedmont/Mt. Levee 566 sq. meters 2,090 sq. meters
Forest (6,090 sq.ft) (22,500 sq.ft)
Dry-Mesic Oak- 418 sq. meters 4,180 sq. meters
Hickory Forest (4,500 sq.ft) (45,000 sq.ft)
Mesic Mixed no impacts 743 sq. meters
Hardwood Forest (8,000 sq.ft)
Piedmont/Mt. no impacts 952 sq. meters
Bottomland Forest (10,250 sq.ft)
Roadside Shoulder 743 sq. meters 1,672 sq. meters
(8,000 sq.ft) (18,000 sq.ft)
Utility Buffer 232 sq. meters 930 sq. meters
(2,500 sq.ft) (10,000 sq.ft)
Bear Creek 372 sq. meters 636 sq. meters
(4,000 sq.ft) (6,850 sq.ft)
Intermittent Stream no impacts 57 sq. meters
(614 sq. ft)
Palustrine Forested no impacts 930 sq. meters
Wetland (10,000 sq.ft)
Total Impacts 2656 sq. meters 12,840 sq. meters
(28,590 sq.ft) (138,214 sq.ft)
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
I/

,/
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important state and federally regulated natural resource issues -- Waters of the United
States and rare and protected species.
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register Part 328.3. Wetlands,
10
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas inundated or saturated by surface or
groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances, do support a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate and/or determine whether wetlands are jurisdictional include
evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of certain hydrologic
characteristics during the growing season.
During the August 15, 1997 investigation, each of the aforementioned components were
identified at one location (Wetland System 1) within the project area. Having met all
three criteria, this area, which is described in Section 3.3, meets the definition of a
jurisdictional wetland. In addition to the Wetland System 1, Bear Creek and an
intermittent stream (flowing into Bear Creek) were identified as jurisdictional surface
waters. Wetland System 1 has the potential to be impacted as a result of the bridge
replacement, however only a portion of the system would be impacted (by alternate 2)
due to the proposed project. (Appendix D contains specific information and mapping of
the identified wetlands.)
A review of the NWI maps for the project area identified two wetland systems. Bear
Creek is classified as a riverine, lower perennial stream, with an unconsolidated bottom
(R2UBH). The hydrologic regime is considered permanently flooded. Despite being
present on the NWI map, the other system, a temporarily flooded, broad-leaf deciduous
palustrine forested wetland (situated to the east of the bridge), did not meet the wetland
criteria during the field investigation. Wetland System 1, which was identified during the
field investigation, is not shown on these NWI maps.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. Jurisdictional surface waters are
present in the form of Bear Creek, which will be crossed and likely impacted as a result
of the proposed project. In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of
dredged of fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Nationwide 23 Permit will
be required for the proposed project.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (a)(23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to "Waters of the United States," from the proposed project. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or department
has determined that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation
for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
1) the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and,
2) the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is required prior
to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit. Section 401 Certification
allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or
other land manipulations.
The COE has adopted, through CEQ, a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands," and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to
restore and maintain the chemical, biological and physical integrity of Waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of
these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be
considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics, in light of, project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically
focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of
median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or shoulder widths. Other practical
mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed
project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff
velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas, judicious pesticide and
herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
12
4.1.3 Water Permits
A North Carolina DWQ Section 401 Water Quality General Certification is also required.
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge
into "Waters of the United States." The issuance of a 401 permit from DWQ is a
prerequisite to issuance of a CAMA or Section 404 Permit.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality General Certification from the DWQ prior
to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires
that the State issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed
activity that may result in a discharge into "Waters of the United States."
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
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, 1997, the FWS lists the following federally-protected species for Chatham County
(Table 2). A brief description of each species' characteristics and habitat follow.
A review of the National Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species
revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the project area.
C]
13
F
L
Table 2. List of Federally-Protected Species in Chatham County
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker Endangered (E)
Haliaeetus leucocephalzrs bald eagle Threatened (T)
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner Endangered (E)
Ptilimnium nodosum Harperella Endangered (E)
Note: Endangered (E) is defined as a species that is threatened with extinction throughout
all or a significant portion of its range. Threatened (T) is defined as a species likely to
become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Species Description
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black and
white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back of the
RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf pine
(Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain at least
50% pine, lack a thick understory, and must be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are 60 years
or older and that are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees infected with
the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in colonies from 3.6 to 30.3
meters (12 to 100 feet) above the ground and average 9.1 to 15.7 (30 to 50 feet) high.
They can be identified by a large encrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The
RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and June; the eggs hatch approximately 38 days later.
Biological Condition: NO EFFECT
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species
revealed no recorded occurrence of the RCW in or near the project area. A search for the
RCW and its preferred habitat was conducted on August 15, 1997, during the field
14
investigation. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species
included direct audible observations and comparing known habitat conditions for the
RCW to the existing habitats within the project area. The search did not result in the
identification of either the RCW or its preferred habitat.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitidae
Date Listed: March 11, 1967
The bald eagle is a large, dark brown bird having a characteristic white plumed head and
tail, as well as, a heavy yellow bill. Immature birds lack this characteristic plumage but
can be recognized by blotchy white plumage on the underside of the wings, bell ap_d tail.
These large birds can achieve a size of 69 to 94 centimeters (27 to 37 inches) with a
wingspan of 1.8 to 2.3 meters (6 to 7.5 feet). Bald eagles range across North America but
restrict themselves to areas dominated by large bodies of water. Nesting sites are
generally situated within 800 meters (0.5 miles) of the water with the stick nest, up to
three meters across, constructed in the largest living tree in the area. The breeding season
begins in December or January and results in two to three white eggs being laid. Diet is
representative of their habitat, mainly consisting of fish, but small mammals and other
birds are occasionally taken. Bald eagles readily scavenge and are known to steal fish
from hunting osprey (Pandion haliaetus).
Dramatic decreases in population accompanied increased use of powerful pesticides.
These poisons accumulated in the food chain and led to widespread reproductive failure.
The regulatory action banning the use of such pesticides has led to a slow increase in the
populations of the bald eagle and the bird is once again inhabiting portions of its historic
range. In some instances, man's alteration of the landscape has aided in the bald eagle's
recovery. The creation of large reservoirs has increased potential habitat and food stocks.
Biological Condition: NO EFFECT
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species
revealed no recorded occurrence of the bald eagle in or near the project area. A search for
the bald eagle and its habitat was conducted on August 15, 1997, during the field
investigation. The methodology used to determine the presence of the protected species
included direct audible observations and/or comparing known habitat conditions for the
bald eagle to the existing habitats within the project area. The search did not result in the
identification of either the protected species or its habitat.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner, described by Snelson (1971), is a small (rarely exceeding 5
centimeters/2 inches in length), moderately stocky minnow. The fish's body is flushed
15
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its side. The fins are yellowish
and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a thin black bar
along its margin. The lateral line is complete but dips slightly from its head to below the
dorsal fin. The round eye is moderate in size and is located on the side of the head. It is
distinguished from other Notropis by having an elongated alimentary tract with two
convolutions crossing the intestinal bulb.
The Cape Fear shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble and boulder substrate,
and it has been observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, log jams and slow runs often
F associated with water willow (Justicia americana) beds. In these habitats, the species is
typically associated with schools of related species, but it is never the numerically
dominant species. Juveniles are often found in slackwater, among large rock outcrops in
mid-stream, and in flooded side channels and pools. Lands associated with this riverine
habitat are primarily second and third growth mixed hardwood and softwood forests (oak-
pine), some limited croplands (corn), pasture and rural residential. Rocky boulder
riverine habitat is important for the species.
It appears that loss of this habitat has reduced the species' range. The Cape Fear shiner
schools with other Notropis species. The interactions with these species are likely to be
important for the Cape Fear shiner.
The Cape Fear shiner may always have existed in low numbers. However, its recent
reduction in range and its small population size increases the species vulnerability to a
catastrophic event. Dam construction in the Cape Fear system has probably had the most
serious impact on the species by inundating the species' rocky riverine habitat and
altering stream flows. A review of historic collection records, along with recent survey
results, indicates that the Cape Fear shiner is presently restricted to only four populations.
Of the four remaining populations, only the one located at the confluence of the Deep and
Rocky River in Chatham and Lee Counties [inhabiting a total of about 10.5 kilometers
(7.3 river miles)] appears strong. The second population in the Rocky River, above the
hydroelectric facility, was the source of the type of specimens used to describe the
species. Historic records reveal that collections of the 15 to 30 specimens could be
expected in this stretch of the Rocky River SR 902 or SR 1010 bridge) during a sampling
visit in the late 1960's and early 1970's. Recent samples (1985 and 1986) were taken
from the Rocky River throughout this reach with only one specimen collected. The
reason for the apparent decline in this population is unknown.
Biological Conclusion: UNRESOLVED
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species
revealed one recorded occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner in or near the project area. A
search for the species was not conducted.
16

Ptilimnium nodosum (Harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Date Listed: September 28, 1988
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, having fibrous roots and erect to
spreading stems. Stems are green and often have a purplish color at the base; branching
occurs above mid-stem. Leaves are hollow and quill-like with bases that are broadly
clasped. Its small, white flowers occur in five to fifteen umbels and resemble those of
Queen Anne's Lace (Daucus carota). This species is known to inhabit two distinct
habitat types. The first being an intermittent pineland pond habitat and the second being
a riverine habitat characterized by gravel shoals or on the margins of clear, swift flowing
streams. Populations occurring in pond type habitats flower beginning in May, while
those in riverine settings flower in late June to July and continue to bloom until the first
frost. This species ranges in height from 0.15 to 1.0 meters (6 to 36 inches). Harperella
is relatively prolific and localized populations can achieve high densities.
Harperella requires saturated substrates and is tolerant of periodic, moderate flooding.
This type of water regime may serve to reduce or eliminate competitors for these habitat
types. Populations may be declining due to alterations of these water regimes.
Impoundments, water withdraw and drainage/deepening of ponds all contribute to
hydrologic disruptions. Additional factors such as siltation, pollution and shoreline
development are known to adversely affect harperella populations.
Historically, harperella ranged from Maryland, West Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina,
Alabama, and the coastal plains of South Carolina and Georgia. It is now restricted to a
total of ten populations and has been eliminated from over half of its known range. There
is one known population of harperella in Chatham County.
Biological Condition: NO EFFECT
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and protected species
revealed no recorded occurrence of harperella in or near the project area. A search for
harperella was conducted on August 15, 1997, during the field investigation. The
methodology used to determine the presence of harperella included direct observations
and comparing known habitat conditions for the species to the existing habitats within the
project area. The search did not result in the identification of either the protected species
or its habitat.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are 6 species that are listed as Federal Species of Concern (SC). Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act and are not
subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered.. FSC species are defined as organisms which are
17
vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered, or Proposed Threatened. Organisms
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Significantly
Rare (SR) or Candidate (C) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of Rare
Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979;
• however, the level of protection given to state-protected species does not apply to
NCDOT activities.
Table 3 lists federal species of concern and their state status (if afforded state protection).
This species list is provided for informational purposes as the status of these species may
be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. List of Species of Federal Concern and Special State Status
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Aimophilia aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC
Alasmidonta varicosa brook floater T
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T
Gomphus septinta Septima's clubtail SR
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel T
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort C
A review of the database of the NC Natural Heritage Program rare species and unique
habitats was conducted prior to field visits. The search revealed 1 occurrence of a unique
habitat within the project vicinity. The Rocky Bar and Shore habitat lies approximately
365 meters (1200 feet) downstream of the project area. The relative closeness of this
habitat to the proposed project creates the potential for it to be impacted during project
operations.
18
r
G
5.0 REFERENCES
Collins, Henry Hill. 1981. Harper and Row's Complete Field Guide to North
American Wildlife, Eastern Edition. Harper and Row, Publishers. New York.
Merritt, R. W. and Cummins, K.W. 1984. An Introduction to the Aquatic Insects
of North America. Kendall/Hunt Publishing Co., Dubuque, IA.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards Assigned
to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. Raleigh, NC.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh, NC.
NHP. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
DEHNR
NRCS. Unpublished Soil Survey of Chatham County. United States Department
of Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service.
Peterson, Roger Tory. 1980. Eastern Birds. Houghton Mifflin Co., Boston, MA.
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 Approximation North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and Deep
Water Habitats of the United States. Washington D.C.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and Threatened Species of the
Southeastern United States (The Red Book), "Cape Fear Shiner."USFWS, Atlanta, GA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992; 1995. NWI Map (Siler City, NC;
Pittsboro, NC).
U.S. Geological Survey. 1968. Siler City, NC Quadrangle, 1988. Pittsboro, NC
Quadrangle.
19
Figure. l e vicinity Map
Bridge No 0 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek
Chatham County, NC

Opium
er City 87 Pittsboro
1
Bridge No, 170
over Bear Creek
oBoni
421
M
ear Creek
aywood
\ 1
1
oGoldston
421 oGulf
OCu611? O
V ,
i
1 oColon
42
421 I
42
Glendon an ord
42 Broad
78
Tramway 421
1
Figure 2. Location Map
Bridge No. 170 on SR 1010 over Bear Creek
Chatham County, NC

I=

I A

Photograph 2 - View of Bear Creek. downstream of Bridge No. 170.
Photograph 4 - View of intermittent stream and palustrine forested wetland in the
southwest portion of the study area.
Photograph 3 - View of Bridge No. 170 looking north along SR 1010.
Appendix C
Alternate Plans and Proposed Impacts
¦¦ olog
b '17 7L 17? v a a
h n n n n n n h
CO) cl? Cn t CA U) cn
O O O O o O O O
a
a
CL
CD
r. x
CL
? O D
Cl.
r1 ?, O rD
O
O
coo p-
O
(D
r"
hqhh,l
i

I F?
1/l

H
N

Appendix D
Wetland Information and Site Maps
PROFESSIONAL ASSESSMENT OF WETLAND QUALITY
Project:
Date of Review:
Wetland ID:
Watershed:
DWQ Sub-basin code
Cowardin Classification:
8.2521501
September 4, 1997
WS1
Cape Fear River
03-06-12
PFOIA
NARRATIVE DESCRIPTION:
County:
Evaluator:
Wetland Area:
Subwatershed:
USGS Hydrologic Unit:
Chatham
Joe Pfeiffer
3251 sq. meters
Bear Creek
The subject wetland is a seasonally saturated forested wetland in the riparian area of Bear
Creek. Its primary hydrologic source appears to be groundwater with some contribution from
overland and flood flows. It is dominated by deciduous hardwoods and occupies an irregular
area, defined by minor changes in topography.
FUNCTION AND VALUE ASSESSMENT:
Groundwater Recharge High Moderate Low X
Groundwater Discharge High Moderate X Low

Flood Flow Alteration
High
Moderate
X
Low _

Sediment Stabilization
High
Moderate
X
Low _

Sediment/Toxins Retention
High
Moderate
X
Low _

Nutrient Removal/Transformation
High
Moderate
Low _
X
Production Export High Moderate Low X
Wildlife Species Diversity/Abundance High Moderate X Low

Aquatic Species Diversity/Abundance
High
Moderate
Low _
X
Uniqueness/Heritage High Moderate Low X
Recreation High Moderate Low X
it
COMMENTS:
Due to its position on the landscape, the hydrologic influence of groundwater and flood flow
create marginal wetland characteristics. This lack of defined hydrology limits the functional
values of this wetland.
CS V5w""11v sc A?
Signature of Evaluator: oc° NNE
/ o
0 -o SWS . ?
??0o& 000927 f`
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
W {4Adl S dean
Project/Site: SA.+ 51621501 T1-PJ1 --3133 Date: $- 15- q1
Applicant/Owner: NOpOT County: rHATNArU
Investigator: TS MM
JIT- State: pje
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? 'e No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes tN?_> Transect ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes ® Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Soccies Stratum Indicator
t. ?,a'ou?darn?oy AjrazNIUD. I FA C,'+ 9.
2-AI LL- V LKkX 0L A 2 FAC 10.
3•]MtcXOSkQ?ItAMA yioiotuaW _ { AC'f 11.
?._ Cor?Lt?s 1 or cda 2 FA CU 12.
5• rAG 13.
s. C FAc 14.
7. 14i S SOO• _+ 15.
s._ pQr'-}WtnO (;i S?u.C ouitn tul,?i7lia. 4?8C. 1 s.
Percent of Cominant Species that are OBL, FACW or FAC
(
l
i
- - 50 ?o ??
exc
ud
ng FAC-).
Remarks: Jura{ tl C de??tC 1 ?tD.'TIOhS ?- Treu $ ?- SQ9 ?tdLa1S'
\
3- Nerbs 4..-?
y ?(r?s
OCA
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe In Remarks):
Stream, Lake, or Tide Gauge
_ Aerial Photodrapha
v _ Other
)L No Recorded Data Available _ Wadand Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicator:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
-Water Marks
_ Drift Linos
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: Drainage Panama in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surtaca Water: O (in.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inches
Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: 7 t2-On.) _
A Local Soil Survey Data

D
?Z _ FAC•Nautral Tcst
epth to Saturated Soil:
- (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
SOILS
I
Map Unit Name , ;. '; ?

(Series and Phase):
?ll(f1PlAf ".,
?XX IQS
I [?
Drainare Crass: QL
Taxonomy (Subgroup): (??p??
? ?1..( ()-LQm -
-
SI H I? Fcld Obsorvations
- Conlirm Mapped Type) Yes No
Profile Descriotion: ,
Depth
inches) Horizon
i_ Matrix Color

{Munsell htoistl Mottla Colors
(.„
luns
ll M
i
) Mottle
Texture. Concretions,
e
o
st At:undanceiConrrest structure, etc.
0 - I d 1b yE sI (,

lu=z?
to >? ? 2
to s ? _ oavK?
20? o
1 oa
_ tww
-
At
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Histic Epipadon
Sulfidic Odor
_ Aquic Moisture Regime
Reducing Ccnditions
,L( Gleyad or Low-Chroma Colors
_ Concretions
High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
A_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks: VISI?aSI Ob'S4?r?T0.-?CIOv?3 IV1G`1CO.?'Cd «d?C.?vt? C r?c?ru,l
itk-e-J- ox idizlwI) cotkdi+iOhS.
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Ya No (Circle)
Wedand Hydrology Present? as No
Hydric Soils Present) V. No
(Circle)
Is this Sampling Point Within a Wedand? os No
Remarks:
Approved by

WJ'TLA.IDi RATING WOPKSHEDT (4th VERSION),
<t B
Tlf *
a52
?so1
.
Pro j e c t Name:
B-3133 County: CHATHAM co. , NC
2
Nearest Road:
SR. IOIp Date: A- 1S-47
Cvetland area (ac): L 1ou`. We tland sYidti ( I z 5100??.
lame of Evaluator(s):11L MM
tlan ^ Location: Adiacent Land Use
on sound or estuary (within 1/2 mi upstream,
pond or lake uoslope, or radius)
_ on perennial st=eam forested/natural veg. %0
on intermittent stream agriculture/urban:z°
d ??;
within interstream dir-ide _ impervious Suriace 2
other.
_? ?..._
: 1 Q, ace: l Special NG L 4: a l ... eGS
Dominant vese- `:cn
Soil Series G4umd (i) Liou i (Lm(D r S?vn?(`Aflt?a
predominant !.v orC-_ni (?) Aexr ruhrum
( ,umus, muc!: or peat) (3) (.Drvlus Florida
p_ eco,minanz 1,: mineral (non-sandy) MiC?QSf iam vinnine v?
_ecorinanLlV Sa^.'. 1006;- ci:^ Wetness
semipermanent l:. to
?vdra 1i >ac.a s Der,manen.z1 '. !coded c_
_(L I eSlnvaIer br?c i s h inundated
St?°? tOpO?rap seasonal iv flooded 0-
X _ G- c.,ec o_ c`ann_ l i zed _nL'
:, a z e d
total wetland width > 100 fleet. _L intermittanz1y _1ocded c.
le,r,luoL a.7 sur. GL? •:;a le?
t•??-1 an^ -D° (selec, one) no e•ricence ci -17
-
X BO zcmlcnd .-a: d-, cod i o. es _
SU. ace ware J
1
forest Eog/-en
Caro! i n a La; ;.e d*;,,aLer `Oresz
:Occsin L-D fCreSt
?i ne Sa: a n n a h _7phlemeral Wetland
_ -esh ater Mars.. 0zlner
=The sysz_m can`ic; be applied to sail or Grac'.?is? marshes c
s z 1 eal,m cl,anne 1 S
DEM F-ATING
WATER STORAGE _ x 4.00 - 12_
°:.`K/SHORELINE STABILIZATION x 4.00 = +
POLLUTANT REMOV=L x 5.00 = GJ
CrILJLIF= H .31TAT x 2.00 = to
AQU=TIC LIFE VAL`JE 17 x "..00 = _ ((0
R _EC-i ION DLC.'.-i 10N x 1 . C0 =
WETL a FD SCORE =
(TOT :.L )
* ?•c= 1 70i C is in Se^,Sit??'° s'ed and >.O: nonoc:nC disturbance
lii:il 1 ,'_ mi:. ^SC:a.ar. :DSlCC2, Cr raGiu5.

i
_Q
O-Z
0

s O
Y 44

? O

z d _ ?

? a

A

hUU i INE WET LAND DETERMINATION
t (1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: S{•4 $•2521501 -TQ ?A a - 3133 Date: ^ lS- 47
ApplicantlOwner: NCWT County: CNATNAst
Investigator: 6T5 i; • (?titM State:
Do Normal Circumstances exist an the site? No Community ID:
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? Yes ® Transec: ID:
Is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes to Plot ID:
(If needed, explain an reverse.)
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Soeeies Stratum Indicator Domine
m Plant Soeci_s Stratum Indicator
1 •__?Ll.1n i i)P(uc 1/IYQ 1 110 V1Q FACU" `
9. V t?l C ?r7?. `t'
t
=•_Acc.r Ytlhrttwn
?_ FAG
to CerGS (0.V10.AtmS s 1
Rat
a. Y i,n ve ?e FAG 11.1
( rcLts ??o ?r __ _I c
FA

4.
2 FAC_ 1
12.?0.ftt?NOC?S?u,C ¢u?y?p? ?
?
• ,
?5D1

s. T i iCo,n
4 FAC
13. ?
6• l,Drt{ U,S florlda, 2 FAC(A 14.
7. _1-I?t? InQLMbQ?f S?YYaaG?lt<0. ( ?Ac+ 15.
v
8. 11??YY11 tS QW1Pt?i f QAOL
16.
Portent of Cominant Special that are 08L. FACW or FAC
(excluding FAC•) a1
58 ro EA
W
(-
ki
. C- r
Ct
.A
Romarkz:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Dascribe In Remarks):
Stream. Ldka, or Tida Gauge
_ Aerial Photographs
_ Other
No Recorded Data Available Wadand Hydrology Indica(ors:
Primary Indicator:
_ Inundated
_ Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
_ Drift Lines
_ Sediment Deposits
Field Observations: _ Drainage Psaams in Wedands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water: Gn.) _ Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12 Inchoa
Wator•Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit: _
Local Soil Survey Data

D _ FAC•Nautral Tcst
epth to Saturated Soil: Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks-.
f
L
i

f
SOILS
Mao Unit Name
(Series and Phase):

Taxonomy (Subgroup?: n (?
NIA. So (") I
l?\1
Iv0L?YI- Q
h t es Drainare :ass: ? tp pJd
?., pp,,?/ cld Cbsarvations "w
(Dyyu Ag F'-,d Canlirm Mapped T
? N
7 X : II

)
Profile Oescriotion: ypc
o
v
%
w I
Depth
finches? Horizon Matrix Color
fMunsell,tifoistl Mottle Colors Mama Texture. Concretions.
(`.tunsell Moist? AtundanceiConrrest Structur
t
I
0_g 7.5 yR s e, e
c.
100L
R-IA 7• S YR?t,
l II
a w
? ?- 2?- ?• s Y? 5Ib 0. i
l . Y
> 77.5 yQ 51(v
GIc?JeV IOO,M CC0.r
Hydric Soil Indicators:
_ Histosol
_ Hisric E;ipodon
_ Sulfidic Odor
_ AGuic -Moisture Ragime
_ Reducing Conditions
_ Cloyed or Low-Chroma Colors
Remarks:
_ Concretions
_ High Organic Content in Surtaca Layer in Sandy Soils
_ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
_ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
_ Listed on National Hydric Soils List
_ Other (Explain in Remarks)
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophyric Vegetation Present?
Wadand Hydrology Prasenc?
Hydric Soils Present?
Remarits:
as No (Circle)
Yos 19
Yea o Is this Sampling Point Within a Wadand?
Approves
(Circle)
Y a s No
kvv sks
C4Gk
W.U.S. - Chatham County
Bear Creek
Flagged Data Point
S1 Upstream
X Downstream Distance from Bridge
300 feet Width of Stream @ Data Point_
75 feet
S2 X 225 feet 75 feet
S3 X 175 feet 75 feet
S4 X _
125 feet 60 feet
S5 X _
90 feet 70 feet
S6 X 50 feet 65 feet
S7 X 5 feet 75 feet
S8 X 20 feet 55 feet
S9 X 75 feet 65 feet
S10 X 100 feet 45 feet
S11 X 140 feet 35 feet
S12 X 200 feet 55 feet