20071818 Ver 1_Application_20071029

~.
J
z?
+~
J
V

JM ~~4
n..m~
Mr
'~~,.:~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIOT
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615-6814
October 19, 2007
u 4~~
~p~t .~
o~T ~9 ~Q~
I^/Er ~E/yp~ Z~U~
~NDSAN() ~~.~Rbfl~~gl ~CR,'~n,
T `v~^~
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
o~~sis
ATTENTION: Mr. Andrew Williams
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 7
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 for the
replacement of Bridge No. 108 over New Hope Creek on SR 1730 (Turkey Farm
Rd.), Orange County, Division 7. Federal Aid- Project No. BRZ-1730 (5),
WBS Element 33563.1.1, T.I.P. No. B-4218.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 108 over
New Hope Creek on SR 1730 (Turkey Farm Rd.) in Orange County. The project proposes to demolish
the existing bridge and construct a two span, pre-stressed concrete box beam superstructure on concrete
caps and drilled piers on the existing horizontal alignment. The interior bent of the bridge will be located
within the area of normal stream flow in New Hope Creek. The new bridge will be 119 feet long and
will have a clear roadway width of 27 feet, 6 inches. The structure will have two 10-foot lanes and a-
foot, 9-inch shoulders. The bridge approaches will have two 10-foot lanes, with 6-foot grass shoulders.
The shoulders of the approaches will be widened to 9 feet where guardrail is present. During
construction, SR 1730 will be closed near the existing bridge and traffic will be re-routed using an offsite
detour.
Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, design plans, Pre-Construction Notification
(PCN), and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurrence letter for the above-referenced project.
The Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) was completed for this project in January 2006 and
distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies of this document are available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General DescriTtion
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (sub-basin 03-06-OS) in Orange County. This area is
part of Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030002. New Hope Creek is the only water resource located
within the construction limits of this project. A Jurisdictional Determination was issued for this project
on June 6, 2003.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD., SUITE 240
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] RALEIGH NC 27604
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598

New Hope Creek is a perennial stream that flows northwest to southeast underneath the existing bridge.
The portion of New Hope Creek that flows through the construction limits is assigned Stream Index
Number 16-41-1-(0.5) (12/01/1983) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best
usage classification of C NSW. The creek has a top of bank width of 50 to 75 feet, an average wetted
width of 50 feet, and 3- to 10-foot tall stable stream banks. During field investigations associated with
the NRTR, 1 to 3 feet of slow to fast flowing water was observed (conditions varied because a long reach
of the channel was investigated). The water clarity was described as being clear with moderate sediment
deposition and the substrate was primarily composed of bedrock, cobble, gravel, and sand.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS I or WS II), nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within i.0 mile of the project study area. Additionally, no portion of New
Hope Creek, its tributaries, or other surface waters within 1.0 mile of the project are listed on the
NCDWQ 2006 Fina1303(d) List of Impaired Waters.
The North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC) believes that a significant fishery for sunfish
exists in New Hope Creek at this site and requests an in-water work moratorium for sunfish from April 1
to June 30. Due to the lack of statutory regulations requiring this moratorium and the minimal in-water
work proposed, NCDOT does not believe this moratorium is warranted and will not adhere to the request.
Permanent Impacts
There will be a total of 29 square feet (less than 0.01 acres) of permanent stream impacts to New Hope
Creek due to the placement of an interior bent within the area of normal stream flow (not shown on
drawings, but at Site 1). The three drilled piers associated with the bent are 3 feet, 6 inches in diameter.
Placing the interior bent in the creek is unavoidable because it is not possible to raise the grade of the
road, get sufficient superstructure depth, and remove the bent from the water without affecting the 100-
year floodway.
Temporary Impacts
A temporary causeway will be placed into New .Hope Creek to allow for the construction of the new
interior bent drilled piers (Site 1). The temporary structure will be constructed on the eastern side of the
creek. The causeway will be composed of Class II rip rap topped with a coarse aggregate surface, as
needed. The Class II rip rap will be placed on the streambed below the observed high water (OHW)
mark and will result in 0.02 acres (55 linear feet) of temporary impacts to the stream.
Bridge Demolition
The superstructure of Bridge No. 108 consists of three spans, one at 17 feet, 9 inches, one at 40 feet, and
one at 17 feet, 11 inches. The superstructure is comprised of an asphalt wearing surface on a timber deck
atop steel I-beams. The existing substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles. The timber piles of
the interior bents sit atop concrete footers and are surrounded by concrete encasements. The piles will be
removed to the top of the concrete encasements.
NCDOT shall adhere to NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and
Removal. While there is minimal potential for some of components of the bridge to be dropped into New
Hope Creek, demolition should result in no appreciable fill.
Utilitypacts
No impacts to jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of utility work associated with this project. The
only utility work being performed within the construction limits is associated with the relocation of a
B-4218 Permit Application
2

power pole line. The existing overhead line is located on the south side of SR 1730 from Station 13+25
± to Station 14+36 ±. The line will be relocated within the existing right-of way (ROW) on the same side
of the road and will not impact New Hope Creek.
RESTORATION PLAN
The stone materials used as temporary fill in the construction of the causeway will be removed from the
streambed. The temporary fill areas will be restored back to their pre-project elevations. NCDOT will
also restore the streambed to its pre-project contours.
REMOVAL AND DISPOSAL PLAN
The temporary causeway will be removed from the stream after the in-water bent of the new structure is
constructed. All stone material placed in the stream for construction of the causeway will be removed by
the contractor using excavation equipment. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan
for the removal of and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will have the
option of reusing any of the materials that the engineer deems suitable in the construction of prof ect.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, AND COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part
of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize, and
mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• In-stream activity will be limited to the use of a temporary causeway for bent construction and the
placement of the bent into New Hope Creek.
• During construction, traffic will be re-routed using an aff--site detour.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's BMPs for Protection of
Surface Waters.
• Due to the presence of a unique freshwater mussel assemblage, including several Federal Species of
Concern (FSC), Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds will also be employed.
• NCDOT will implement its BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal during this project.
Compensatory Miti ation
No mitigation is proposed for the 29 square feet (less than 0.01 acres) of permanent stream impacts to
New Hope Creek because of the minimal amount of impact.
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 its most recent update on May 10, 2007, the
USFWS website lists five federally-protected species for Orange County: the bald eagle (Haliaeetus
B-4218 Permit Application
3

leucocephalus), red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis), dwarf wedgemussel (Alasmidonta
heteredon), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). USFWS
concurrence for biological conclusions assigned to the above-listed species (except the bald eagle) was
received on February 25, 2005 (concurrence letter attached). The bald eagle was not listed for Orange
County at the time concurrence was requested.
Table 1. Federally protected species in Orange County
Scientific Name: Common Name Federal Status ~ Biological Habitat
Conclusion Present
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle De-listed Not Required No

Picoides borealis red-cockaded
E
No Effect
No
wood ecker
May Affect, Not
Alasmidonta heteredon dwarf wedgemussel E Likely to Yes
Adversel Affect
Rhus michauxii Michaux's sumac E No Effect Yes
Echinacea laevigata smooth coneflower E No Effect Yes
The bald eagle was not listed for Orange County prior to the completion of the NRTR and was not
included in either that document or the PCE. A survey for suitable bald eagle nesting and foraging
habitat was conducted on March 16, 2007 by NCDOT biologists Jim Mason, Ashley Cox, and James
Pflaum. No bald eagle individuals or nests were observed during the survey. Additionally, no suitable
nesting or foraging habitat exists within the project study area or within 1.0 mile of the project.
Furthermore, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (GIS
shapefiles most recently updated on September 28, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species
within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, this project will not affect this species. According to a July 9,
2007 Federal Register release, the bald eagle was officially de-listed from the List of Endangered and
Threatened Wildlife effective August 8, 2007 (50 CFR Part 17).
A species survey and habitat assessment for the red-cockaded woodpecker was performed as part of
NRTR-related fieldwork in January 2003. No individuals or cavity trees were observed within the
project area or on adjacent properties. Additionally, no suitable foraging or nesting habitat exists within
the project study area. There were no large tracts of mature pines present and the talUdense understory in
the hardwood/pine forest was not usable foraging habitat for this species. Furthermore, a search of the
NCNHP database on October 11, 2007 revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of
the project. Therefore, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been rendered for this species.
New Hope Creek was surveyed by the Catena Group for dwarf wedgemussel habitat and individuals on
April 24, 2004, September 14, 2004, and November 3, 2004. Multiple surveys were conducted because
the diversity and abundance of mussel species observed required more in-depth and lengthy surveys.
Visual and tactile methods were used and a total of 13.25 man-hours were spent within the survey reach.
At least nine species of freshwater mussels were found in New Hope Creek, including the FSC-listed
brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa), Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), and Atlantic pigtoe
(Fusconaia masoni). No dwarf wedgemussel individuals were found. New Hope Creek could provide
potential habitat for the dwarf wedgemussel; however, due to the limited and questionable records of this
species from the Cape Fear River Basin, it is unlikely that the dwarf wedgemussel occurs in the surveyed
reach of this creek. Additionally, a search of the NCNHP database on October 11, 2007 revealed no
B-4218 Permit Application

known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, a biological conclusion of
May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect was assigned to this species.
A survey for Michaux's sumac was initially performed by NCDOT biologists Brett Feulner and Heather
Montague on July 9, 2003. Suitable habitat for the species existed within the project study area, but
individuals were not observed. Only winged sumac (Rhus copallinum) was identified. A re-survey was
performed by NCDOT biologists James Mason and Ashley Cox on September 17, 2007. Again, potential
habitat was observed, but no individuals were identified. Additionally, a search of the NCNHP database
on October 11, 2007 revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project.
Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will have No Effect on this species.
A survey for smooth coneflower was initially performed by NCDOT biologists Brett Feulner and Heather
Montague on July 9, 2003. Suitable habitat for the species existed within the project study area, but
individuals were not observed. A re-survey was performed by NCDOT biologists James Mason and
Ashley Cox on September 17, 2007. Observations made during this survey were similar to the 2003
survey. A search of the NCNHP database on October 11, 2007 revealed no known populations of this
species within 1.0 mile of the project. Therefore, it can be concluded that this project will have No
Effect on this species.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a review date of May 27, 2008, a letting of July 15, 2008, and a date of availability
of August 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction in
August/September 2008.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project has been processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" (CE) in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that
activities described in the CE document be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (72 FR 11092-11198;
March 12, 2007).
A request is also hereby submitted for Nationwide Permit 33, issued under Section 404 of the CWA,
authorizing activities associated with this project that will result in temporary impacts to jurisdictional
waters.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications (WQC) 3632
and 3634 will apply to this project. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of these WQCs.
Therefore, written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H,
Section .0500 (a) and 15A NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing two copies of this application to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR), NCDWQ, as
notification.
B-4218 Permit Application

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional information
please call Mr. Jim Mason at [phone].
Sincerely,
~,
(,~/ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
`_ Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project Services Unit
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Tracy Walter, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
B-4218 Permit Application

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
2 0 0 7 1 8 1 8
USAGE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(lt any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ^ Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
^ Section 10 Permit ^ Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
^ 401 Water Quality Certification ^ Express 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwides 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP) is proposed
for .mitigation of impacts, attach the acceptance letter from NCEEP, complete section VIII,
and check here: ^
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ^
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: __ Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number:~919) 733-9794
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
5
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps maybe included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 108 over New Hope Creek on SR 1730
(Turkey Farm Rd.).
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-4218
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Orange Nearest Town: Chapel Hill
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): West of Interstate 40, right
on NC 86, right onto SR 1731 (Whitfield Rd) left onto SR 1730 (Turkey Farm Rd) 1St
bridge at bottom of hill.
Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line,
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): °N
6. Property size (acres):
attach a sheet that
oW
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: New Hope Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note -this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application:_ Bridge 108 is 76 feet long and was constructed in 1953
Land use in the area is mainly agriculture- and forestry-based with some low-density
residential development.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The project
proposes to demolish the existing brici~e and construct a two span, pre-stressed concrete box
beam superstructure on concrete caps and drilled piers on the existing horizontal alignment.
The interior bent of the bridge will be located within the area of normal stream flow in New
Hope Creek The new bridge will be 119 feet long and will have a clear roadway width of 27
feet 6 inches The structure will have two 10-foot lanes and 3-foot, 9-inch shoulders. The
bridge approaches will have two 10-foot lanes with 6-foot grass shoulders. The shoulders of
the approaches will be widened to 9 feet where guardrail is present. During construction, SR
1730 will be closed near the existing bridge and traffic will be re-routed using an offsite
detour Heav~ut~ excavation equipment will be used such as trucks, dozers, cranes and
other various equipment necessaryfor roadway construction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The current 76-foot bridge was constructed in
1953 and has a sufficiency rating of 24.2 out of a possible 100 (for a new structure).
Additionally the current bridge received both a structural appraisal and a deck geometry
appraisal of 2 out of 9 according_to Federal Hi way Administration (FHWA) standards. It
is therefore considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete and eligible for
FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement Program
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. Each impact must be
listed separately in the tables below (e.g., culvert installation should be listed separately from rip
rap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
Page 3 of 9

permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs maybe included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: New Hope Creek is the only
resource located within the construction limits of this project. There will be a total of 29
square feet (less than 0.01 acres) of permanent stream impacts to New Hope Creek due to the
placement of an interior bent within the area of normal stream flow. The three drilled piers
associated with the bent are 3 feet, 6 inches in diameter. Placing the interior bent in the creek
is unavoidable because it is not possible to raise the grade of the road, get sufficient
superstructure depth, and remove the bent from the water without affecting the 100-
floodway. A temporary causeway will be placed into New Hope Creek to allow for the
construction of the new interior bent drilled piers. The causeway will be composed of Class
II rip rap topped with a coarse aggregate surface, as needed. The Class II rip rap will be
placed on the streambed below the observed high water (OHW) mark and will result in 0.02
acres (55 linear feet) of temporary impacts to the stream.
2. Individually list wetland impacts. Types of impacts include, but are not limited to
mechanized clearing, grading, fill, excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams,
separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact Type of Wetland
(e.g., forested, marsh,
herbaceous, bog, etc.) Located within
100-year
Floodplain
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest
Stream
(linear feet Area of
Impact
(acres)

Total Wetland Impact (acres) 0.0
3. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:
4. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts. Be sure to identify temporary
impacts. Stream impacts include, but are not limited to placement of fill or culverts, dam
construction, flooding, relocation, stabilization activities (e.g., cement walls, rip-rap, crib
walls, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is proposed,
plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams
must be included. To calculate acreage, multiply length X width, then divide by 43,560.
Page 4 of 9

Stream Impact
Number

(indicate on map)
Stream Name
Type of Impact
Perennial or
Intermittent? Average
Stream Width

Before Impact Impact
Length

(linear feet) Area of
Impact

(acres)
1 New Hope Creek In-water bent Perennial 50 >0.01
1 New Hope Creek Temp. causeway Perennial 50 55 0.02

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 55 0.02
5. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.). Open water impacts include, but are not limited to
fill, excavation, dredging, flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
Open Water Impact

Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable)

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

(lake, pond, estuary, sound, bay,
ocean, etc.) Area of

Impact
(acres

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
6. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the roject:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.02
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.0
Open Water Impact (acres): 0.0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.02
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 55
7. Isolated Waters
Do any isolated waters exist on the property? ^ Yes ®No
Describe all impacts to isolated waters, and include the type of water (wetland or stream) and
the size of the proposed impact (acres or linear feet). Please note that this section only
applies to waters that have specifically been determined to be isolated by the USACE.
8. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Page 5 of 9

Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Current land use in the vicinity of the pond:
Size of watershed draining to pond:
Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It maybe useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. See cover sheet.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on January 15, 2002, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCEEP concurrence shall be placed on hold as incomplete.
An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration in DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
Page 6 of 9

description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Ecosystem Enhancement
Program (NCEEP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCEEP at
[phone] to determine availability, and written approval from the NCEEP indicating
that they are will to accept payment for the mitigation must be attached to this form. For
additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of the NCEEP is proposed, please
check the appropriate box on page five and provide the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): 0
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): 0
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.0
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Page 7 of 9

1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 02B .0243 (Catawba) 15A NCAC
2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please
identify )? Yes ^ No
2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(s uare feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3 (2 for Catawba)
2 1.5
Total 0.0 0.0
Gone 1 extends out 3U feet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additiona120 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
3. If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e.,
Donation of Property, Riparian Buffer Restoration /Enhancement, or Payment into the
Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as identified
within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0244, or .0260. N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site. Discuss
stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands downstream from
the property. If percent impervious surface exceeds 20%, please provide calculations
demonstrating total proposed impervious level.N/A
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this anafter-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
Page 8 of 9

XIV. Cumulative Impacts (required by DWQ)
Will this project (based on past and reasonably anticipated future impacts) result in additional
development, which could impact nearby downstream water quality? Yes ^ No
If yes, please submit a qualitative or quantitative cumulative impact analysis in accordance with
the most recent North Carolina Division of Water Quality policy posted on our website at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands. If no, please provide a short narrative description:
N/A
XV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control). .
~.
Applicant/~gent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature invalid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posc Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
February 25, 2005
Phil Harris
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigri, ;`lorth Carolina 27G99-1598
Dear Mr. Harris:
~~~ ~~~~
FES ~3 2i10~
D{V'U{C! OY N!Liii~JAYS
PDEA•OPfiCE OF h,~(u~?~ cNV{R'JNMENT
This letter is in response to your letter of February 1 1, 2005 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 108 on SR 1730 over New Hope
Creek in Orange County (TIP No. -421 may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally endangered dwarf wedgemussel. In addition, NCDOT had determined that the project
will have no effect on the federally listed Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), small whorled
pogonia (Isotria medeoloides), smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis). These comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, mussel surveys were conducted at the project site on April
24, September 14 and November 3 of 2004. The surveys extended 100 meters upstream and 400
meters downstream of SR 1730. The dwarf wedgemussel was not observed. New Hope Creek is
in the Cape Fear River Basin. Though there is one old and questionable record of the species in
the Cape Fear River Basin, the record was never verified and no voucher specimen exists for the
record. Current information suggests that the dwarf wedgemussel does not currently occur in the
Cape Fear River Basin.
Though no federally protected mussel species were observed during the surveys, the surveys
revealed a rich assemblage of mussel fauna at and near the site. Two federal species of concern,
brook floater (Alasmidonta varicosa) and Carolina creekshell (Villosa vaughaniana), and an
undescribed Lampsilis species were observed. The Service encourages NCDOT to make every
effort to protect this diverse mussel bed. Typical conservation measures used for federally
protected species would serve to help conserve this important resource.
The Service does not have any documentation for the 2004 surveys that NCDOT conducted for
Michaux's sumac, small whorled pogonia, smooth coneflower and red-cockaded woodpecker.
However, we have no reason to dispute your "no effect" determination for these species. Please
note that small whorled pogonia is no longer listed for Orange County.

1874
1895
3
.~ 5
r 18 , 4 Si
1873 ~~
r
~o~ 1 3
2275
18
18
Blackwood
~"~'~ Station
''1839 / ~
m
LL
\ 1730
1726
-_ ~
~ 1 ~?
ao 86 \DUKE
r FOR ST 2233 22`
/ / 223 22~
~~~~~~~~

~~ ~ ~
2219
I
2227
2226 2231
2230
I __ ~
-Protect B-4218
(Bridge-108)
236 17 1 WhlIDeia
~ V `l~~®~
d~IVISI®N ®F I-IIGI~IWAYS
®ItANG~ C®UN'I°~'
I~I~®JEC'I': ~-4218
~/~ ~Q 1~RIg3GE N®.108 ®VEIZ
~ V Ji ~1'~ j(~ ~ N~VJ I-I®F~ CItEE~
J~ ®N SIZ 173m
('I'UI$I~E~ ~.~..IdN1 R®.~DD
~ rs

ti ~~
9p 8399
Y I
~ I I
I I
I I
I
/ W
Z I I
I W I

2 I
lal
U
~
\ I Ipl
\ SITE 1 I I
~
~ ~
I I I
~
~ ro \
~ ~
I ~
SR 1322 McGehees MIII Rood ~ ~ \
y/rFF~D~ BRIDGE "I ---
~~
- - ro sR nls -~
\ I
I MT. SINAI RD.

/ I Y I
W
U
/ / a
I
// 3~
/ 1 I
~~~® J.l
®IVISI®N ®F HIGHW.~YS
®R.~NGE C®LJN~'Y
PR®JEC'I': 8-218
~~~~ ~~~
J~ BRII9GE N®.108 ®VER
NEW HGFE CREED
30
®~ ~® ~~.~~~' R®A~D
QTbJRI~E~ F.~RI+~
SHEET' ~ ®F ~ 7 // 2Ii % 2007

f < .~.~-.-. ~ i ' / ., ~~ 4/., f ~,/Iii / ,+I.- r- -.~ ~I~ i ~~ V ~ 4` _ _ -~ _..,t ' `.

.,'`{ i f ~1 ~ •\: fir` r, d '~~ ~ ~ ~ f`l''; , ~ ' ; -"~ i '` `,~,~` y.,/ `~ ,,~~ ~" ~:

.~_,~
.

~--~ > _.,
-..

5pq
/

, ; ,

.

r i
_.+' ~

j
r ~ r n
_
..
/'
~
~ ~ _ ..r
~~~ ~
' ~ ~ ~
~ ,
~
~ i
i
' ~
~
'~'~
a
,./ `
4 '. „~'~s
.../1
°r
A' ` ~.~J ~~'}} _' ,~ {
r...7""s
`~
Sk~ .,t~~~~ ~..t~
~~
:. ~ .. ,

~4~ ~ •/ ~.
t ~ i
„ ,r~ ~ ~ _ 1 ~ ~~ f ,~_ ~
/,~.y /in
~`{ ~ 1 ~~~ ~"'' '~ ~ t ~ ,l , i r.
t 1
{ `,! x rf{"" ~r i..l~~ i l~f ,

~fr ~ / lr.

~ °,..
,r -'~ r ~ ,,,~;~s~ ~_

~'1'Ia it j ~
~
P ~ "~ ~ °--•_,./" ~'.
i r
.~
r
``~ `~ r ~`~ ~ ~ ~ ~°_.,
~ ~ i } l
,~1~ ~. , ' ~ ~ r
!
`
,..
ark
a r i
,_,,
j ~ . ~ ~.
1 ,r ~
~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~
~~f~~
r .~ ~~~~ ~7~~7 ~ ~~`f~I ~ i~
t
~~i / ~
~
~~ ~~~`"•~
~'°`}
;
~
.. ~ f_. J +w~.~F,.~.,,k (' L I L/~ ~'"~ ti, ~r '~"",~.r ~./i
( y
t~(j

,~
i'a-'~
~ ~~ ~ 1s~~
. ~ ~~ r
i~f
~' ti M 1~ ~'~

~,.
.. t
~ ~
_
.., ,~ ~.

~~~®~
I~IVISI®N ®~ HIGIIWAYS
®flaANGE C®YJNTY
®~ ® ~ ~ ~ I~R®YECT: x-4218
]~IgIDGE N®.108 ®VEIZ
NEW I~®PE CIIEE~
SCALE: 1" : 15®®' ®N SR 1730
FAI~M It®AI~>
(TUIaKEY
4
S~IEET 3 ~F Q! 7 % 26 % 2007

~~~~~~~ J1 ~~~~~~
NAA~dES AND ~1~I~ff$]ESS~S
N.~MES A®II~R~SS~S
1 Triangle Land ~.onservancy 11®0'E~ Wmke ]f'oresE Romd ~$a~eigh, NC 27~a®4
2 ~aranger ~ami~y 1.irniEed ~arEnership 59®Qi Turkey ~ar¢ve I~omd Chapel ~i~~, NC 2751
~ Lockridge ~:onncuuniEy lilSSOClaElon 5518 Turkey ~arun ~oad Durhm-~, NC 277®5
~ Lockridge C;o¢uouuuniEy t~ssociaEion 5518 Turkey ~'arcu $$oad ~urhane, NC 27705

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From/To)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac Hand
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
ft
1 13+90 -L- +/- 27" Box Beam 0.02 55
Brid e 2 S an
1 65', 1 54'

TOTALS: 0.02 55
NOTE: PERMANENT SURFACE WATER IMPACT DUE TO THE PROPOSED PIER IS 29 SQUARE FEET.
3/31 /05

E
L
n
a
L
N
v
m
i
E
L
m
d
U
r_
N
.~
W
O

N
M
M
M
•~
V
O
See Sleet i-A For Index of Sleets
See Sheet 1-8 for Conventional Symbols
1874 ~
1695 m
~
Y ~

ti s
ffi 1 q Sinai ~
Rd ne

I
~ 1873 ~ ND

183 €1736 ROJEC
4~
~ 2275
1 0
~ ~ /
18
--, `
\7 ,

Blackwood
:'~~,6,5 Station

BEG1N~ 2219
`I'f JECT ~ 2z7< \
LL
~
1726 i
1730 2227

i ~ 2222
ti~ I
2226 2231
2
2
~ /
~, ~ ,
~ Dui
}
2~ 2 236
21
2226 /

1 FOR&ST 223
1 22 2232
~
- 223 222
~ 2 29
l _

isas i
13,
23e
'~ey \ '
17 wn;Elala Rd'

~ z23a
d
2237

18fi 2 // B
m 235 239
1866
1889 1888
VIGNITY MAP
~ -H-~ DETOUR ROUTE
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
NOTE:
DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM
HORIZONTAL CURVATURE, VERTICAL CURVE K
VALUE, MAXIMUM SUPER AND MINIMUM SHOULDER
WIDTH.
~~d11 ll ll1 ®ll ~®~~ll11 ~L~~®~~~d]] srnn sTen raaeer xevxawce xa si¢er
~`[\/y yyy TI-V 7~~pq~~ 'I~^,y, 1~~~y~~~~/y /~A~ ~{~Yy (`1 N•C• B-4218 ~
~~ ~Y ~~~®~ ®ll llIl~VJ31L ll N7 d11 ll 6J' srera vxa,xa r.evRa.wo. oECUVnoa
33563.1.1 BRZ-1730 5 P.E.
33563.2.1 BRZ-173015) RMI & U'
ORA11 AGE , CO U11 ~T Y
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.108 OVER NEW HOPE CREEK ON
SR 1730 (TURKEY FARM ROAD) R/6V PLAI?~S
SUBMTTTF.D: 747x07
TYPE OF WORK• GRADING, DRAINAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
ptrrhit D wlnq ~
(~ T~ A I~ ~[v ~~. ~~' T( A }~ YTF~ ,{( A ('~ 5h~t ~,ol ~ ~,
N~~~R nd lld /1 ~ VY JLA~~Rnd 21~ V 1L1~ ~d'lS~E1),~~!! ~
BEGIN TIP PROTECT B-4218
T~ 1
ti~
86
~~
\\\ ~~~.
+
W
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- POT 13 +30.00 0
r
w
~~~...~
!~ : -: ~ _
~ ~ ~~~ lr
I (~
~~
I /1\\ \~\ ///
~~~ ~ ~
\~~ ~ ~
j\~!
NCDOT CONTACT: CATA'Y AOUSER, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER -ROAD WAY DESIGN,ENGIXEERING COORDINATION
ROEERT J. STROUP, PE
PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER -ROAD WAY DESIGN, ENGINEERING COORDINATION
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2008 = 681 LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0.105 mi
ADT 2028 = 1,291 LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0.023 mi
PLANS DHV = 10 % TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0.128 mi
50 25 0 50 100 D 60 %
T = 4 %'
PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) V = 40 MPH
10 5 0 l0 20 ' TTST 1 DUAL 3
FUNC CLASS = LOCAL
'I
~~
~~ ~ ,
~~ /~i~
~ i
~i ~
Iii
~ ~~
END BRIDGE ~ 1
~- POT 14+49.00 ~ I
I
SR 1730 I
(TURKEY FARM RD) ~ ~,--=
--_ __ ----~'r,.
U ~
II
II
(
END TIP PROJECT B-4218 ~ ~
-L- POT 18+00.00
CLEARING ON THIS PROTECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS SHOWN BY METHOD II.
PLANS PREPARED BY: PLANS PREPARED FOR:
ENGIN ERING DIVISION OF HIGRWAYS
188° Birch Rid,r D..
ro eas >are rae sn+ee.an. Ralei`A, NC 27810
Retaq,K 116# fu g9.SB6AiJi
2805 SFANDARD SPECIFICATIONS
RIGHT OF RIAY DATE: RHONDA B. EARLY. PE
JUIY 20.2007 PROJECT ENGINETilP
LETTING DATE: THOMAS R. HEPLER, PE, PLS
JULY 15.2008 PROJECf DESIGN ENGA7EER
HYDRAULICS ENGINEER
MULKEY, INC.
PE
A2l/RE:
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
P.E.

I~ 51~I~g1°~
~, Tp ISR
~~~
IrJ ~
0
fV
L!"'°'~ ~
P
~ ~
PRELIMINARY PLANS
DO N°T US¢ POR CONSIRUCITON
DI[?SION OF HIGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
eF 90gIq
,SE C49
°,
4 ;
a
s
~' Q
8'y QOF
°q raaN,<
P8
PxcB~Fx
f
J

1EMPORAflY FILL
IN SURFACE MATER
ICAUSEWAYI
\~°.~\
W
\~\
~._~
~\\
xSO I \. OOUS 0
/ \ W ~~
~~~ ~ 5
~ ~ ~~~~ ~ I
\~~
~cl~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~\ ~
~ F0y PS ~ I
z„ ~
'GIN APPROACH SLAB BM1 ELEVATION=401.17
- POT 13+16.C17 ENO AAPROACH SLAB N 816236 E 1986332
-L- PT 14+63A0 BI STATION 8+12 2151EFT
Rq SPIIQ: IN 18' POPLAR
TYPE~III ^~ ___._
- POT 13+,iO.W -C- POT
BRIDGE /ROADWAY RELATIONSHIP SKETCH
BRIDGE Hi'DRAIILIC DATA
DES/GN DISCHARGE = 3500 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
DES/GN hW ELEVATOON =404.4 FT
I~ YEAR DISCHARGE = 5200 Cf5
100 YEAR HW ELEVATroN =4062 FT
OJERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 3200 CFS
OVERTOPPING FREWENCY = 25 YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATOON =4042 FT
DATE OF SURVEY = 3/01/06
WS. ELEVATION
AT DATE Of SURVEY = 3937 FT
' '' PROTECT REFERENCE ND.
~ ~ ~ ENGINEERING B-a2is
L() woods
m RW sHffT N0,
I 0.0ADWAY DESIGN
S I 43 ~~. ENGINEER
EIP r~ ~~27263' O WOOU$
t,ummunl I i
assD
r zero
R~ ¶ (o~cx
~I ll ~ 1L 5 ~\) kI~ w°aos -
waoos ppTRILIA a. PATTERSONJ
CLA55 B RIP RAPS +l
EST.4 TONS i SPEOAL ORCH ~ ;
EST 14 SY FF X STA 14 5 LT. TO 17 .85 LT. mk
SEED L A /J
vw EBO RXFENCE ~ ~' }
.~- --( ~ ~. /W s
<~- ~
1730 TUNKEY FARM ROAD 14 BST
I Y IP-R/wn PEAUaxENi 1' E 10.71 ~ EN
~ ~ S 54127 E ~ °B za ~c us HAUL ROAD Ew-R/Wu w
.E TEMPORARY o "'
. CIA53 II CAUSEWAY u
-E D $B 5~ RI ~ O "'~
OVE EKISTING ~ EIP
IDCKRIOGE COMMUNITY
SB6N ~ DGE ASSOCIATION '~
+80 ~
N w0005
WE
i
CLASS B wv RAF _ g°W sP~ne Acu7 olTCx
EST.4 TONS W o soon
EST 7 SY FF ~ ~ c. o x\o ies oiirn
0 2 SIOPo
2 TB ono a ° we. p : I.p P+
PSex MOx.G ~ I.p Ct
GRANGER FAMILY 7yPe or uner = PSPu
.IMITED PARTNERSHIP sIL STA 14+75 LT. TO STA 17+85 LT.
EIP I ',
PI = 12+90.00 PI = 15+00.00 PI = 16+66.00
EL = 404.17' EL = 404.61' EL = 416.55
LC = 50' VC = 206' 4C = 62'
K=69 K=29' K=45
woods
- - LEFT OITCN GBADE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17
SHEET N0.
4
ENGINEER
~, I ~ ]ENGLI~]H
I ~~ ~
I /EP . ~ ~ a~'w
I ~ 2S 0 `r>C`~G
I ///
I I
p ~ I ~ /,
I ~pavl0 P & RELEN J X05 ~pP'w /~ ~
ROGERS W E+s~
~§ / /
~8
Tap WOODS
f/~ t~4 '~ /~ / al ~91yJtl .
EIP ~ F%ISiWC Ww // / ~~ ZP
C 15 ~ _ - ~ / / ~ / / WDDDS m1
VE 70 SA Al ~-- ~ s
NT SINN w0A0 ,
- F! .. ..
.rnimp Ww ql WODDS
WODO$
ROGER & JANE MADISON ~ ~~ Po~~ygW t/,,,,¢,//
V I d° 4 6j
o•% ~ L~ WoSpgS /
~L ~ 1~
~ ~ ~"' 1 7STD . ~,
~~
~+L o I ~
4i+ M+S~SVY ~ I l~ DE"/~~/
I ~ L ~ -' ~
~~
o?
~. ~ ~~. ~0
18 19
INCOMPLE PLANS
OO NM USE POR /W ACAV7W'110N
PRELIMtN
W NOT USE PO RY PLANS
LONSTRVCTION
Permit Drawing
Sheet ~ ~ _,.._.
O I
LE LAND
TRIANG
CONSERVANCY
® DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL T6,
IN SURFACE WATEfl
wE-
woods
I
w
C
U

#o

T
EL ~ i
END
~ APP.
+/ I

/.
BEG
I
G y
B
~ I

~~~~~ ~ ~~~I~n~~
~~~~~~~1

T qqY F[Ll
IN SUA E WATER
ICRUSEWAYI
'-w W
7i~i ~ ` ~t
c~~;
~ ~~
,E~ ~" ~ ~~~~ f ~.~FO ~ ~~
BEGIN APPROACH SLAB BMi ELEVATION=401.17
-L- POT 13+16A7 END APPROACH SLAB N 816236 E 1966332
-L- PT !4+63.00 EIL STATION 8+12 275 LEFT
RR SPIN IN 18' POPLAR
TYPNII
M TYPE-III
a
"~ N
TYPEJII TYPE-III
BEGIN BRIDGE NO BRDGE
-L- POT 13+30.60 ~ -L- POT 14+49.00
BRIDGE /ROADWAY RELITIONSHIP SKETCH
BRIDGE HYDRAULIC DATA
DESIGN DISCHARGE = 3500 CFS
DESIGN FREQUENCI = 25 YRS
DESIGN HW ELEVATOON =404.4 FT
100 YEAR DISCHARGE = 5200 CfS
1~ YEAR HN ELEVATION =4062 FT
OVERTOPPING DISCHARGE = 3200 CFS
CVERTOPPING FREQUENCY = 25 YRS
OVERTOPPING ELEVATION =4042 FT
DATE OF SURVEY = 3/01/06
WS.ELEVATION

AT DATE OF SURVEY = 3937 FT
o ~ ~~ ~_ m
TRIANGLE LANG ~ ~ o
CONSERVANCY I
~jj~j/~ DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL i IN 2. S'~ wo s
rJ///fY~ IN SURFACE WATER s 1'3 'w ~
wE e,
V OMNIY
WOOD O
W >
m' _ r, 25
U 9 B
D K
#o g > ~
W
~T L ~ woos -
0 G x ATRI . P T 0
@ APP.
a
+/ BEGIN STA AL 5 DTO 1 A LT. ~
~' D A
+80 ~B
T 'A F E d
E E ay
ww E
TBD
TBDI O TU F RJ 1 5
4
IP-q/W,,, wxExi E
~ i 2T.E ~ m 6Exxc 0 R I °~`
a TEMPORAR
C 511 AUSEWAY
SBG ~ RI AAP 3 0
P. STAB ~ EIP
0 IXISTING
N ~ PoD E IOCRAS ~C AOTIO UNITY
8
wooos
m WE
_ ~ P ~r DETAIL A ae~
T i W SPEiOr~eAi riDS awiiCx
5 W ~ -x.rs~E--C1, Sb~e
= c.a~e o w
TB a um. D : i.o v> ((~\
cuu ua.. a , i.o v+ 1 1 Be
G Y ~ I type of nner : Psxu \l\//)
I I p A R I W
I I : 111 ~ STA 1/+75 lT. TO SG.17+A5 LT.
PI = 12+90.00 PI = 15+00.00 PI = 16+86.00
EL = 404.17' EL = 404.81' EL = 418.55
LC = 50' VC = 208` VC = 62'
K=69 K=29• K=45
PROkCT REFERENCE N0. SHEET NO.
~ ENGINEERING 8-4218 a
~
_ RAV SHEET N0.

~1 I
f ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER HYDRAULICS
ENGINEER
i ~
~ ~ ]ENGILI~~
N
I

O
- - • LEfT DITCH GRADE
10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19
INC®MPLE E PLANS
W NM V56 ROR /w ACQUISITION
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
W NOT USE PO CONStttVCfION
Z
/~c
u 9S\
r'etmi~ Drawing
Sheet. ~

I
See Sheet 7-A For Index of Sheets
See Sr~eet 7-B for Conventianol Symbols
'V
N
e ~
V
O
1`A~
1

1874 ~
1895 ~
S? ~
5 I

~ iel6~ 1 4 slr>a' R na
'
1
~ 873 ~ ~ ND
€1730
~
163 /
4~0 ~OJEI.
~ 2275 a,
~
\

,e
~1 rJ
I

.~ 1
Blackwood
'~'~
" 1939 Station

/ ~
nI
BEGlp ~ 2219
PP~6JECT 2274
~ I
° \
1
1726 1
u
1730 2227

1 ~
\ ~ 2222 '
2126 2231

/
,~
1\4011
V ~ ~ ~ DUkE 1 ~~
222 2 221 2230 ~
2228 7

' FOREST 223
1 22
2232
~
-
/ 223 222
~
I I 229
-~
d.

r
1246 ] 31 2a
~ ~ R
17 I Whitfield
I
~-` t_ 2278
d 2237

239
18fi
2244 g
w 235 /
1986
1689 1868
VICINITY MAP
-~ --~--~-~- DETOUR ROUTE
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES.
NOTE:
` V DESIGN EXCEPTION REQUIRED FOR MINIMUM
• HORIZONTAL CURVATURE, VERTICAL CURVE K
M~ VALUE, MAXIMUM SUPER AND MINIMUM SHOULDER
V1 WIDTH.
M
Sl Jl ~ J~~IlT ~1 /Wy ®ll ~yd i ®11~I~~L7 JL 7~~p~y~~ T~I~ V~I~q~1~g 1~1 /y~/~A`®~~y~y ~ 6 V
~ll U' ~~~®A V ®ll LLJI JL~llll VV d 1~ ll
onaxcE coUxzY
LOCATION: BRIDGE N0.108 OVER NEW HOPE CREEK ON
SR 1730 (TURKEY FARM ROAD)
TYPE OF WORK. GRADING, DRAIKAGE, PAVING, AND STRUCTURE
BEGIN TIP PROJECT B-4218
POG 11 +25.00 i
I
I
To BEGIN BRIDGE
ti~a6 ~ -L- POT 13+30.00
\\ ~\~~
I ~~~ ~ .
I ~~ \~~~~
I ~,\ ~~~\
~ ~,
~~~ ~
1 ~~
~\~!
NCDOT CONTACT: CATHY HO USER, PE
PROJECT ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN, ENGINEERING COORDINATION
ROBERT J. STROUP, PE
~ PROJECT DESIGN ENGINEER -ROADWAY DESIGN, ENGINEERING COORDINATION

~
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA PROJECT LENGTH
5a 2s 0 50 Loa ADT 2008 = 681
LENGTH ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0.105 mi
~; ADT 2028 = 1,291 LENGTH STRUCTURE TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0
023 mi
Q
m ~ PLANS DHV = 10 % .
TOTAI LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT B-4218 = 0.128 mi

~
0 O
50 25 0 50 100
D 60
~
a T = 4 0~ .
o PROFILE (HORIZONTAL) y = 40 MPH
o~~ ~ 10 5 0 10 20 * TTST 1 DUAL 3
° ~~
N ~N
C g PROFILE (VERTICAL) FUNC CLASS = LOCAL
mw
~ I
~ ~ END BRIDGE
-L- POT 14+49.00
i
SR 1730
I (TURKEY FARM RD)
,,
---- --- ~
END TIP PI
Ir POT I8 +
CLEARING ON THIS PROTECT SHALL BE PERFORMED
TO THE LIMITS SHOWN BY METHOD II.
PLANS PREPARED BY:
ENGINEERING
e.Po eoc Av<e .n aeon.
04%K 216E F 9i9.1ee.biR
10°6 STANDARD SPECQ+ICATTONS
PLANS PREPARED FOR:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
1°00 BircF Ridge Dr.
RaleigF, NC 11010
J2IG1iT' OF WAY DATE: RHONDA B. EARLY. PE
JULY 20.2007 PROIBCr E"°R~~1`
LETITIVG DATE: THOMAS R. HEPLER, PE, PLS
JULY 15.2008 PROJECT DESIGN ENCDIEER
B-4218
SEATS SPATE P0.0![CT AERACNCE HO 9HEef
N0. TOtAI
5XEEI9
•~• B-4218 ~
v.AEAa.Ha AucA~ArwH
33563.1.1 BRZ-17305 P.E.
33563.2.1 BRZ-1730151 RrW & UTIL.

R/W PLANS
SUBMITTED: 74707
4

I~ ~ ~ .
I~
i
~I /~~~
II /~i
/~
~I
I~
~ I ~ TO LISP I
~.
~~
----
HYDRAU~res ENCLVEER
MULKEY, INC.
PE
uRE
ROADWAY DESIGN
ENGINEER
P.E.
~~
~I
II
II
I ~
~~
PRELIMINARY PLANS
0o nor use P09 rnesT9ucrtoH
'?TVISION OF JHGHWAYS
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
OF AOApO
•~` OVA
a,
ei
POp TA A'A~QO
STATE

Note: Not to Scale
*S.U.E. = Subsurface Utility Engineering ~~~~]~' ®~' ~®~~][~[ ~;~]~®][,~~~
CONVENTIONAL .PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
WATER:
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.' Water Manhole 0
State Line ---•------- Rf1ILR0ADS' Water Meier o
Coun Line -----___- Standard Gauge
CSX iRnNSPpRTATIpN Water Valve
Township Line ------- RR Signal Milepost M~fEPWT js EXISTING STRUCTURES.' Water Hydrant -0
City Line ---_- Switch ~
s~~~H MAJOR: Recorded LYG Water Line
Reservation Line - . - . - RR Abandoned -.-- -- ~ -_ Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert coNC Designated lLG Water Line (S.U.E.`) - - - -•- - - -
Property Line
RR Dismantled
--------
Bridge Ong Wall, Head Wall and End Wall
- ~ co"L ww ~
Above Ground Water Line
nic Wa+er

Existing Iron Pin
°
RIGHT OF WAY.' MINOR:

Property Comer
Baseline Control Point
. Head and End Wall LoNL ~, TV:

Properly Monument
~
E
i
ti
Ri
ht
f W
M
k
~ Pipe Culvert N Satellite Dish p

Parcel/Sequence Number
i23 x
ng
s
g
o
ay
ar
er Footbridge ~---------C TV Pedestal

Existing Fence Line

-"-xx- Existing Right of Way Line -
Drainoge Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB
^ce
TV Tower

Proposed Woven Wire Fence

a Proposed Right of Way Line ~--~-
Paved Ditch Gutter ----_
lYG TV Cable Hand Hole

Proposed Chain Link Fence
a Proposed Right of Way Line with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Storm Sewer Manhole
0
Recorded U•G TV Cable

Proposed Barbed Wire Fence ~ Proposed Right of Way Line with Storm Sewer ~ Designated lbG TV Cable (S.U.E.') -~ V
-

Existing Wetland Boundary
----.,,---- Concrete or Granite Marker ~ Recorded USG Fiber Optic Cable e

Proposed Wetland Boundary
"a Existing Control of Access --±~-- UTILITIES.' Designated l4G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E.`)- - - - -~" "~- - -
proposed Control of Access --~--
POWER:
Existing Endangered Animal Boundary ~•a

Existing Endangered Plant Boundary
E~ Existing Easement Line --E-- Existing Power Pole ~ GAS:
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement - E Proposed Power Pole d Gas Valve ~
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURE.' Proposed Temporary Drainage Easement- -roe Existing Joint Use Pole ~ Gas Meter
Gas Pump Vent or IYC, Tank Cap 0 Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement ppe Proposed Joint Use Pole ~- Recorded USG Gas Line
Sign ~ Proposed Permanent Utility Easement -rue- Power Manhole © Designated lYG Gas Line (S.U.E.`)
--~---
-- -
Well °

Small Mine
~
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.' Power Line Tower ® Above Ground Gas Line nic cos

Foundation
~
Existing Edge of Pavement
----- Power Transformer ~

Area Outline

0

Existing Curb

-----
lbG Power Cable Hand Hole
~ SANITARY SEWER:

Cemetery
~
Proposed Slope Stakes Cut ~
--- --- H-Frame Pole ~--~ Sanitary Sewer Manhole 0

Building n-n
u
Proposed Slope Stakes Fill
- - - F - Recorded lt-G Power line o Sanitary Sewer Cleanout ~
Designated lLG Power Line (S.U.E.') - - - -•- - - - LbG Sanitary Sewer Line ~,
School ~ Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp

Church
~
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Ramp -
cre Above Ground Sanitary Sewer 6iL Sanitary Sewer
TELEPHONE: Recorded SS Forced Main Line ~ss
Dam Existing Metal Guardrail
Existing Telephone Pole + Designated SS forced Main Line (S.U.E.*) - - - - -~,~- - - -
Proposed Guardrail
HYDROLOGY Proposed Telephone Pole -0-
Existing Cable Guiderail " "
Stream or Body of Water -...-_-
Proposed Cable Guiderail
" Telephone Manhole 0 MISCELLANEOUS:
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir ____
~
J Telephone Booth p Utility Pole ~
-- E uali S bol
q ~ ~ ~
Jurisdictional Stream -is - Telephone Pedestal p Utility Pole with Base
Pavement Removal
Buffer Zone 1 -az i - Telephone Cell Tower ~, Utility Located -Object p
Buffer Zone 2 ~:- l~'GETATION.• Uti Telephone Cable Hand Hole HH Utilify Traffic Signal Box p
Flow Arrow •~------ Single Tree Q Recorded lt~G Telephone Cable " Utility Unknown USG Line ,"~~
Disappearing Stream }- - - Single Shrub © Designated l4G Telephone Cable (S.U.E.')- - - - -~- - - - ~ Tank; Water, Gas, Oil
Spring o'- ~-^ Hedge ~^~ Recorded USG Telephone Conduit "" AEG Tank; Water, Gas, Oil a
Swamp Marsh ~ Woods Line 1"u^u`'u'"-'"'~ Designated USG Telephone Conduit (S.U.E.'j- ----""---- U•G Test Hole (S.U.E.')
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch ~ Orchard 4 ff fl 4 Recorded lJ•f Fiber Optics Cable "~~- Abandoned According to Utility Records - AATUR
False Sump ~ Vineyard vineyora Designated lYG Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.~- - - - -~ ~~- - - End of Information E.O.I.

8-4218 SURVEY C0IVTROL SHEET
~~ J
~~^ % i
~ 6fdl ~~
~~ ELEV=401.17
~? \ ~ /
\\\\ \\ NCD01 BASELINE
\\ STanoN'BL-4• 111
N = 815997.1230
\\\\\ E = 1986476.9690 m ~~
\\ AV ~~
NCDOi BASELINE \\\\ /
STATION 'BL-3' \\\\ / ~
N = 815863.9470 \ \ / /@~~ NCDOT BASELINE
E = 1986144.5550 \ \
\\\\ / /Q~ ~ STATION 'BL-T
N = 816834.5480
Z~ ~ E = 1987045.1200
1^~ ~ ~~ ~~
1T /~----------
/~ ------
7 ~ - -
~ ~ ~ Sq ~~
~~RKfi Fa,. ~.
BEGIN STATE PROJECT B-4218
-L- STA. 11 + 70.00
//
~/
~~
NCOOT BASELINE
NCDOT BASELINE STATION '8L-6'
STATION 'BL-5' N = 816621.6550
N _ 816389.6630 E = 1987095.3380
E = 1986991.4230
END STATE PROJECT B-4218
-L- STA. 17 + 73.00
BAS ELINE DATA
BL
POINT DESC. NORTH EAST ELEVATION L STATION OFFSET
3 BL-3 815863.9470 198614x.5550 404.51 OUTSIDE PROJECT LtnITS
4 BL-4 815997.1230 1986476.9690 403.40 13.36.32 11.20 LT
5 BL-5 816389.6630 1986997.4230 434.83 OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS
6 BL-6 616621.6550 1987095.3380 441.82 OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS
7 BL-7 816634.5x60 1987045.1200 438.31 OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS
1 84218-I 617037.6020 198702x.8190 430.01 OUTSIDE PROJECT LIMITS
2 84218-2 817666.9360 1967382.5000 463.89 OUTSIDE PRDJECT LIMITS
m
m
cv
0
a
DATUM DESCRIPTION
THE LOCALIZED CWRDINATE SYSTEM DEVELOPED FOR THIS PROJECT
IS BASED ON THE STATE P(luYE COORDINATES ESTABLISHED BY
NCWT FOR MONUMENT "84218- I "
WITH NAD 1983/95 STATE PIONE GRID COORDINATES OF
NORTHING:8f1037bO2(ftl FASTING 1987024.8fA'ftl
THE rVERAGE CDMBINEO GRID FAC70R USED ON THIS PROJECT
!GROUND TO GRIDI I5: 099994088
THE NL.LAMBERT GRID BEARfNG rW0
LOCH! IZED HORIZONTAL GROUND DISTANCE FROM
°84218-1 " TO -L- STATION I 1+25.00 IS
S 32 ° 37 4327" W 1353.062 FT
A!L LINEAR DIMENSIONS ARE LOCALIZED HORIZONTAL DISTANCES
VERTICAL DATUM USED IS NAYD 88
BENCHMARK DATA
BMl ELEVATION 401.17
N 816236 E 1986332
L STATION 13.66 289 LEFT
RR SPIKE M 18' POPLRR
........................................
NCDOT BASELINE
STATION '8L-I'
N = 817037.6020
E = 1987024,8190
NCDOT BASELINE
STATION 'BL-2'
N = 817666.9760
E = 19873B2.S000
~ B-421s ~ ~c ~
Location and Surveys -l
9Z
o~
mco
/ '~s
TO SR 1718
MT SINAI RA-~
NOTES
1. THE CONTROL DATA FOR THIS PROJECT CAN BE FOUND ELECTRONICALLY BY SELECTING
PROJECT CONTROL DATA AT:
HTTP:6~9WW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.USPRECONSTRUCT/HIGHWAY/LOCATION/PROJECT/
THE FILES TO BE FOUND ARE AS FOLLOWS:
b4218 Is control 060424.tst
SITE CALIBRATION INFORMATION HAS NOT BEEN PROVIDED FOR THIS PROJECT IF FURTHER
INFORMATION IS NEEDED, PLEASE CONTACT THE LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
® INDICATES GEODETIC CONTROL MONUMENTS USED OR SET FOR HORIZONTAL PROJECT
CONTROL BY THE NCDOT LOCATION AND SURVEYS UNIT.
PROJECT CONTROL ESTABLISHED USING GLOBAL POSITIONING SYSTEM.
NETWORB ESTABLISHED FROM NGS ONLINE POSITIONING SERVICE (OPUS)
NOTE: DRAWING NOT TO SCALE

N
Z
0
rc
0
3
a
i
0
v
a
0
m
m
0
a
b'
9' W/GR.
-L-
10'
10'
-L-
6'
9' W/GR.
.08
ti ti VPR~~r
lo'
-~-
1'-2° 3'x.5" 10' 10' 3'-8
GRADE
4 12" C2 73'16" roiNT Dl OR 4 l2"
0'-1.5" 0.02 0.02
0 0000000
I C3 C3
10 PRESTRESSED CONCRETE BOX BEAM UNITS= 30'
b' 8'
9' W/GR.
C T
'0~
~ 4:1 1 r
2~ ~°µs1
l~E .kSE
El
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.1 AS FOLLOWS:
9' W/GR.
.08
-L- STA 11+35 TO -L- STA 12+70
-L- STA 15+40 TO ~- STA 17+63
(REFER TO INSET "A" FOR STA 16+00 TO STA 17+50 -LEFT)
TRANSITION FROM EXISTING TO T.S. N0.1 FROM
-L- STA 11+25 TO -L- STA 11+35
TRANSTION FROM T.S. N0.1 TO EXISTING FROM
-L- STA 17+63 TO -L- STA 17+73
1 2:1 /--" r
TYPICAL SECTION N0. 3
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.3 AS FOLLOWS:
-L- STA 13+30 IBEGIN BRIDGEI TO -L- STA 14+49 (END BRIDGE)
1'-2"
0'-1.5"
USE TYPICAL SECTION N0.2 AS FOLLOWS:
-L- STA 12+70 TO -L- STA 13+30 IBEGIN BRIDGE)
-L- STA 14+49 (END BRIDGE) i0 -L- 15+40
ENGINEERING B-42rs 2
~ Rw SHEET No.
ROADWAY DESIGN HYDRAULICS
ENGINEE0. ENGINEER
PREL[MIN
W NOT USE RY PLANS
CONSTRUCTION
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
~~ PROP. APPROX. 11/4" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PEA S0. YD,

C Z PROP. APPROX. 2L¢" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
AT AN AVER
AGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PEA S0. YD. IN EACH OF TWO
LAYERS.

C3 PROP. VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE SF9.5A,
AT AN AV
"
ERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER SO. YD. PER 1
DEPTH TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 11/4" OR GREATER THAN 11~" IN DEPTH.
PROP. VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COUASE,TYPE
pi I19.08, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PEA S0. YD. PER 1" DEPTH
TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 21/4" OR GREATER THAN 4 IN
DEPTH.
E1 PROP. APPROX. 5" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 625.OB, AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 570 LBS. PER SD. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE TYPE 825.08, AT
E 2 AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PEA S0. YD. PEA 11' DEPTH, TO BE
PLACED IN LAYERS NOT GREATER THAN 5.5" IN DEPTH OA LESS THAN
3" IN DEPTH.
T EARTH NATEAIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT.
W1 VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIL 1)
W2 VARIABLE DEPTN ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE STANDARD WEDGING DETAIL 2)
nVlt YAYENtNI EDGE SLOPE ANF 1.1 IINI FCC SunwN nrueowree
INSET "A"
TO BE USED IN COWUNCTION WITH TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
FOR -L- STA 16+00 TO STA 17+50 (LEFT)
4' 4' 10'_
i TO
T °
u
`8 ~
(SEf.k3 ~oNSJ 4:1

a
COMPUTED BY: RBE DATE: 7262UO7
CHECKED BY: DATE: PROJECT N0. SHEET N0.
B-0218 3.A
SUMMARY OF EARTHWORK
Station Station Uncl.
Ezcav, Embank.
+% Bortow Waste
PHASEI
L- 11+25 13+3D 10 145 135 D
L- 14+49 17+73 158 219 56 0
PHASE I S UBTOTALS: IG7 359 192 0

PROJECT SUBTOTAL: 167 359 192 0
LOSSDUBTOCLBAREVGB.GRUBBIN •SD 50
GRADEPOINTUNDERCUf 0 0

WAST~INLIEUOFBORROW 0 D
RBPLACETOPSOILDNBORROWPTt 12

PROJECT TOTALS: ll7 359 254 8

SAY 130 270 0
DRAINAGE DTTCHERCAVATION: 0 CY
SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL (CLASS II AND III): Z00 CY*
PAVEMENT STRUCTURE VOLUME: XXX CY
' PER GEOTECHIQICALREPORTDATED 7202D06
NOTB:
Earthwo~ quantities are calrnlated by the Roadway Desin Unit These earthwork
quantities arebased in part on subsu~ace data provided by the Geotecbnical En,ineering
Unit
STATE ®F NORTI~ CAR®I,INA
DIVISI®N OF HIGI~iVbTAYS
SUMMARY OF EXISTING
ASPHALT PAVEMENT REMOVAL
LINE Station Station LOC
LTlRT/CL Avg.
Width SY

-L- 12+70 13+30 CL 19 127
-L- 14+49 11+40 Q, 19 192

TOTAL: 319
SAY: 40D
NOTE:
APPROXIMATE QUANTITIES ONLY. UNCLASSIFIED EXCAVATION, FIIQE
GRADING, CLEARING AND GRUBBING AND REMOVAL OF EXLSTING
PAVEMENT WILL BE PAID FOR AT THE LUMP SUM PRICE FOR
"GRADING."

COMPUTED BY: KAIFORD GATE:
CHECKED BY: JSCARCE DATE: ~~
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
SHEET ND,
,a
LLJ~1 ~ ur~ rl~>k S, GNU WAL LS, ETC. (FOR PIPES 48" & UNDER )

EwowaLLS .1
O _
W ,y 6 W m

~
z
z aA55YRC.PNE F a c p m e
, STATIgI
°
z
°-
°
<
`
CIA6SMR.C. PIPE
BIRIYWDUS COATED C.S. PIPETYPEB
DR =
=« aK
:, w F < a -~ NL£SS NOTED OTHERWIS
N E)
NNLE$a NOTED DTHERWIS C.SPIPE,TYPEN?~'.LUYWQEA a ¢ ° ~ uzi ~
° FRAY
~
~ ~

~ ~ w w ¢

° q
of
sro. eDa.o, ~
~ ~ y ~
° ¢ ~ < ~
°
~
cRaTES, o

° ABBREYIATbNS

C9. CATCH EASY
o w ~ ~ n HDPE,TYPESDAO DR '
`
o z a
'
" AND HDOD °' d NLl HAAROWDRDPINLEf
~ ~ n ¢ ¢ 0 STO.BR,1 •
~ STANDARD
°
u
¢
J
m ~ i
z > ~
SS °
BdOCJ
N m
o +
o
F
o
e ~ Dl DROP WLET
MAl MEDIAN DADP NLET
N A a Y
L
p OTHEAWI
~
LW °e o m a ¢ o N c ~ A.
IN.6.) NEDIANDAOPYLET
a . o ° o 0 0 ~ a < '~° m w w i (NARROW SLDTf
S¢E o 12' 15' 18' 21' 3D" 06" !Y 18' 12" 1S' 1B' 2/' 30' 36" d
' ' ' ' ' ' ' °

J i IB 4 ,6 ,B 21 30" 36` 12' IB CU. YARDS - d m w
> '• ~ ° < '?
n z ° ~ JB
JUNCTION BDX
w w w r; a B ~ w < : e e o ~ z
3 =
3 c Q m ¢
> m 3 m a ~ .
MH MANHOLE
= _ = i ? ° o c b b ~ ~ t E ~ '° t m o p o J u = T13D1 TRAFFlCBEARINGDAC
THICKNESS
OA GAUGE a
o
o a a a 6 ° °
m TYPEDF ~ < m o 3 3 ¢ LL w d ~
o z
c
o w ¢ x ~ INLET

LL
~
o
0
0
°•
°
s a
-
a
m
GRATE
~
w
w
w
w
~
~
w
i
-
o
a
y
`
w
.
w a
~
°-
~
TB.J.B. TAAFFICBEARWG
w
0 w w °•
¢ w
U ° ' ° m
O f a
H n n a < ri ui r-
N LL w
O f m
~ ~ c m °
~ JUNCTION BDX
b 0
N °
W W ~ Q w N t
4 H H LL LL Z 2 ~
N C
LL ~ W U .y~ w
¢
•
m
_
~
G
Ci
0
CI
LI
G
C ° G 2
= y ¢ _ ° ¢
{-,o+BO a f 2
n
~
J
E
F
G
d
d
i
f
i
f
a
~
f
m
m
f
s
f
m
,°~
~
~-
u
AEMARKB
{-12H0 Rf 2 0 ?e Aemwe etisOng,S RD sde dan
{•,2+91 LT 1 0 24
{~13r90 RT ~
1
,
1
{• 17~ LT 4 d0 1 1 1 3? Aemove easeng 15 RC side dais

B NEET TOTN. 0 2/ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 D D O O O D 0 0 0 0 56 60
0 0 0 0 B 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 D O O D 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 2 D D O O D O O O O U 0
O Q 15
W
COMPUTED BY: A B FARLY DATE: 7Q52001
CHEd(ED BY: THEPIEA DATE: 7R52DW
P e WSFAN~ FROM EDGE OF UNE TO FACE OF GUARDRAR
TALSHOULDERWIDTH=DISTANCEFROYEDGEOFTRAYELUNETDSHOUIDERYIEAKPOMi.
ARE LENGTH : DLSTANCE FADY UST SECTION OF PARALLEL CUARDRAA. TO END OF GUABDRAY.
TOTAL YYA)TH DF FURE FROM BEC~eNWG OFTAPER TO END OF GUARDRAIL
:GATWGIMPACTATR7IUATORTYPE760
) e NON~GATWC YPACT ATTENUATOR TYPE 060
LENGTH
LINE BEG. STA END STA LOC. STRAIGHT SHOT
CURVI
L 12+48.75 13+30.00 LT 81.3
L 12+61.25 i3+30.OD RT 62S 23.5
L 14+40.D0 16+21.25 LT 1813
L 14+40.00 15+83.75 RT 143.8
TOTAL 468.73 ?3.5
49225 TOTAL G
•231JS IESS.4Ni
GUARDRAIL SUMMARY
WARRA NT POINT "N" DIST. TOTAL FLARE LENGTH W ANCH
R

)DUBLE
FACED
APPR.
END
TRAIL.
END
FROM
0
E
L
SHLDR
WIDTH
APpR.
TRAIL.
ND
APPR.
TRAIL.
XI
XI
GRAD O
S
M-350
III
AT•T
VI IMP. ATTEN.
TYPE 350 REMOVE
EXISTING
REMARKS

13+30
13+30 •
.
.
3' BS"
9 END E
SO.D END END
1
0 MOD 350 MDD EA G NG GUARDRAIL

13+30
13+30
3'85"
9 . 1 1
' RSD 562.01 SHEET 3

14+40
LS+SO
3' 85"
9
50
0 1 1 RSD'&o2.Di SHEET3

14+40
14+40
3' 8.5"
9
50.0 .
1.0 1.0 1
1 1
1 RSD 862.01 SHEET 3
RSD 862.D1 SHEET' 3
3 4 1

R" LENGTH ANCHOR DEDUCTIONS
RUCTIONS
150 3 @ 50 EACH PER GRAII35D
'
75 4 @ 16.75
FACHPFR TYPE DI
6.25 1 @ 6.25' EACHPER AT-1

~ r

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-4218
State Project No. 8.2502301
W.B.S. No. 33563.1.1.0
Federal Project No. BRZ-1730(5)
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Orange County Bridge No. 108 on
SR 1730 over New Hope Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 95 feet long providing a minimum 28 feet clear deck width. The
bridge will include two 10-foot lanes with 4-foot offsets. The roadway grade of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 140 feet from the southwest
end of the new bridge and 350 feet from the northeast end of the new bridge. The
approaches will include a 20-foot pavement width providing two 10-foot lanes.
Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (9-foot shoulders where
guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route.
Traffic will be detoured off-site during construction (see Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 108 has a
sufficiency rating of 24.2 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete due to both a structural
appraisal and a deck geometry appraisal of 2 out of 9. Therefore, according to
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) standards Bridge No. 108 is eligible
for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program.
Bridge No. 108 has afifty-two year old timber substructure with a typical life
expectancy between 40 to 50 years due to the natural deterioration rate of wood.
Rehabilitation of a timber structure is generally practical only when a few
members are damaged or prematurely deteriorated. However, past a certain
degree of deterioration, timber structures become impractical to maintain and
upon eligibility are programmed for replacement. Bridge No. 108 is approaching
the. end of its useful life.

.,
r "
.. t,
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
i. Slide Stabilization
j. Structural BMP's for water quality improvement
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
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
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
2

._
4'
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with 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 qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
13. Acquisition and construction of wetland, stream and endangered species
mitigation sites.
14. Remedial activities involving the removal, treatment or monitoring of soil
or groundwater contamination pursuant to state or federal remediation
guidelines.

,~
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 675,000
Right of Way $ 62,000
Total $ 737,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 600 vpd
Year 2025 - 1200 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 3%
Accidents: Traffic Engineering has evaluated a recent three year period and
found one accident occurring in the vicinity of the project. It was not associated
with the geometry of the bridge or its approach roadways.
Design Exceptions: There is a horizontal alignment exception required for this
project.
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition &
Removal will be implemented. Although the timber columns for the interior
bents are encased in concrete, temporary fill is not anticipated with respect to
bridge demolition. All other components will be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States during construction.
Alternatives Discussion:
No Build - No build would result in eventually closing the road which is
unacceptable given the volume of traffic served by SR 1730.
Rehabilitation -The bridge was constructed in 1953 and the timber
materials within the bridge are reaching the end of their useful life.
Rehabilitation would require replacing the timber components which
would constitute effectively replacing the bridge.
Offsite Detour -Bridge No. 108 will be replaced on the existing
alignment. Traffic will be detoured offsite (see Figure 1) during the
construction period. NCDOT Guidelines for Evaluation of Offsite
Detours for Bridge Replacement Projects considers multiple project
variables beginning with the additional time traveled by the average road
user resulting from the offsite detour. The offsite detour for this project
would include SR 1731, NC 86, and SR 1718. The detour for the average
road user would result in 7.0 minutes additional travel time (2.8 miles
additional travel). Up to a ten-month duration of construction is expected
on this project. Based on the guidelines, the delay for the average road
user is acceptable.
4

Orange county Emergency Management Services, as well as Orange
County school transportation has indicated that an offsite detour is
acceptable and that services can be adequately re-routed during
construction.
In view of the lower impacts to environment and property, project cost
savings and no major opposition, an offsite detour is recommended.
NCDOT Division 7 concurs in these recommendations.
Onsite Detour - An onsite detour was evaluated, but due to the presence
of an acceptable offsite detour and to lessen the environmental impacts
required, this alternate was eliminated.
New Alignment -Given that the alignment for SR 1730 is of severe
curvature in the areas before and after Bridge No. 108, a new alignment
would not improve these areas and so was not considered as an alternative.
Other Agency Comments:
The N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission states that a significant fishery for
sunfish exists at this site and requests an in-water work moratorium for sunfish
from April 1 to June 30.
Response: Since this moratorium is not a regulatory requirement, it will be
honored if the project schedule allows.
The United States Fish and Wildlife Service responded with standard
comments.
Public Involvement:
A letter was sent by the Location & Surveys Unit to all property owners affected
directly by this project. Property owners were invited to comment. No comments
have been received to date.
A newsletter has been sent to residents living in the areas directly before and after
Bridge No. 108. One local resident requests a temporary pedestrian bridge be
constructed to provide access across New Hope Creek during the construction of
the new bridge. The same resident also expressed concerns about USPS delivery
due to their mailbox location being on the opposite side of the bridge from their
residence.
Response: NCDOT cannot at this time justify the cost of constructing a
temporary pedestrian bridge, therefore will not be able to provide for this request.

4
~}
The local residents whose mail delivery is directly effected by the replacement of
Bridge No. 108 have worked out an agreement with the local Post Office for mail
delivery during the construction of new bridge.
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally
listed 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
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable measures

to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated?
X ^
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
^
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? ^ X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water

Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ^
X
(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
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
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? ~ X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act

resources? ^
X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ^
X
a
6

4
I
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the 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
low-income population? X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ^
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? ^
X

(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
and/or land use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
~
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, ^
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? X
(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)
and will all construction proposed in association with the ^
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
~
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ^
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
7

a
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are ^
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) ^
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act ^
of 1965, as amended? X

(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the National System of Wild and Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
None

f
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
W.B.S. No.
Federal Project No
A. Project Description:
B-4218
8.2502301
33563.1.1.0
BRZ-1730(5)
The purpose of this project is to replace Orange County Bridge No. 108 on
SR 1730 over New Hope Creek. The replacement structure will be a bridge
approximately 95 feet long providing a minimum 28 feet clear deck width. The
bridge will include two 10-foot lanes with 4-foot offsets. The roadway grade of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure.
The approach roadway will extend approximately 140 feet from the southwest
end of the new bridge and 350 feet from the northeast end of the new bridge. The
approaches will include a 20-foot pavement width providing two 10-foot lanes.
Six-foot grass shoulders will be provided on each side (9-foot shoulders where
guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Local Route.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
i ~~ 3 .,~
Date
~~ ~ ~~'
Date
~3 ~~~
Date
Development Group Leader
Develo~ent,-~ F~fivironmental Analysis Branch
development Engineer
Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
Not Applicable
Date John F. Sullivan, III, PE, Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Project De Aelopment & Environmental Analysis Branch
~~ A /

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
Orange County
Bridge No. 108 on SR 1730
Over Old Field Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1730(5)
State Project No. 8.2502301
W.B.S. No. 33563.1.1.0
T.I.P. No. B-4218
Natural Environmental Unit -Bridge Demolition
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented. Although
the timber columns for the interior bents are encased in concrete, temporary fill is not anticipated
with respect to bridge demolition. All other components will be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States during Construction.
Division 7 -Length of Construction
In order to address specific requests from local residents, NCDOT will set the minimum
reasonable contract time to reduce the period of road closure.
Division 7 Construction -Road Closure
The division is to notify the Orange County Office of Emergency Management two
months prior to closing SR 1730 for replacement of Bridge No. 108.
The division is to notify the Lockridge Community Association, Jane Madison, at
[phone] two weeks prior to closing SR 1730 for replacement of Bridge No. 108.
Also leave a message at [phone].
Structure Design -Bridge Rails
The proposed structure shall be designed and detailed to include bicycle safe rails (2 bar
metal rail).
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
November 2005

A'~,~' Ncnrp °~qo NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
~, TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
,~ PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
~ ~/ ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
t
. • ••y 1
• ~V~ ;
..
.}
~~sr
.y

.~,
N
10 ti
t '~ ~•~~
l ~
'.` .
,y B~~3t~(Vll9pp~ ~~
~'~ ~~dt1011 .,~ ~
r
~,.
l~
+ID
f
. . J
i
i
~~~--~-,
~- ~ ~--
L
t
r
.`
1~
t
.,
i
l
1730 'y
c~ : \
t '•`
~• ~ ~
r
4•. ~
'•-..
Bridge
No. 108
240
r
1
.I
2~ I
2~~281 y
22~ .
2 2$ ~
~'~' - - - ~
r
VIC11U1TY MAP
DET~UF~ R~t~TE

ORANGE COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 108 ON SR 1730
OVER OLD FIELD CREEK
B-4218
Figure 1

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary ~G ~' V~
~' Q
June 27, 2003 1
MEMORANDUM JUL " ?~~
,. z
~„ ,~,
TO: Greg 'Thorpe, Manager ~ `c Hl~,~r~~;YS ~~,'~
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch O~'~CTDFbE1.Dp~`5\5
NCDOT Division of Highways ~FNrAI ANP~-~
FROM: David Brook ~~' ~-~- 1.,:~il--
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 108 on SR 1730 over Old Field Creek, B-4218,
Orange County, ER03-0956
Thank you for your memorandum of April 7, 2003, concerning the above project. We
appreciate the complete documentation, including delineation of the area of potential effect
(APE) for the proposed bridge replacement.
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the proposed project area. If the -
replacement is to be located along the existing alignment, it is unlikely that significant
archaeological resources will be affected and no investigation is recommended. If, however,
the replacement is to be in a new location please forward a map to this office indicating the
location of the new alignment so we may evaluate the potential effects of the replacement
upon archaeological resources.
Given the high probability of the proposed project area, it is likely that new ground
disturbance within any of the four quadrants or new road alignment will require archaeological
investigation.
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or
architectural importance located within the planning area.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
www.hno.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fsx
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. t3lount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 (919) 7331763 •733-R653
RES"i'ORA"f ION S I S N. E3lount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEI' & PLANNING S I S N. E3lount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 (919) 733-6S4S • 715801

June 27, 2003 ~ .
Page 2 '
' Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-
referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Mary Pope Fury, NCDOT

' ~

s,wSTA1Ev
~~ + +° ". ~~~
,... 4 ~..
1" 'S/

' S' F
~~ '
y
'r .,,.~rl
North Carolina Department of Cultural Reso YL ~ ~
urces;,. ~~~~ r:
:

State Historic Preservation Office ,
r:
;r• p Z
~~,~
..~Y.;~~.-~ ~~~~.;;R-,~~-~
~~~~G
:
;
, ;>

Michael F. Easley, Governor ~
6
y
-~.~_
Divt
Ft; o~ ts~~ rce:
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary .
David ' ector
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and History
March 23, 2004
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook ~~`~.~}~~ ~I U~ ~~
Deputy State Histot~~ Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Archaeological Study and Evaluation, Replacement of Bridge No. 108 on SR 1730 over
' New Hope Creek, State Project 8.2502301, TIP B-4218, NCDOT Division 7,
Orange County, ER03-0956
Thank you for your letter of February 24, 2004, transmitting the survey report by Gerold Glover of your
staff for the above project.
For purposes of compliance ~vith Section 106 of. the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that
the following site is not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion D:
31 OR561
This Late ~yloodland, limited activity site contains few artifacts and retains no subsurface integrity.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We concur with Dr.
Glover's recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted for this project as
presently proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preser~ ation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Gerold Glover, NCDOT
Location
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC
www.h po.dcr.state.nc.us
Mailing Address
4617 Mail Service Centet, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-4617
Telephooe/Fax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
[phone].715-4801

( t .
Natural Resources Technical Report
Replacement of Bridge No. 108 on SR 1730
Over New Hope C ree k
Orange County, North Carolina
State Project No. 8.2502301
TIP Project No. B-4218
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
February 2003

EXECUTIVE SUNIMARY
B-4218
ORANGE COUNTY
Proposed replacement of Bridge No.108 on Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) over New Hope Creek
in Orange County.
INTRODUCTION
The proposed project, Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) No. B-4218, will replace Bridge
No.108 on Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) over New Hope Creek in Orange County, North
Carolina. The bridge, constructed in 1953, is currently in poor condition and in need of
replacement. The replacement is intended to provide a safer bridge structure consistent with
federal and state bridge standards.
The proposed project is situated in the central portion of the Piedmont physiographic province.
The geography consists predominantly of gently sloping uplands and broad, nearly level
floodplains along most streams. The elevation of the project study area is approximately 450 feet
(137 meters) above Mean Sea Level (MSL). The land uses surrounding and within the project
study area mainly agriculture and foiestry with some low-density residential development.
Alluvial forests dominate the floodplain along New Hope Creek. Chewacla loam soils, located
along the floodplain of New Hope Creek, are classified as hydric.
PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Water Resources
The proposed project is situated in NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-06-OS and the Hydrologic Unit Code
(HUC) is 03030002 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The project study area contains approximately
1,183 linear feet of New Hope Creek and approximately 864 linear feet of an unnamed tributary
of New Hope Creek. New Hope Creek is a perennial stream that meanders through the project
study area flowing northwest to southeast underneath the bridge proposed for replacement. A
perennial unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek crosses underneath SR 1730 via a culvert
crossing, approximately 1,300 feet north/northeast of the existing bridge.
The best usage classification of New Hope Creek is class "C-NSW" waters. No High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
-i-

r
within the project vicinity. The reach of New Hope Creek located within the project study area is
not listed on the DWQ 2000 Draft 303 (d) list of impaired waters.
Biotic Resources
Three plant communities were observed in the project study area: piedmont alluvial forest, mesic
mixed hardwood forest, and fallow field. Design alternatives have yet to be identified for this
project, therefore, no estimated area of impact to these natural communities has been calculated at
this time. The following table describes the acreage of plant communities within the project
study area; however, actual impact acreage within the construction limits will be less.
Land Use within the Project Study Area.
Community Type Acres (Hectares) Percentage of Project Study Area
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 9.3 (3.8) 31%
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 19.6 (8.0) 66%
Fallow Field 1.0 (0.4) 3%
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Surface Waters and Wetlands
New Hope Creek and its unnamed tributary are jurisdictional surface waters under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (CWA). Three jurisdictional wetlands were identified within the project
study area. Since no alternatives have been selected, specific impacts to "Waters of the United
States" cannot by determined. However, some impacts to New Hope Creek ,the UT to New
Hope Creek, and Wetland 3 could be anticipated for the proposed project. Wetland 1 and 2 are
located along the northwestern edge of the project study area and could possibly be avoided. The
following table describes the acreage of the wetlands and linear footage of the streams located
within the project study area; however, actual impacts within the construction limits will be less.
-n-

Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams. within the Project Study Area.
Jurisdictional Wetland/Stream Potential Impact Amount
Wetland 1 0.16 Acres (0.1 hectare)
Wetland 2 0.02 Acres (0.01 hectare)
Wetland 3 0.09 Acres (0.04 hectare)
New Hope Creek 1,183 Linear feet (361 meters)
LJT New Hope Creek 864 Linear feet (263 meters)
All spans over New Hope Creek may be considered potential fill except for steeUtimber
structures. The superstructure is timber deck on I-beams with steel girders and a floor beam
system. The substructure is timber caps and piles with interior bents of encased concrete. It is
not known at this time if the superstructure and substructure of bridge No.108 are to be removed.
Removal of the superstructure and substructure may cause fill.
Currently, the only buffer regulations in the Cape Fear River Basin apply to the Randleman
Reservoir (15A NCAC 2B .0250 -Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements).
New Hope Creek is not located within the Randleman Reservoir watershed, therefore, no buffer
rules exist at this time for New Hope Creek and its associated tributaries.
New Hope Creek is not classified as C-Tr (Trout) and Orange County is not one of the 25
mountain counties designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (NCWRC)
as containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs).
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), New Hope Creek
supports a significant sunfish population and a moratorium on in-stream work from April 1 to
June 15 will be required (2/19/03 memorandum from Shari Bryant, NCWRC fisheries biologist -
Appendix E).
The following issues do not apply to the proposed project:
• Anadromous fish moratorium
• Trout moratorium
• 303(d) impaired waters
• Essential Fish Habitat
• High Quality Waters/ Outstanding Resource Waters
• Buffer rules
-iii-

Permits
In accordance with the Federal Register (January 15, 2002), Part II, Volume 67, Number 10, the
project will likely require authorization under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit #23 (Approved
Categorical Exclusions). A Nationwide Permit # 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction access if that is not addressed in the
NEPA document. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until a design alternative is
selected.
Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications for NWP #23 and #33 are No. 3361 and 3366,
respectively. Written concurrence from the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ) is not
required provided all standard conditions of these Certifications .are met. Final determination of
permit applicability lies with USAGE.. NCDOT will coordinate with the USAGE after the
completion of final design to obtain the necessary permits.
Mitigation
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, mitigation will be required for
impacts to jurisdictional streams requiring mitigation when these impacts are equal to or greater
than 150 linear feet per stream. In addition, mitigation may be required for wetland impacts
exceeding 0.10 acre. At this time, no design alternatives have been selected; however, once an
alternative and right-of-way widths are established, specific impact calculations to wetlands and
streams can be determined and mitigation requirement can be further evaluated.
It is anticipated that the bridge replacement over New Hope Creek will likely impact less than
1501inear feet of stream. Avoidance altematives will need to be evaluated to avoid or minimize
parallel encroachments into the portion of New Hope Creek located near the southern portion of
the project study area. Avoidance alternatives will also need to be evaluated to-avoid or minizime
a potential parallel encroachments into the unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek in the northern
portion of the project study area. Wetlands 1 and 2 are located near the northwestern edge of the
project study area and could likely be avoided. Wetland 3 is located adjacent to SR 1730 in the
northern portion of the project study area and avoidance of this area may not be feasible.
However, the total acreage of Wetland 3 is less than the 0.10 mitigation threshold. Therefore,
avoidance altematives could possibly alleviate stream and wetland mitigation requirements.
However, final permitlmitigation decisions will be determined by the USAGE.
-tv-

e t;
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) aze protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. According to the January 29, 2003 USFWS Internet listing, there are four
federally-protected species for Orange County. The red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides.
borealis), dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii), and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) are listed as endangered. Endangered species are in
danger of extinction within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their
range. The small-whorled pogonia (Isotria medeoloides) is listed as threatened. Threatened
species are likely to become endangered in the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of their range.
Red-Cockaded Woodpecker
The listing for red-cockaded woodpecker in Orange County is based upon an obscure
record. The date and/or location of the observation of this species is uncertain. No
individual red-cockaded woodpeckers or cavity trees were observed within the project
study area or on adjacent properties. Within the project site and adjacent area no large
tracts of mature pine trees were present. The hazdwood/pine forest had a tall dense
understory that would discourage foraging activity of red-cockaded woodpeckers.
Therefore, there is no suitable habitat in the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Affect
Dwarf Wedge Mussel
The dwarf wedge mussel inhabits stream and river areas with a slow to moderate current
with a sand, gravel or muddy substrate. These areas must be nearly silt free.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
New Hope Creek provides suitable habitat for this species. Surveys for this species need
to occur within the two year window prior to bridge replacement to determine the
presence or absence of the mussel within the project study area.
-v-

Michaux's Sumac
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils.
This plant survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open
area such as highway right-of-ways and areas with periodic fires.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for this species exists, within the project study area along the existing
road right-of-way and along a utility line corridor. Surveys for this species need to be
conducted when the plant has its foliage (April to November).
Small Whorled Pogonia
Habitat for the small-whorled pogonia is open, dry, deciduous woods with acidic soil.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Habitat for this species does occur within the project study area. Surveys for this species
need to be conducted during the plants flowering season (mid-May to mid-June).
Smooth Coneflower
The listing of the smooth Coneflower in Orange County is based upon a historic record.
The species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago. The habitat of the
smooth Coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and powerline right-of-ways. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight
and minimal competition in the herbaceous layer.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat exists along the power line right-of-way and the maintained road
shoulder. Surveys should be conducted in mid-May to July.
CONCLUSIONS
The project study area contains approximately 1,183 linear feet of New Hope Creek and
approximately 8641inear feet of an unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek. The best usage
classification of New Hope Creek and its associated tributary is class "C-NSW" waters. No
-vi-

High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within the project vicinity. New Hope Creek is not listed on the DWQ 2000 Draft
303(d) list of impaired waters. No buffer rules exist at this time for Jordan Creek and its
associated tributaries. Because of the sunfish population within New Hope Creek, a warm water
fish moratorium on in-stream work will apply form April 1 to June 15.
New Hope Creek does not support trout or ~nadromous fish species and is not designated as
essential fish habitat. Three jurisdictional wetlands are located in the project study area. Wetland
impacts could exceed 0.10 acre and may require mitigation. Stream impacts equal to or
exceeding 150 linear feet per stream will require mitigation. It is not anticipated that the
proposed bridge replacement would impact 1501inear feet of New Hope Creek, however,
portions of New Hope Creek that meander into the southern portion of the project study area
parallel SR 1730 for approximately 200 feet. The UT of New Hope Creek i.s-located in the
northern portion of the project study area and parallels SR 1730 for approximately 400 feet.
There are five federally protected species for Orange County, four of which carry an Unresolved
Biological Conclusion. Surveys for dwarf wedge mussels should be conducted within two years
prior to construction. Surveys for Michaux's sumac need to be conducted when the plant has its
foliage (April to November). Surveys for small-whorled pogonia need to be conducted during the
plants flowering season (mid-May to mid-June). Surveys for smooth coneflower should be
conducted in mid-May to July.
-vii-

! t
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ..............................................................................:................................t
1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................. 2
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................................... 3
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigators ................................................................................................. 4
2.0 Physical Resources ...........................................................................................................:............................ 4
2.1 Geology ................................................................................................................................................... 5
2.2 Soils ........................................................................................................................................................ 5
2.3 Water Resources ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Point and Non-point Source Discharges ................................................................................ 8
2.4 Physical Resources Impacts .................................................................................................................... 9
3.0 Biotic Resources ............................................................................................................................................ 9
3.1 Plant Communities ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.1.1 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ................................................................................9
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest .....................:.................................................10
3.1.3 Fallow Field .............................................................................................10
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife ................................................................................................................................ 11
3.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife ..............................................................................:................................ 12
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts .....:................................................................................................................. 12
4.0 Waters of the United States ......................................................................................................................... 13
4.1 Surface Waters ...................................................................................................................................... 14
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands ......................................................................................................................... 14
4.3 Wetland Functional Assessment ....................................................................:...................................... 15
4.4 Impacts to Waters of the United States ................................................................................................. 15
4.5 Permit Requirements ............................................................................................................................. 15
4.6 Mitigation .............................................................................................................................................. 16
4.7 Bridge Demolition into Waters of the United States ............................................................................. 17
4.8 Buffer Rules .......................................................................................................................................... 18
5.0 Rare and Protected Species ......................................................................................................................... 18
5.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................................................. 18
5.2 Federal Species of Concern ................................................................................................................... 21
6.0 Conclusions ................................................................................................................................................. 22
7.0 References ........................................................................................................ .........24
FIGURES Following Page
1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................. ...........1
2. Vegetative Communities and Land Use .........................................................,........ .........10
3. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams within the Project Study Area ................................. .........14
TABLES
1. Land Use within the Project Study Area ................................................................. .........10
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams within the Project Study Area .......:......................... .........15
3. Federally Endangered and Threatened Species Listed for Orange County, North Carolina ....... .........19
4. Federal Species of Concern Listed for Orange County, North Carolina ............................. .........21
APPENDICES
A. Site Photographs
B. North Carolina. Division of Water Quality Stream Classification Forms
C. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Data Forms
D. Division of Water Quality Wetland Rating Worksheet
E. North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Correspondence
-1-

1.0 Introduction
Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) has been retained by the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) to complete natural resources investigations associated with the replacement
of Bridge No. 108 over New Hope Creek in Orange County, North Carolina. The following Natural
Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of the Categorical Exclusion (CE)
for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project, Transportation Improvement Project (TIP) No. B-4218, will replace Bridge No.
108 on Turkey Farm Road (SR 1730) over New Hope Creek in Orange County, North Carolina
(Figure 1). The bridge, built in 1953, is currently in poor condition and in need of replacement. The
replacement is intended to provide a safer bridge structure consistent with federal and state bridge
standards. Photographs of the project study area are included in Appendix A.
For the purposes of this report, the following terminology is used define the limits of the natural
resource mvestigattons.
Project study area -denotes the area bound by the proposed right-of-way limits along the full length
of the project alignment. No alternatives for the proposed project have been defined, therefore, the
project study area is comprised of an area approximately 2,867 feet (874 meters) long and 500 feet
(152 meters) wide consisting of nearly 30 acres (12 hectares). Approximately 1,183 linear feet of
New Hope Creek is located within the project study area.
Project vicinity- denotes an area extending 0.5 miles (0.8 kilometers) on all sides of the project study
area.
Project region - is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the
project study area occupying the central portion.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, describe, and quantify the natural systems
within the project study area. Specifically, the evaluations conducted for this study include: 1) an
assessment of physical resources, including geology, soils,-and water resources; 2) an assessment of
biotic resources including plant communities, aquatic habitats, terrestrial wildlife and aquatic species;
-2-

i E k~. .~ I P '~ r 'i r - s~' 4' i ' _'h '.

5 t~ ~ ~-~ :d ~ '. I ;F ~ I ''~ I r - ~' w ~ ~ '. .a -

~~M1 ~" ~ I ~', f ,,.+~ I ~ L_ ~ ~~~ I i 1 ~
~ ~ ~ t 7 J- .'ti ~4t = I ~ 4 ~ I t _ ~ 1=gc.`
~~
.
I I _ - k ~.
_ `F r
~'~. '~ ~,. ~i.~~ ~. f ~I II ~, I~ ~ (~ _ ~' z ~I. oU~ hl r I~ y 3~ ~~ ~
1j~~' ~ ~ - \ t ~ E N4i:1{iAltl .h fJr.17F
A
k~~ 1 .
f a S
,rC ~l.i ffII ._..-'~,
~ J
~l
,
*~
J f _
I l5
~
t~l
~
~~
~
~
~
`~
i
I
4
I
h r
~~
~~
~
p
~
/3QQ
5 r~ Y .!~
+ t
f" 7
-..~- f
1.{ f
tiff'
Tn
I Y i
-
_
~S
n, II ..~~'~ 1~T J~~ ..~-' Ili ~ ~~ "! 1' :5 11 - ~Ik [. ~V S I ~ TJl ft ~:
l
}
` i ~ ~ i~~~
~~I '$1~ f1 ~5 ,._` d'}I lj ~ .~+~ ~ * f •r ~ --vim t~kti k hx ~
-
I ~ ~ ! ~1~1~~ 7 ~~ 5 M~ ~ ~ L ~- ~ 1
Y S k 11r q
~
, 1 i lif
~l ~ ~~ I~~- I ~~ _, 1.'{. ~`~ _ ~ -
'I~ d~J I E
( 1
d[p
,~J
~

h I ~ ~ _: 45 d _ _ / i
1 If. L
: „
Y i~ _.. f y R~~1 ~
1
~
..
1 R ~ ~ d r F. Y,~~.~ r_ E I I
x a ~ ~`,, 3 ~_ ,o f~ ~ ~ '''-
L V ~ 5r.ti ~ ~
t. 2 _ f~ _ ~ p4,'~. i 'ti ~ 5[fd~iy ~" -4 _'4tJ{f ~ i,~?~Y ~ 1 1 _''"f u
r~
J ,' y~.y_.'-a-•-r~ ~ dti . ->i ~ I _ n ~ r I f t t 1 ~. r ~ t ~~. ~ ~~
I ~ I 1- ^t ° t ~ ~ t
Tr-- i~ ~r ~I ~ ~~, t I ~~ ' ~ r ~ 1 I i~y ~< ~ rt`
s 9fi. ~ % ~-' ICI ~~~~~ r f ~' r~ •;.Y ~ I I ~~~~ ~~ ~ I - ~ {, °~.,.~-~ -.) d ~'~ „TI~

! 7 7
- I .., -- r I _ -
.rs~ y~F ~ ~ - y i ~ i+ (•~ ~.-`' ~1 ~f~ ~~ 4 i " ~ ,~~ ! _ + 1 yr r ~ Yr 1 I 1 ky y.~,,,_t I 1.1 I ~ I f
w ~ ~ _ ~ rl s k..
p
""'+~.r"°f
.i
k
~ 9 1 I I ~ ~~~.
t 'h4~ ~ ~ ''' f "
~'' ~~ 4
'~
`
~
~`
'
i
_
[
I
3 i.~
,~-
~
' h i ~ I ~ f { ~- 1 ^ _ h _9Z4 ri I i'F r'"`i ~~ ~ ~~f fi 4x(~d~Hy ~ l I.. tl II I~.
s p A _
9 I'
n
R
{
~t I h ~ ,~c 4 1-R ~' ~d ~ ~ ,e f ti 4 CCHH b s y',a r 1 I n ~ , "~I , ,~1 , .
~J I L -~ x ~ ~' k f
3( f .n' ) ~,~a ~~, 17~~.''"^ .~'~p I ''1 ~~7° .~. r s I Il 1 'r~,n ~~'~'~~ II J f 1 ~ r3 Y ~ •I>,
'~" r
_
{ ~
~t I
~~ ~
~
~
~~
~
~~
~
`
_
~
s
.
'
_ r ~ ~
~ iVl v - i
k5'
k
''1 ?-
I
-'o.~ ~ ~ +/ _
-~ 111 ~ ~jfll ~.. r ~ ~ il:_ r o k ~ ~ Y Y1 N I i ~~ I :
I '~~
~~
~
.
,
II _
' ~ , h
w"~y
.
l~
~ J N
'{~t
`
r ^'+
~`Y4
t
+
9 ~ '
,/•I,jJ
~ ~ `SC=G }
~'4d
~
~
a
el
.:
`
q
-
~~
~
~
.
~ ` ,<
Y-.
4h
t I
y k
lk :~Y,
¢
~,~P
f f .
J~' ill FA~,,."55
~ ^~M~~S ~ ~ 'il• ~~ - ( ~ ~ ~h ~~~ 'C~ v.,(,~ tii ~a5, ~1~ ~~ ~'if `. ~+.3}
,~
y
13~'y' ~ F ~~ ti
i'1~~~ I
'
r
~~
~ ~+
~'
,
~
~ r ~
~ .
v,
bf
,
~
~
~' ~~'- R tiT1;Jli ,III ~,~ ~ ~ I
~I I ~r1 -, ~{ Imo...,- ~- '-~<.. I-- I'~P~~ I ~~Q ~. ~Ipr ±~J ~ ~Y ~M ~''~ t~ ~,. ..
~~
~f ~~ -~ .~~(~ii4- I P"~ ". '~. 'y I ~.•~ ~ •.- 4 ~~'T ~ ~~ ~ i I I I '14 II ~~IV ,rlh h ~ E '~. ~ "~ ~ ~ "`.- I
~~N ~~ -r k~. d '~ _ ~ 1 I ~.II ~+r4~d+ ~_ :ff I
~W a'!
~
'
~
4
~
~
`
v.
y +
^y
~~
~4 I ~ ti_f
:,~
,t~~y,))[jj,~,,~~~III N44Ny,~
J J'AI.4;I~
ytk~~{,r,.y}! 4tL!RI
~~~~ .~ ~ iV l• ~." ~ '~
1$''. ~~ ~ ~~'~r~~'a'.~.= I '~~ i ~~ I ! ~ `~~'
i
I
J
~li
E
~
I
J
.: f
l
l a I,
E ~
r ~ ~
r'_'a~.,y ~'~ " -g
ti~ r: y ~ I
ti .{ ~ ~ ~ ~ uBisgr 1t6"~ Y' I iGin1A'It ".°_`` ~,~, ~ .^ ~
~ `- F I .._""'.• Fes: J _ ` E d- I R ~ ~~3 ~ ._ hi
~
A '
1
f
~'
~
~
/
~
~
~
_^
~
',
7 ~.~~ ~ i
'
I ~..-=.L-~. Ill
I
, -
,~
~
r
k
~I.~ / i
~.t
j
I -
s P Y j I

Legend ~

Project Study Area
0 ,~

. ~ ~.
~ ~ ~ ° t
1 ~ u
F

N I k h1jA as
t ~ ~ ~Yt ~ ~ ~'-~ 1 '.
~
,
~ `'
~
~
,}
~'
~r~i ,
~
, ~.
`
` ~ L
~~~
W E I
~
k
,~ _
I
S ~
~ ,~- ~:~ 5 ,~
~- ~ r:>:

0 2,000 4,00
Feet
Title Vicinity Map (USGS Quad Chapel Hill, North Carolina 1981)
Prepared For: Project Study Area
^-~
~ 4•~ MORTN CMU
`~ Project T.I.P. No. B-4218 Replacement of Bridge #108 on SR 1730
Oran e Coun ,North Carolina
Kimley-Horn
and Associates
inc.
~
q
Date:
Scale:
Project No.
Figure:
, 9
~`~"r a ~,~+•~ 2/25/03 1 in. = 2,000 ft. 011700019 1

3) an evaluation of waters of the U.S. including surface waters and wetlands, along with a preliminary
discussion of Section 404/401 permit requirements and conceptual mitigation needs; 4) an assessment
of rare and protected species habitat; 5) mapping of natural resource features, including plant
communities, jurisdictional surface waters and wetlands, and potential habitat for federally protected
species; and 6) an evaluation of potential impacts resulting from construction, as well as
recommendations for measure which may minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are based on the existing project study area. If the criteria change,
additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.3 Methodology
Qualified biologists from KHA and Edwards-Pitman Environmental, Inc. conducted field
investigations along the project study area during the month of January 2003. Pedestrian surveys were
undertaken to determine natural resource conditions and to document natural communities, wildlife,
and the presence of protected species or their habitats.
Published information regarding the project study area and region was derived from a number of
sources including: USGS 7.5-minute topographical quadrangle map (Chapel Hill, North Carolina),
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFW) database reviews, National Wetland Inventory
(NWI) Map, NCDOT aerial photography (1" = 200'), and Natural Resources Conservation Service
(NRCS) soil survey mapping of Orange County.
Surface waters within the project study area were evaluated in the field to document their physical
characteristics and jurisdictional status. The top of bank and/or centerline of streams, depending on
channel widths, were surveyed and recorded in the field using Global Positioning Satellite (GPS)
survey methods. Water resources information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Division of Water Quality (DENR-DWQ).
Approximate boundaries of plant communities were mapped in the field utilizing aerial photography
of the project study area. Dominant plant species were identified in each strata for each plant
community.. Plant community descriptions are based on the classifications utilized by Schafale and
Weakly (1990). Plant names follow the nomenclature found in Radford et cal. (1968).
Wildlife occurrences were determined through visual field observations, evaluation of habitat-types
within the project study area, secondary indicators of species (tracks, scat, and burrows); as well as a
review of supporting literature (Coe, 1994, Martof, et al 1980, and Webster, 1985). Field observations
and literature reviews (Bogan, 2002, Jenkins and Burkhead, 1993) were utilized to assess aquatic life.
-3-

Information concerning the potential occurrence of federal and state protected species within the
project study area and project vicinity was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
list of protected species (updated January 29, 2003) and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database of rare species and unique habitats (updated July, 2002). Field evaluations of the
project study area were conducted to identify suitable habitat for protected species. If suitable habitat
was identified, field surveys were conducted for Federally listed endangered or threatened species if
the field investigation corresponded to the appropriate survey season for the species.
Jurisdictional wetlands were identified and delineated based upon the methodology outlined in the
1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Wetland
systems were classified based upon the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States (Cowardin, et al., 1979). Wetland boundaries were located in
the field using GPS methods with sub-meter accuracy.
I.4 Qccalifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Norton Webster, Environmental Scientist
Education: BS, Business, Wake Forest University
MS, Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience: Kimley-Hom and Associates, Inc., December 2000 to present
Environmental Scientist, ARCADIS, Inc.
June 1997 to December 2000
Expertise: WetlandlStream Delineation, Permitting, Threatened and Endangered Species
Surveys
Investigator: Rick Filer, Project Ecologist
Education: BS, Biology, Kennesaw State University
Experience: Edwards-Pitman Environmental, March 2001 to present
Environmental Scientist, Environmental Aspecs of Georgia
September 1999 to March 2001
Expertise: Wetland/Stream Delineation, Permitting, Threatened and Endangered Species
Surveys
2.0 Physical Resources
Orange County is situated in the central portion of the Piedmont physiographic province. The
geography of the county consists predominantly of gently sloping uplands and broad, nearly level
-4-

floodplains along most streams. The elevation of the project study area is approximately 450 feet (137
meters) above Mean Sea Level (MSL) as depicted on the Chapel Hill, North Carolina, USGS
topographic quadrangle map (Figure 1). The land uses surrounding and within the project study area
mainly agriculture and forestry with some low-density residential development.
2.1 Geology
The geologic features underlying the project study area are associated with the Carolina slate belt,
specifically, felsic metavolcanic rock. The rock is metamorphosed dacitic to rhyolitic flows and tuffs,
light gray to greenish gray with interbedded with mafic and intermediate metavolcanic rock, meta-
argillite, and metamudstone (North Carolina Geological Society, 1985).
2.2 Soils
Soil associations are classified as a group of defined and named taxonomic soil units occurring
together in an individual and characteristic pattern over a general region. The soils within an
association generally vary in depth, slope, stoniness, drainage, and other characteristics. Based on
information contained in the soil survey data for Orange County, the soils within the project study area
are composed of five soil series.
Congaree fcne sandy loam (Cp)
This nearly level, well-drained soil is found on narrow floodplain bands parallel to streams. Typically,
the surface soil is a brown fine sandy loam and the subsoil is a yellowish brown sandy loam. The
organic matter content of the surface layer is low. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity
is high, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet and the
seasonal high water table is 2.5-4 feet in late winter and early spring.
Chewacla loam (Ch)
This nearly level, somewhat poorly drained soil is found on long flat floodplains parallel to major
streams. Typically, the surface soil is a dark brown loam and the subsoil is yellowish brown sandy
clay loam to a pale brown. The organic matter content of the surface layer is low. Permeability is
moderate, available water capacity is medium, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The depth to
bedrock is greater than 5 feet and the seasonal high water table is 6-8 inches during late winter and
early spring.
Georgeville silt loam (GeC) 2-6 % slopes
This well-drained soil is found on broad ridges in upland areas. Typically, the surface soil is yellowish
red silt loam and the subsoil is a mottled red clay loam. The organic matter content of the surface layer
-5-

is low. Permeability is moderate, available water capacity is high, and the shrink-swell potential is
low. The depth to bedrock is greater than 5 feet and the seasonal high water table is below 6 feet.
Goldston slaty silt loam (GiF) I5-45 % slopes
This well drained soil, is found on side slopes adjacent to major drainageways and broad ridges in
upland areas. Typically, the surface soil is a pale brown silt loam and the subsoil is a yellowish brown
to a strong brown silt loam. The organic matter content of the surface layer is low. Permeability is
moderately rapid, available water capacity is low, and the shrink-swell potential is low. The depth to
bedrock is 20-40 inches and the seasonal high water table is. below 6 feet.
TatLlm silt loam (TaD) 8-25 % slopes
This well-drained soil is found on side slopes in upland areas. Typically, the surface soil is a strong
brown silt loam and the subsoil is in the upper part a red silty clay and a red silty clay loam in the
lower extent. The organic matter content of the surface layer is low. Permeability is moderate,
available water capacity is low, and the shrink-swell potential is moderate. The depth to bedrock is 40-
60 inches and the seasonal high water table is 4-6 feet.
The NRCS defines a hydric soil as one that is saturated, flooded, or porided long enough during the
growing season. to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part of the soil. Such soils usually
support hydrophytic vegetation. Based on information obtained from the Orange County soil survey,
Congaree, Georgeville, Goldston, and Tatum are not classified as hydric and do not contain hydric
inclusions. Chewacla is classified as a hydric soil.
2.3 Water Resources
Streams, creeks, and tributaries within the project vicinity are part of the Haw River-watershed in the
Cape Fear River Basin. The Cape Fear River basin is the largest river basin in the state covering
9,149 square miles in twenty-four counties. The Cape Fear River is formed by the confluence of the
Deep and Haw Rivers.
New Hope Creek and an unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek represent the surface waters in the
project study area. The project-is located approximately one mile north of Chapel Hill. It is situated
in NCDWQ Sub-basin 03-06-OS and the Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC) is 03030002. The project
study area contains approximately 1,183 linear feet of New Hope Creek and approximately 8641inear
feet of an unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek.
-6-

New Hope Creek is a perennial stream that meanders through the project study area flowing northwest
to southeast underneath the bridge proposed for replacement. The top of bank width is approximately
50 to 75 feet wide with an average wetted width of 50 feet. One to three feet of slow to fast flowing
water was observed within the channel during the site visit. Conditions within the channel varied due
to the long distance of the channel. New Hope Creek has a bankfull depth of 5.5 feet throughout the
project study area. The 3 to 10 feet tall stream banks appeared stable. The substrate consisted of
bedrock, cobble, gravel, and sand. The water was clear with moderate sediment deposition. The
channel exhibits strong geomorphologic features as well as excellent aquatic habitat. The stream
received a DWQ stream classification of 62. DWQ stream classification forms are contained in
Appendix B.
Based on Rosgen classification, New Hope Creek is an "F" channel. It is entrenched with a
meandering, riffle/pool channel on a low gradient with a high width depth ratio.
An unnamed tributary to New Hope Creek crosses undemeath SR 1730 approximately 1,300 feet
north/northeast of the existing bridge. The northwest to southeast flowing channel runs pazallel to SR
1730 for approximately 400 feet. The top of bank width is approximately 2 feet wide with a wetted
width of 1-foot. During the field review, 1 to 3 inches of moderately flowing water was observed in
the channel. The stream has a bankfull depth of 6 inches throughout the project study area. The
stream banks were stable. The substrate consisted of sand and silt with some gravel riffle sections.
The water was clear and had little to no sediment deposition. The tributary received a DWQ
classification of 40.75. Although the water levels observed in the channel during the non-growing
season (January) would indicate that the channel was likely intermittent, other primary field indicators
observed such as the channel geomorphology and biological indicators are characteristic of a~perennial
stream. The channel contained awell-defined bed and bank with riffle-pool sequences. Good aquatic
habitat was available including deep pools with exposed tree roots. KHA will schedule a field
verification meeting with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) and the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) to make a final jurisdictional determination for this tributary.
The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) classifies surface waters of the state based
on their intended best uses. New Hope Creek and its tributaries are classified as "C -NSW" waters.
Class C denotes waters suitable for all general uses including aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The supplemental classification, Nutrient
Sensitive Waters (NSW), denotes waters subject to growths of microscopic or macroscopic vegetation
requiring limitations on nutrient inputs.
-7-

No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within the project vicinity. Although downstream reaches of New Hope Creek are
listed on the DWQ 2000 Draft 303(d) list of impaired waters, the reach of New Hope Creek within the
project study area is not included on the 303(d) list.
New Hope Creek and its unnamed tributary are not classified as C-Tr (Trout) and Orange County is
not one of the 25 mountain counties designated by the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission
(NCWRC) as containing Mountain Trout Waters (MTWs). New Hope Creek does not support trout or
anadromous fish; however, it supports a significant sunfish population and a warm water fish
moratorium for in-stream work will be in effect from April 1 to June 15 (2/ 19/03 memorandum from
Shari Bryant, NCWRC fisheries biologist -Appendix E). No essential fish habitat has been
designated. for New Hope Creek.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water data. The
type of water quality data or parameters collected is determined by the waterbodies' classification and
corresponding water quality standards. The AMS determines the "use support" status of waterbodies,
meaning how well a waterbody supports its designated uses.
There are no AMS stations or benthic macroinvertebrate sampling locations within the project
vicinity.
2.3.1 Point and Non point Source Discharges
Point source dischargers are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program and are required to register for a permit. Based upon DWQ's database, there are
three NPDES permit locations within a half mile of the project study area. The three single family
domestic wastewater dischargers are listed as Daniel R. Dalcorso residential (NCG 550140), William
L. Triplett residential (NC0047601), and William Triplett residential (NCG 550143).
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters .through stormwater, snowmelt
or atmospheric deposition. Land use activities such as land development, construction, mining
operations, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads and parking
lots are contributors of non-point source pollutants. The land uses surrounding and within the project
study area are mainly agriculture and forestry with some residential development. Sediment is the
most widespread cause of non-point source pollution in North Carolina. In agriculture, sediment and
nutrients are major polluters. Land clearing and plowing disturbs soils to a degree where they are
-8-

susceptible to erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers,
and ]and application of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to receiving streams and
potentially elevate concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a
source of bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand.
2.4 Physical Resources Impacts
The proposed project is expected to impact both soils and topography. The topography is gently
sloping. The possible construction of a new bridge and/or road improvements is likely to require the
removal of soils and the placement of fill. No adverse long-term impacts to soils and topography are
expected from the proposed bridge replacement.
The primary sources of water-quality degradation in rural areas are nonpoint-source discharges and
storm water runoff. Precautions should be taken to minimize impacts to water sources in the project
vicinity. Aquatic organisms are very sensitive to discharges and inputs from construction.
Appropriate measures must be taken to avoid petroleum spillage and control runoff. Potential impacts
associated with construction of the proposed project include the following: increased sedimentation
resulting from the clearing of streams and in-stream construction activities, soil compaction, loss of
shading due to vegetation removal, and fertilizers and pesticides used in revegetation. ,Measures to
minimize these potential impacts include formulation of an erosion and sedimentation control plan,
provision for waste material and.storage, stormwater management measures, and appropriate road-
maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters
(BMPs-PSW) and Sedimentation Control guidelines should be strictly enforced during the
construction stages of the project. Limiting in-stream activities and revegetating stream banks
immediately following the completion of grading can further reduce impacts. No adverse long-term
impacts to water resources are expected to result from the proposed bridge replacement.
3.0 Biotic Resources
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife that occur within the project
study area. The project study area is composed of three different vegetative communities based on
topography, soils, hydrology, and disturbance. These systems are interrelated and in many aspects
interdependent. Potential impacts affecting these communities are also discussed. Scientific
nomenclature and common name (when applicable) are provided for each plant and animal species
listed. Subsequent references to the same organism only include the common name.
-9-

3.1 Plant Commtcnities
Three plant communities were observed in the project study area: piedmont alluvial forest, mesic
mixed hardwood forest, and fallow field. These plant communities are mapped on Figure 2 and are
quantified in Table 1.
Table 1. Land Uses within the Project Study Area.
Communit T e Acres (Hectares) Percenta a of Project Stud Area
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 9.3 (3.8) 31%
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 19.6 (8.0) 66%
Fallow Field 1.0 (0.4) 3%
3.1.1 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The piedmont alluvial forest community is situated along the floodplain of the New Hope Creek. This
alluvial forest can best be characterized as a variation of the Piedmont Alluvial Forest (Schafale and
Weakly, 1990). Approximately 9.3 acres (3.8 hectares) of this community are located within the
project study area comprising 31% of the plant communities within the project study area. The
canopy was dominated by white oak (Quercus alba), tulip polar (Liriodendron tulipfera), red bud
(Cercis canadensis), sugar maple (Ater saccharum), American elm (Ulmus americana), sugarberry
(Celtis laevigata), and green ash (Frazinus pennsylvanica), with scattered black birch (Betula nigra),
bitternut hickory (Cnrya cardiformes), black walnut (Juglans nigra), and blackgum (Nyssa
sylvatica).
The understroy was dominated by flowering dogwood (Cornus Florida), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), winged elm (Ulmus alata), buckeye (Aesculus sp.),
viburnum (Viburnum sp.), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinese), and American beech (Fagus
grandifolia). Vines, herbs, and forbs included Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), wild onions (Album sp.), strawberry bush (Easonymus americanus),
muscadine (Vitis sp.), rattlesnake fern (Botychiumsp.), greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox and Smilax sp.),
blackbery (Rubus argutus), river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium), ginger (Hexastylis sp.), mulberry
(Morass rubra), American holly (Ilex opaca), multiflora rose (Rosa mcsltiflora), blackcherry (Prunsu
serotina), pawpaw (Asima triloba), crane-fly orchid (Tipularia discolor), and spicebush (Lindera
benzoin).
3.1.2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The mesic mixed hardwood community is located on the upland slopes and ridges. Approximately
19.6 acres (8.0 hectares) of this community are located within the project study area comprising 66%
of the plant communities within the project study area. This fragmented community was dominated
-10-

by shortleaf pine (Pinccs echinata), loblolly pine (Pines taeda), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), southern red
oak (Q. falcata), northern red oak (Q. rubra), American beech, shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), and
mockernut hickory (C. tomentosa). Herbs found on the forest floor included liverleaf (Hepatica sp.),
ebony spleenwort (Aspleniccm platyneuron), and Christmas fem.
3.L3 Fallow Field
The fallow field is located in association with asingle-family residence. Approximately 1.0 acre (0.4
hectares) of this community is located within the project study area comprising 3% of the plant
communities within the project study area. The field is dominated by fescue grass (Festuca spp.),
Bermuda grass (Cynadon dacrylon), multifora rose, iron weed (Vernonia sp.), trumpet vine (Campsis
radicans), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), royal paulownia (Paulownai tomentosa), and tree of
heaven (Ailanthus altissima).
3.2 Terrestrial Wildlife
The fallow field provides rich ecotones for foraging, while the alluvial and mesic mixed hardwood
forests provide foraging and cover. White-tailed deer (Odocoilieus virginianus) and raccoon (Procyon
ltor) tracks were observed along New Hope Creek. Gray squirrels (Sciurccs carolinensis) were seen
foraging in the forested stands. Evidence of past beaver foraging were observed within the alluvial
forest community.
Common mammals, which could be expected to utilize the project study area habitat, includes the
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), striped skunk (Mephitis mephitis), coyote (Canis latrans), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteccs) and various shrews, moles, bats, and mice.
Common birds, which could be expected to utilize the project study area habitat, includes the cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristnta), Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis),
mockingbird (Mimes polygottos), wild turkey (Melengris gallopavo), mourning dove (Zennida
macroura), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), robin (Turdus migratorius}, and Carolina wren
(Thryothorccs ludovicianus).
Common reptiles and amphibians, which could be expected to utilize the project area habitat, includes
eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), water snakes (Nerodia spp.), eastern box turtle
(Terrapene Carolina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciathus), toads (Bccfo spp.), leopard frogs (Rana
spp.), tree frogs (Hyla spp.), and salamanders (Ambystoma spp.).
-11-

3.3 Aquatic Habitats and Wildlife
New Hope Creek provides excellent aquatic habitat within the project study area. The physical
characteristics (size and water quality) of the stream, as well as the adjacent terrestrial community,
directly influence faunal composition of this aquatic community. The quality of aquatic habitat at this
location is expected to be good due to a stable channel with a forested riparian buffer and minimal
sediment deposition. Woody debris located throughout the stream provides habitat, .shade, and
concealment pockets for several aquatic species. Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of
aquatic ecosystems, as primary and secondary consumers, as well as prey items for organisms higher
in the food chain.
Insects typically found in this type of community include Mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies
(Plecoptera), caddisflies (Tricoptera), dragonflies (Odonta sp.), aquatic beetles (Coleoptera), mosquito
larvae (Culicidae sp.) and midges (Chironomidae sp.). Mayflies and caddisflies were observed during
field review.
Fish species expected to occur within the project vicinity include bullhead catfish (Ameiurus spp.),
largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), sunfish (Lepomis spp.), chain pickerel (Esox niger), redfin
pickerel (E. americanus), and shiners (Notropis spp. and Cyprinella spp.).
Freshwater mussels that may occur include spike (Elliptio spp.), Carolina lance (E.angustata),
Carolina slabshell (E.congaraea) and pondhorn (Uniomerus sp.). Other species likely to be found
include snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), Eastern mud turtle (Kinosternon subrubrum), sliders
(Chrysemys scripta), and painted turtles (Chrysemys pitta).
3.4 Biotic Resource Impacts
Design alternatives have yet to be identified for this project, therefore no estimated area of impact to
these natural communities has been calculated at this time. Table 1 describes the acreage of plant
communities within the project study area; however, actual impact acreage within the construction
limits will be less. Impacts to plant communities associated with construction activities include the
removal of vegetation, soil compaction, damaging and/or exposing root systems, as well as potential
impacts associated with petroleum spills.
Due to the minimal disturbance of plant communities anticipated as a result of the bridge replacement,
significant impacts to terrestrial wildlife populations are not expected.
-12-

Loss of wildlife is an unavoidable aspect of development. Temporary fluctuations in populations of
animal species that utilize these communities are anticipated during the course of construction. Slow-
moving, burrowing, and/or subterranean organisms will be directly impacted by construction
activities, while mobile organisms will be displaced to adjacent communities. Competitive forces in
the adapted communities will result in a redefinition of population equilibria.
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment and environmental impacts
from construction activities may result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts usually associated
with in-stream construction include alterations to the substrate and impacts to adjacent streamside
vegetation. Such disturbance within the substrate lead to increased siltation, which can clog the gills
and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibian species. Siltation may also
cover benthic macroinvertebrates with excessive amounts of sediment that inhibit their ability to
obtain oxygen.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material during construction enhances
erosion and possible sedimentation. Quick revegetation of these areas helps to reduce the impacts by
supporting the underlying soils. Erosion and sedimentation may carry soils, toxic compounds, trash,
and other materials into the aquatic communities at the construction site. As a result, bars may form at
and downstream of the site. Increased light penetration from the removal of streamside vegetation
may increase water temperatures. Warmer water contains less oxygen, thus reducing aquatic life that
depends on high oxygen concentrations.
4.0 Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United
States." The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principle administrative agency
of the Clean Water Act; however, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) has the responsibility
for implementation, permitting, and enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The USACE regulatory
program is defined in 33 CFR 320-330.
Wetlands, streams, and open waters are regulated by the USACE pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act. The North Carolina DENR-DWQ also has regulatory input through Section 401 Water
Quality Certification. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or
saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdictional of the
USACE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344).
-13-

4.l Surface Waters
The DWQ defines a perennial stream as a clearly defined channel that contains water for the majority
of the year. These channels usually have some or all of the following characteristics: distinctive
streambed and bank, aquatic life, and groundwater flow or discharge. New Hope Creek and its
tributary were identified as perennial streams in the project study area. Detailed stream
characteristics, including specific water-quality designations, are present in Section 23 Water
Resources. DWQ stream data forms are contained in Appendix B.
4.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
The project study area was surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with guidelines for
wetland definition as given in the 1987 Corps of Engineers .Wetlands Delineation Manccal. This
approach incorporates three criteria in delineating wetlands: (1) the presence of hydrophytic
vegetation, (2) the presence of hydric soils, and (3) evidence of wetland hydrology. All three criteria
must be present in a given location for an area to be considered a jurisdictional wetland.
Three jurisdictional wetlands were associated with the project study area. One wetland is located
within the alluvial forest along the floodplain of New Hope Creek and the other two wetlands are
located within the mesic mired hardwood forest adjacent to the unnamed tributary of New Hope
Creek. The boundaries of each of these wetland locations was identified in the field and located using
GPS. The location of the wetlands is shown in Figure 3.
Wetland 1 is a forested wetland dominated by river birch, sweetgum, American elm, tulip poplar,
shortleaf pine, sphagnum moss (Sphagnum sp.), and Japanese honeysuckle. Ponded water and water
stained leaves were present. Based on the Cowardin classification, the wetland is' a Palustrine
Forested Broad Leaved Deciduous (PFO1). USACE data forms are contained in Appendix C.
Wetland 2 is dominated by green ash, American elm, sedges (Caret sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, tag
alder (Alnus serrulata), and rush (Juncus sp.). Ground water seepage and drainage patterns were
observed in this area. Based on the Cowardin classification, the wetland, dominated by trees, is also
classified as a PFOl. USACE data forms are contained in Appendix C.
Wetland 3 is a scrub-shrub wetland dominated by black willow (Salix nigra), green ash, and sedges.
It is located immediately downstream of a pond. Drainage patterns and water stained leaves were
evident along with ground water seepage flow. Based on the Cowardin classification, the wetland
dominated by trees is classified as a Palustrine Scrub-Shrub Broad Leaved Deciduous (PSS1).
USACE data forms are contained in Appendix C.
-14-

4:3 Wetland Functional Assessment
Wetland values for each area within the project study area were evaluated using the Fourth Version of
the Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. This procedure rates wetlands
according to six functional parameters: water storage, bank/shoreline stabilization, pollutant removal,
wildlife habitat, aquatic life value, and recreational/educational value. Each parameter is numerically
weighted to assess the water quality functions that the wetland system performs. The Wetland
Ranking scores for each wetland is listed in Appendix D.
Wetland 1 received a numerical ranking of 28 and. is considered a low quality wetland. Wetland 2
received a numerical ranking of 29 and is considered a low quality wetland. Wetland 3 received a
numerical ranking of 25 and is also considered a low quality wetland.
4.41mpacts to Waters of the United States
Since no alternatives have been selected, specific impacts to "Waters of the United States" cannot by
determined. However, some impacts to New Hope Creek, the UT to New Hope Creek,Wetland 1,
Wetland 2, and Wetland 3 could be anticipated for the proposed project. Table 2 quantifies the
acreage of the wetlands and linear footage of the streams located within the project study area;
however, actual impacts within the construction limits will be less.
Table 2. Jurisdictional Wetlands and Streams within the Project Study Area.
Jurisdictional Wetland/Stream Potential Im act Amount
Wetland 1 0.16 Acres (0.1 hectare)
Wetland 2 0.02 Acres (0.01 hectare)
Wetland 3 0.09 Acres (0.04 hectare)
New Ho e Creek 1,183 Linear feet (361 meters)
UT New Ho e Creek 864 Linear feet (263 meters)
4.5 Permit Requirements
Impacts to "Waters of the United States" come under the jurisdiction of the USACE. Permits will be
required for highway encroachment into jurisdictional wetlands and streams. The Nationwide Permit
#23 (Approved Categorical Exclusions) should cover the impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and
streams in the project study area. Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary Construction, Access, and
Dewatering) may be needed for temporary construction access if that is not addressed in the NEPA
document. A final permitting strategy cannot be developed until a design alternative is selected.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is also required for any activity which may result
in a discharge into "Waters of the United States" or for which an issuance of a federal permit is
required. The issuance of a required Section 401 certification is a prerequisite to the issuance of a
-15-

Section 404 permit. Section 401 General Water Quality Certifications for NWP #23 and #33 are No.
3361 and 3366, respectively. However, written concurrence from the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ) is not required provided all standard conditions of these Certifications are met.
Final determination of permit applicability lies with USACE.. NCDOT will coordinate with the
USACE after the completion of final design to obtain the necessary permits.
4.6 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a mitigation policy
which embraces the concepts of "no net loss of wetlands" and project 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 the CEQ to
include: avoidance of impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts
over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these aspects (avoidance,
minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered in sequential order.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOE) between the
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) and the USACE, 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 overall project purposes. Some unavoidable impacts to wetlands and surface waters may result
from project construction.
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, right-of-way widths, fill
slopes, and/or road shoulder widths. The following methods are suggested to minimize adverse
impacts to "Waters of the United States":
1. Strictly enforce Best Management Practices (BMP's) to control sedimentation during project
construction.
2. Clearing and grubbing activity should be minimized.
3. Reestablishment of vegetation on exposed areas with judicious pesticides and herbicide
management.
4. Minimization of "in-stream" activity.
-16-

5. Minimization of roadway footprint width.
6. Bridge lengthening in environmentally sensitive areas.
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "Waters of United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been required.. Compensatory actions
often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States", specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken. in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h) and 40 CFR 1508.20, mitigation will be required for
impacts to jurisdictional streams requiring mitigation when these impacts are equal to or greater than
1501inear feet per stream. In addition, mitigation may be required for wetland impacts exceeding
0.10 acre. At this time, no design alternatives have been selected; however, once alternative and right-
of-way widths are established; specific impact calculations for wetlands and streams can be
determined and mitigation requirement can be further evaluated.
It is anticipated that the bridge replacement over New Hope Creek will likely impact less than 150
linear feet of stream. ,Avoidance alternatives will need to be evaluated to avoid or minimize parallel
encroachments into New Hope Creek near the southern portion of the project study area as well as
potential parallel encroachments into the unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek in the northern
portion of the project study area. Wetlands 1 and 2 are located near the northwestern edge of the
project study area and likely could be avoided. Wetland 3 is located adjacent to SR 1730 in the
northern portion of the project study area and avoidance of this area may not be feasible. However,
the total acreage of Wetland 3 is less than the 0.10 mitigation threshold. Therefore, avoidance
alternatives could possibly alleviate stream and wetland mitigation requirements. However, final
permit/mitigation decisions will be determined by the USACE.
4.7 Bridge Demolition into Waters of the United States
The demolition and removal of bridge No. 108 may involve dropping components of the bridge into
New Hope Creek as the only practical means of removal. According to Section 402-2 of NCDOT's
Standard Specifications for Roads and Structures, the chapter titled "Removal of Existing Structures"
outlines restrictions and Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
-17-

All spans over New Hope Creek may be considered potential fill except for structures that are all steel
and timber. The superstructure is timber deck on I-beams with steel girders and a floor beam system.
The substructure is timber caps and piles with interior bents of encased concrete. It is not known at
this time if the superstructure and substructure of bridge No. 108 are to be removed. Removal of the
superstructure and substructure will likely not cause fill.
4.8 Buffer Rules
Currently, the only buffer regulations in the Cape Fear River Basin apply to the Randleman Reservoir
(15A NCAC 2B .0250 -Randleman Rules and Water Supply Buffer Requirements). New Hope
Creek is not located within the Randleman Reservoir watershed, therefore, no buffer rules exist at this
time for New Hope Creek and its associated tributary.
5.0 Rare and Protected Species
Federal law under the provisions of Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as
amended, requires that any action likely to adversely affect afederally-protected species, be subject to
review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Other species may warrant protection under separate
state laws.
5.1 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 ESA. According to the January 29, 2003 USFWS Internet listing, there are four
federally endangered and one federally threatened species listed for Orange County.
"Critical habitat," as defined in the Endangered Species Act (ESA), is a term for habitat given special
protection for the benefit of a listed species. Critical habitat, as defined by the USFWS is not
designated for any species listed in Orange County, North Carolina. In addition, according to North
Carolina's Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP's) database, no federally threatened, endangered, or
species of concern listed by the USFWS that have been documented within a 1-mile radius of the
proposed project corridor.
Field assessments were conducted for potential habitat by biologists with KHA and. EPEI in January
2003. The assessment included an evaluation of constraints to the presence of listed species within the
proposed project-study area.
-18-

Table 3. Federal Endangered and Threatened Species Listed for Orange County, North
Carolina.
Scientific Common Name Federal State Habitat Requirement Habitat
Name Status Status Present
Picoides Red-cockaded E** E Pine or pine hardwood forest N
borealis woodpecker 30+ years of age with sparse
understory
Alasmidonta Dwarf wedge E E Stream and river areas with a Y
heterodon mussel slow to moderate current with
a sand, gravel or muddy
substrate
Rhus Michaux's E E Sandy or rocky open woods in Y
michauxii sumac association with basic soils
Isotria Small-whorled T E Open, dry, deciduous woods Y
medeoloides ogonia with acid soil
Echinacea Smooth E* E Open woods, cedar.barrens, Y
laevigata coneflower roadsides, clearcuts
ivote: n-1!,naan~ered; 1-Threatened; *Htstoric Record- species last observed in county more than 20 years ago;
**Obscure Record- date and/or location of observation uncertain
Red Cockaded Woodpecker
Typically, red-cockaded woodpeckers (Picoides borealis) inhabit the Fall Line and Coastal Plain
communities dominated by large tracts (i.e. 25 acres+) of pine trees. Suitable red-cockaded
woodpecker foraging habitat includes pine or pine/hardwood stands 30 years of age or older. Nesting
occurs in stands of mature 60+ year old pine trees, usually longleaf pine (Pinus palustris), with a
sparsely vegetated under story less than 20 feet tall. Nesting occurs in live trees that are identifiable by
the fresh glistening sap that surrounds the nesting cavity.
The listing of the red-cockaded woodpecker in Orange County is based upon an obscure record. The
data and/or location of the observation of the species is uncertain. No individual red-cockaded
woodpeckers or cavity trees were observed within the project area or on adjacent properties. Within
the project site and adjacent area no large tracts of mature pine trees were present. The hardwood/pine
forest had a tall dense understory that would discourage foraging activity of red-cockaded
woodpeckers. Therefore, there is no suitable habitat in the project study area.
Biological Conclusion: No Affect
Dwarf Wedge Mussel
The dwarf wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon) reaches approximately 56 mm in length. Male
shells are ovate, compressed, and elongate, with female shells being more trapezoidal in shape and
inflated in the posterior margin. The shells typically have uneven growth lines with a periostracum
that varies from yellowish olive-brown to green to black and a bluish white nacre. The dwarf wedge
-19-

mussel inhabits stream and river areas with a slow to moderate current with a sand, gravel or muddy
substrate. These areas must be nearly silt free. In North. Carolina, this species is known to occur in the
Neuse and Pamlico basins. The dwarf wedge mussel is known to occur in four populations in North
Carolina: the Little River in Johnston County, the Tar River in Granville County, and two Tar River
tributaries in Franklin County.
Biological Conclusion:. Unresolved
New Hope Creek provides suitable habitat for this species. Surveys for this species need to occur to
determine the presence or absence of the mussel within the project study area.
Michaux's Sumac
Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems 1 to 3 feet in height. The shrub's compound
leaves are narrowly winged. at their base, dull on their tops, and veiny and slightly hairy on their
bottoms. Each leaf is finely toothed on its edges. Flowers are greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5
parted. Each plant is unisexual. With a male plant the flowers and fruits are solitary, with a female
plant all flowers are grouped in 3 to 5 stalked clusters. The plant flowers from April to June; its fruit, a
dull red drupe, is produced in October and November.
Michaux's sumac grows in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant
survives best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area such as highway
right-of-ways and areas with periodic fires.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat for this species exists within the project study area along the existing road right-
of-way and along a utility line corridor. Surveys for this species need to be conducted when the
plant has its foliage.
Small Whorled Pogonia
The small whorled pogonia is a perennial plant with- long, pubescent roots and a smooth, hollow stem.
A flower, or occasionally two flowers, is produced at the top of the stem. Flowering occurs from about
mid-May to mid-June, with flowers only lasting a few days to a week. This plant does not necessarily
flower annually and is known to have extended periods of dormancy. Typically, only one flower is
produced per plant. If pollination occurs, a capsule may be formed which can contain several thousand
minute seeds. The flower is believed to be self-pollinating by mechanical processes. This small spring
ephemeral orchid is not observable outside or the spring growing season. Habitat for the small-
whorled pogonia is open, dry, deciduous woods with acid soil.
-20-

Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Habitat for this species does occur within the project study area. Surveys for this species need to be
conducted during the plants flowering season (mid-May to mid-June).
Smooth coneflower
The listing of smooth coneflower in Orange County is based upon a historic record. The species was
last observed in Orange County more than 50 years ago. Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous
perennial herb that grows up to 1.5 meters tall from a vertical rootstock. The stems are smooth, with
few leaves. Flowering occurs-May through July and the rays of the flowers are light pink to purplish,
usually drooping.
Habitat for the smooth coneflower consists of open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry
limestone bluffs, and powerline right-of-ways, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils
associated with limestone (in Virginia), gabbro (in North Carolina and Virginia), diabase (in North
Carolina and South Carolina), and marble (in South Carolina and Georgia). Optimal sites are
characterized by abundant sunlight and minimal competition in the herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as
well as large herbivores, are part of the history of the vegetation in this species'- range; many of the
associated herbs are also cormophytic, sun-loving species, which depend on periodic disturbance to
reduce the shade and competition of woody plants.
Biological Conclusion: Unresolved
Suitable habitat exists along the power line right-of-way and the maintained road shoulder. Surveys
should be conducted in mid-May to July.
5.2 Federal Species of Concern
There are eleven federal species of concern listed by the USFWS for Orange County. Federal species
of concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Federal species of concern are defined as species under consideration for listing for
which there is insufficient information to support listing as threatened or endangered. The federal
status of these species may be upgraded in the future. Therefore, consideration should be given to
potential occurrences within the project study area.
In addition, species which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the NCNHP list of Rare Plant and Animal Species are afforded state protection under the NC State
Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. The NCNHP list
-21-

of July 2002 included these species and identified an additional 12 species receiving protection under
state law. Protections afforded to species listed under state law are not applicable to this project.
However, these state listed species may be upgraded to federal protection status in the future,
therefore, consideration should be given to potential occurrences within the project study area. Table
4 lists the federal species of concern, their state status, and the existence of suitable habitat within the
project study area.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern Listed for Orange County, North Carolina.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal State Habitat Habitat
Status Status Re uirements Available
Etheostoma Collis Carolina darter FSC SC Rivulets and creeks Yes
lepidinion with infrequent short
riffles
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse FSC N/L Riverine habitat No
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe FSC E Medium to large Yes
streams w/swift water
and sand/gravel
substrate
Alasmidonta Brook floater FSC E Medium streams/rivers Yes
heterodon w/swift water and
sand/gravel substrate
Diacyclops jeanneli Carolina well FSC* SR Endemic to North Yes
putei diacyclo s Carolina- little known
Lasmigona Green floater FSC E SmalUmedium streams Yes
subviridis w/quiet pools;
sand/ avel substrate
Toxolasma pullus Savanna lilliput FSC E Shallow water; sand, Yes
silty-sand or mud
substrate
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow FSC E Medium to large rivers No
lampmussel with substrates that
range from silt to
cobble
Juglans cinerea Butternut FSC N/L Cove forests and rich No
woods
Monotropsis odorata Sweet pinesap FSC SR-T Mixed deciduous Yes
woods
Plagiochila A liverwort FSC N/L Sandstone and bolders Yes
colccmbiana sub~ect to inundation
Desmodiccm Creamy tick- FSC` SR-T Sandy or rocky No
ochrolecccum trefoil woodland o enings
Pycnanthemum Torrey's FSC SR-T Dry upland forests and Yes
torrei mountain-mint woodlands
Note: FSC- Federal Species of Concern; E- Endangered; T- Threatened; SR- Significantly Rare;
SR-T- Significantly Rare Throughout Range; N/L -No Listing; * Historic Record -species last observed in
county more than 20 years ago.
~~

6.0 Conclusions
The project study area contains approximately 1,183 linear feet of New Hope Creek and
approximately 8641inear feet of an unnamed tributary of New Hope Creek. The best usage
classification of New Hope Creek and its tributary is class "C-NSW" waters. No High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within the project vicinity. New Hope Creek is not listed on the DWQ 2000 Draft 303(d) list of
impaired waters. No buffer rules exist at this time for New Hope Creek and its associated tributary.
New Hope Creek does not support trout or anadromous fish. New Hope Creek does support warm
water sunfish and will require an in-stream moratoriums from April 1 to June 15. Three jurisdictional
wetlands are located in the project study area. Wetland impacts could exceed 0.10 acre and may
require mitigation. Stream impacts equal to or exceeding 150 linear feet per stream will require
mitigation. It is not anticipated that the proposed bridge replacement would impact 150 linear feet of
New Hope Creek, however; a section of New Hope Creek meander into the southern portion of the
project study area and parallels SR 1730 for approximately 200 feet. The UT of New Hope Creek is
located in the northern portion of the project study area and parallels SR 1730 for approximately 400
feet.
There are five federally protected species for Orange County, four of which carry and Unresolved
Biological Conclusion. Surveys for dwarf wedge mussels should be conducted within two years prior
to construction. Surveys for Michaux's sumac need to be conducted when the plant has its foliage
(April to November). Surveys for small-whorled pogonia need to be conducted during the plants
flowering season (mid-May to mid-June). Surveys for smooth coneflower should be conducted in mid
May to July.
-23-

7.0 References
Bogan, A.E. 2002. Workbook and key to the freshwater bivalves of North Carolina. North Carolina
Museum of Natural Sciences, Raleigh, NC 101 pp, 10 color plates.
Brown, Kirkman 1990, 1993, 1996. Trees of Georgia and Adjacent States. Timber Press, Portland
Oregon. 292 pp, 80 color. plates.
Coe, James. 1994. A Guide to Field Identification of North American Species of Eastern Birds.
Golden Press, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V.Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe, 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitat of the United States. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development. 1985. Geologic Map of North
Carolina. 1:500,000 scale. Compiled by the North Carolina Geological Survey.
Godfrey, Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States Dicotyledons.
University of Georgia Press, Athens Georgia. 933 pp.
Godfrey, Wooten. 1981. Aquatic and Wetland Plants of Southeastern United States Monocotyledons.
University of Georgia Press, Athens Georgia. 712 pp.
Jenkins, R.E., and N.M. Burkhead. 1993. Freshwater fishes of Virginia. American Fisheries Society,
Bethesda, Maryland. 1079 pp, 40 color plates
Martof, Bernard S., William M. Palmer, Joseph R. Bailey and Julian R. Harrison, III 1980.
Amphibians and Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill.
North Carolina Department of Agriculture: 1990. Plant Conservation Program List of North
Carolina's Endangered, Threatened and Candidate Plant Species. Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources -Division of Water
Quality. 2000. Cape Fear Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, North Carolina.
-24-

North Carolina Department of the Environment and Natural-Resources -Division of Water Quality
(2000). Stream Classifications by Hydrologic Unit. http://h20.enr.state.nc.us/strmclass/
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. (2000). List of Rare Plant and Animal Species in North
Carolina. http://www.ncparks.net/nhp/
Protected Animals of Georgia 1999. Georgia Department of Natural Resources, Wildlife Resource
Division, and Nongame Wildlife-Natural Heritage Section.
Radford, Ahles, Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill. 1155 pp.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical
Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1970. Soil Survev of Orange County. U.S. Department of
Agriculture Press.
United States Department of Agriculture. 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. U.S. Department
of Agriculture Press.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 1995. National Wetlands Inventory Map -Chapel Hill
Quadrangle. U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. (2000). Species Accounts.
http://endaneered.fws.gov/wildlife.html
United States Geologic. Survey. (1991). Topographic Map -Chapel Hill Quadrangle. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington, DC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. The University of Chapel Hill Press, Chapel Hill.
-25-

Appendix A
Site Photographs

_ Project: B-4218 Prepared by: DNW
_ Orange County
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc.
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Job Number: 011700019
Page 1 of 2
Photo 2: Looking northeast at bridge No. 108 from SR 1730.
Photo 1: Looking southwest at bridge No. 108 on SR 1730.

- Project: B-4218 Prepared by: DNW
- Orange County
Kimley-Horn
and Associates, Inc,
Client: North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Job Number: 011700019
Page 2 of 2
Photo 3: Looking upstream of New Hope Creek from bridge No. 108.
Photo 4: Looking south from SR 1730 at UT of New Hope Creek.

Appendix B
DWQ Stream Classification Forms

.~ .
NCDWQ Stream Classification Form
~ Project Name: 13-y Lt D River Basin: Cc.I+s Fe..~ County: p,p„'~ Evaluator. Dw.b.1--
Na.+ I~opv. C~e..k
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Named Stream: Latitude: Signature: lX'r~-~
rJ•.., I~+Pe. e...~k
Date: ot~tl'o3 USGSQUAD: L'Iw,pe1V~;I1rPlG Longitude: Location/Directions: 1 w.. NeG
*PLEASE NOTE: ljrva/uatnr and landowner agree drat the jrature it a man-made ditch, then use of this farm is not necessary. C4ry.~1 k; II r
Alto, ijin the best professional judgement of the evaluator, t/re feature is a man-made ditc/t and not a modified mlural sveam-this S4t't 10
rating system s/wuhl not be used*
Primarv Field Indicators: /circle one Narnlxr Per L'ne)
I. Geomor bolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
ILs_There A Riffle-Pool Sequence? 0 I 2
2) Is The USDA Texture In Streambed
$) Is Tbere An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 1 2
f •NOTE If Aed & dank Canted By Dirchine And WITHOUT Sinuosity Th S =0•)
10) Is A 2°e Order Or Greater Charnel (As Indicated -
On Tooo Mao And/Or In Field) Present? Yes No=O
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:~~ t
s.
II. Hydroloav Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharse Present? 0 1 2
PRItYIARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~_
Secondarv Field Indicators: fClrcle One Nunder Per line)
L Geomor bolo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
Is There A Head ut Present In Cha el? 1.$
2LIs There A Grade Conyol Point In Channeh 0 $ 1 1 5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Dminaee Wav? 0 $ I (1 51
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~_
II. Hydroloey Absent Weak Moderate Strone
I) Is This Year's (Or Last's) Leaflitter
Present In Streambedv tl ~ ~ 1 $ 0
J) Is Water In Channel And >48 Hrs. Since 0 .$ l
a t Kn wrt ai ? •N Dir b I i are hr 9 e kr' TIr' r And MS
$) Ls There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .$ • 1 1.$
onditions Or [n Growin Season ~
6I Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel fOr In Headcuq~ Yes 5 No=O
SECONDARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:~_
TOTAL POINTS (Primarv +Secondarv)= e ~ (IjGreater Tltatr Or Equal To 19 Poirsts The Stream Is Ar Least Interrniaent)
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~_
a) Are W eurnd Ytants In Jtreambed? SAV - Mast()y~ OBL Mostly FACW Mostly FAC Mostly FACU Mostly UPL
(' NOT&: )floral Absence Of Alf Planrr fn Srreanrbed 2 ~.:/ .7$ .$ 0 0
As Not d AL Sk'° lIr's Sr UNLESS SAV P s N1
SECONDARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~

NCDWO Stream Classification Form
Projce[ Name: 13- 4218 River Basin: ~~ t'eor Couoty: dw,y e. Evaluator: p.tw
trc N... 41.,p. Cn<.k
DWQ Project Number: Nearest Namedd Stream: Iatimde: Signature: ~@YLN.IGJ
Neu I~.p.. Cr.•k
Date: ot~t~~o3 USGSQUAD:Gt„y,~lµ;f/[NC Longitude: Locatiot/Dvections: Irhi. N rF
'"PLEASE NOTE: ljevalaator and landowner agree that thrJeature is a man-made dueh, [hen uss ojthis form u not necessary. Glw.rel µi I) ,
Also, if in the best projessional judgement ojthr eva[aator the Jeatare it a man-made ditch and not a modified wtural stream-thrs S K t~ 30
rating sys[nn s![oa/d not bs used*
Primary Field Indicators: lc;.<Ir O~m Number P<r! ncJ
I. Geomor holo Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is There ARiffle-Pool Seeueoce~ 0 1 3
2) Is The USDA Texture [n Sueambed
5) Is There An Active (Or Relic)
9) Is A Continuous Bed & Bank Present? 0 I ~ 3
(•NOTE ~ 1rBed ,t Bonk Coa,red By Ditrhinr And WITHO(1T S osity 77 c r-0.1
10) Lt A god Order Or Greater Chaone! (As Indicated
On Tooo Mao And/Or )n Fieldl Presents Yeses No 0
PRIMARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS:~_
II. HvdroloEy Ahsent Weak Moderate Strone
1) Is There A Groundwater
Flow/Discharee Present? 0 1 _ 2 (37
PRIMARY HYDROLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: ~_
PRIMARY BIOLOGY INDICATOR
Secondarv Field Indicators: rarrlr on<Nambrrrrrunrl
r is [ ne rt n as -ut ere ent 'hannel? 0 ~
There A Grade Control Point In Channeh 0 S 1 5
3) Does Topography Indicate A
Natural Dminase Wavy 0 1 1
SECONDARY GEOMORPHOLOGY INDICATOR POINTS: 3. s'
II. Hvdroloev Absent Weak Moderate Stron
1) Is Thts Years (Or Last's) Lcaflit[er
Present In Streambed? 15 (~ 0
Sediment On Plants (Or Debrisl Presents 0 (~ ~ 1 1

3 Are Wrac ine Presents 0
1 - .
1.5
J) Lv P/ater In Channel And >48 Hrs
Since 0
. .5 1 ~ ~ 1.
a n tvn 7 Nq r
•
5) Is There Water In Channel During Dry 0 .5
I 1.5
Condition Or i r win Sea ~
Are Hvdric Soils Present In Sides Of Channel (Or In He dcut)v Yes 5 No 0
SECONDARY HYDROLOGYINDICATORPOINTS: G.S
TOTAL PINTS (Primary +Secondarv)= 9a_7T(IjGreater Than Or Equal To 19 Points The S[remn It At Least Intermittent)
e
-~ ~ -- ~• ~~ - mosuy tent. Mastly A'ACW Mostly FAC N/ostly FACU Moslly UPL
I' NOTE: ljToral Abxnrr Of A!! Plant/ fn S[nambed Z I - ~ S 0 0
As Noted.{bave Skia Thir Slea UNLESS SAV P r t"1
SECONDARY BIOLOGYIND/CATOR POINTS: 3.~5

Appendix C
USAGE Wetland Data Forms

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual)
Project/Site: SR 1730 over New Hope Creek
ApplicanVOwner NCDOT
Investigator(s): Norton Webster, Rtck Filer
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site? Ye No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation)? es No
Is this area a potential Problem Area? yeS Q
(If needed, explain on reversel
Date: 1/13/1003
County: Orange
State: North Carolina
Community ID: Wetland 1
Transect ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant 5necies Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Betula niRra Tree FACW 9.
2. Liquidambar styraci/lua Tree FAC+ 10

3. Ulmus american
Tree
FACW .
11.
4. Pinus taeda Tree FAC 12.
5. Lonicera japonica Vne FAC- 13.
6. 14.
~• 15.
g• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC-). 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
_Record Data (Describe m Remarks)
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
_~ No Recorded Data Available We and Hydrology Indicators:
Primary Indicators:
Im~ndated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inches
_ Water Marks
Drift Lines

Field Observations: _ Sediment Deposits
Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required):
Depth of Surface Water. 0 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12Inches
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Waterin Pit: 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil: 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase): Chewacla loam Drainage Class: somewhat poorly drained
Field Observations
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Fluvaquatic Dysiradepts Confirm Mapped Type? Yes No
Profile Descriotion:
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions,
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist) (Munsell Moist) Abundance/Contrast Stntcture, etc.
0-12 A IOYRS/2 7.SYR 6/5 (ew Sandy/Clay/Loam
Hydric Soil Indicators:
Histosol Concretions
Histic Epipedon _ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soils
Aquic Moisture Regime _ Listed on Local Hydric Soils List
X Reducing Conditions Listed on National Hydric Soils List
X Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors _ Other (Explain in Remarks)
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
HydrophyticVegetationPresent? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Ye No
Hydric Soils Present? es No Is this Sampling Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
ProjecVSite: SR 1730 over New Hope Creek
ApplicandOwner NCDOT
Investigator(s): Norton Webster, Rick Filer
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site Q No
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical Situation) Yes
Is this area a potential Problem Area' Yes No
(ff needed, explain on reverse
Date: 1/13/03
County: Oran,Qe
State: North Carolina
Community ID Wetland 2
Transact ID:
Plot ID:
VEGETATION
Dominant Plant Specie: Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinus pennsylvanica Tree FACW 9.
Z. Ulmus american Tree FACW 10.
3. Lonicera japonica Vine FAC- 11.
4. Caret sp. Herb FAC 12.
5. Juncus sp. Herb FAC 13.
6. Alnus serulata Shrub FACW 14.
~~ 15.
$• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that aze OBL, FACW, or FAC (excluding FAC- 100%
Remarks:
HYDROLOGY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remazks
Stream, Lake, or tide Gauge
Aerial Photograph;
Other
No Recorded Data Available Welland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators
x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 Inche:
_ Water Marks
Drift Line;
_
Sediment Deposit:
Field Observations _
Drainage Patterns in Wetland:
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water 0.1 (in-) _ Oxidized Root Charutels in Upper 12lnche
x Water-Stained Leave;
Depth to Free Water in Pit 0 (in.) Local Soil Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil 0 (in.) -Other (Explain in Remarks;
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Congaree fne-sandy loam Drainage Class: Moderately well drained

Taxonom
) Oxyaquic udi/Iuvenis
(Sub
rou Field Observation:
ed T
Confum Ma
e' Yes No
g
p
y pp
yp
Profile Descriotion
Depth Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
inches Horizon (Munsell Moist; (Munsell Moist: Abundance/Contrasi Structure, etc.
0-12 1 DYR2/1 Sandy/Clay/Loam-,gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators
Histoso] Concretions
_
Histic Epipedor. _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil
Sulfidic Odor Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil;
Aquic Moisture Regime _
Listed on Local Hydric Soils Lis
x Reducing Condition: Listed on National Hyddc Soils Lis
x Gleyed or Low-Chroma Color _
_ Other (Explain in Remarks;
Reurarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic VegetationPreseru? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? ~ No
Hydric Soils Present? Y® No Is this 5amplirrg Point Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

DATA FORM
ROUTINE WETLAND DETERMINATION
(1987 COE Wetlands Delineation Manual
Project/Site: SR 1730 over New Hope Creek Date: 1/13/03
Applicant/Ownes NCDOT County: Oran
Qe
Investigator(s): Norton Webster, Rick Filer State: ,
North Carolina
Do Normal Circumstances exist on the site Y® No Community ID Wetland 3
Is the site significantly disturbed (Atypical 5i[uation) Yes ~ Transect ID:
is this area a potential Problem Area' Yes ~ Plot ID:
(If needed, explain on reverse
'EGETATI ON
Dominant Plant Specie: Stratum Indicator Dominant Plant Species Stratum Indicator
1. Fraxinu.c penn•eylvanica Tree FACW 9.
2. Salix ni,era Tree FACW 10.
3. Carex sp. Herb FACW+ 11.
4. 12.
5. 13.
6. 14.
~• 15.
g• 16.
Percent of Dominant Species that are OBL, FACW, orFAC (excluding FAC- 100%
Remarks:
HYDRni,(ICTY
Recorded Data (Describe in Remarks_
Stream, Lake, of tide Gauge
Aerial Photographs
Other
No Recorded Data Available Wetland Hydrology Indicators
Primary Indicators
x Inundated
x Saturated in Upper 12 btches
_ Water Marks
Drift Line,
_
_ Sediment Deposit:
Field Observations Drainage Patterns in Wetlands
Secondary Indicators (2 or more required)
Depth of Surface Water 0-1 (in.) Oxidized Root Channels in Upper 12Inche
x Water-Stained Leaves
Depth to Free Water in Pit D (in.) _ Loca15oi1 Survey Data
x FAC-Neutral Test
Depth to Saturated Soil 0 (in.) _ Other (Explain in Remarks;
Remarks:

SOILS
Map Unit Name
(Series and Phase) Congaree fine-.randy loam Drainage Class: Moderately well drained
Field Observation:
Taxonomy (Subgroup) Oxyaquic udifluvent Confirm Mapped Type' Yes No
Profile Descriotion
Deptb Matrix Color Mottle Colors Mottle Texture, Concretions.
inches Horizon. (Mansell Moist` (Mansell Moist; AbundanceJContrasi 5ttucture, etc.
0-12 IOYR2/I Sandy/Clay/Loam-,gravel
Hydric Soil Indicators
_ Histosol Concretion<
_ Histic Epipedor _
_ High Organic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soil
_ Sulfidic Odor _ Organic Streaking in Sandy Soil:
Aquic Moisture Regimc _ Listed on Local Hydtic Soils Lis
x Reducing Condition: Listed on National Hydric Soils Lis
x Gleyed orLow-Chrome Color. _ Other (Explain in Remarks;
Remarks:
WETLAND DETERMINATION
Hydrophytic Vegetation Present? Yes No
Wetland Hydrology Present? Yes No
Hydric Soils Present? Yes No Is this Sampling Poin[ Within a Wetland? Yes No
Remarks:
Approved by HQUSACE 3/92

r ~
Appendix D
DWQ Wetland Rating Worksheet

,-
.`.`~'ETL.~ND ~-~TL~~r ~~:OP.ILSTIEET' Fourth ~r'er~ion
Project Name: 3-yzla ~sRi~ao o„i,. N~~44wk.C-~~~~
County: 0•~~~ Wetla d area: acres
w~t~~a ~
Name of evaluator: ~Nw~ba~
Nearest road: s~i13o
Wetland width: feet
Date: oil~3~o3
Wetland location
on pond or lake
X on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
.within interstream divide
other:
Soil series C~~w~-`a
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
_ `C predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
_ steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
_ total riparian wetland width >_ 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/: mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forestecUnatural vegetation ~o
agriculture, urban/suburban zS
impervious surface S
Dominant vegetation
1) 3G-1~,.1~. ~ 1 g ~.
2) L,~g,yir~urv~hu.! S~~iaCiFlwy
3) l.~l.hKa a..~.saa.~+g
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded.
or inundated
X seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
_ C~ Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
. Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes. or stream channels. _ __~ -
weight
R Water storage ~_ x 4.00 = I~-
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~_ x 4.00 = 4
T Pollutant removal I l x 5.00 = S Z g
I Low flow augmentation I x 2.00 = Z
N Wildlife habitat _~ x 4.00 = y `-"`'"
G Aquatic life ~ x 1.00 = ~
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and > 10% nonpoint disturbance within `/~ mile radius.

.~
~,~'ETL AND R:~TL~G ~ti' OR1tSHEET' Fourth tier>ion
Project Name: 3-yz.1~ Csrt--t3o o~~~ N~W~a~c,~k-) Nearest road: sQ-~3a
County: D~u~.~e. Wetland area: acres Wetland width: feet
w~ klu,.,d -t.
Name of evaluator: UNw~.hs~w Date: o ~~ ~3~03
Wetland location
on pond or lake
.~_ on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
other:
Soil series C~ew~-~~.
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
X predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
total riparian wetland width > 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/Z mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation ~~
agriculture, urban/suburban 25
impervious surface S
Dominant vegetation
1) F~uY-i ~++~.5 ~aYl~/1s~ 1 ~~w: cr{

Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
_ c~ seasonally flooded or inundated
intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
~_ Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest Other
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage 3 x 4.00 = I z
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization ~_ x 4.00 = `t
T Pollutant removal i ~ x 5.00 = S 2°I
I Low flow augmentation t x 2.00 = z
N Wildlife habitat I x 4.00 = ~_
G Aquatic life z x 1.00 = Z

'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within 1/i mile radius. ,_

•
~~- ETL.~.ND R-~TLNC~ 1V"ORhSHEET Fou~h ti ::r~on
Project Name: 3- y z-g Csa i~3o o~w Nw,, t-b~ c.G~.~)
County: Or~c Wet~r~d~ 3 acres
Name of evaluator: UN wobs~
Date: o- is o3
Wetland location
on pond or lake
on perennial stream
on intermittent stream
within interstream divide
~ other:~ona oK+~.ll
Dominant vegetation
Soil series
predominantly organic
(humus, muck, or peat)
~ predominantly mineral
(non-sandy)
predominantly sandy
Hydraulic factors
steep topography
_ ditched or channelized
_ total riparian wetland width > 100 ft
Adjacent land use (within 1/2 mile upstream,
upslope, or radius)
forested/natural vegetation 70
agriculture, urban/suburban Zs
impervious surface S
1) ~/A%~n4S ~GVW1Sy~y4111G4
-
2) ~
S+1;x ni4.4
3) G4~~n sp.
Flooding and wetness
semipermanently to permanently flooded
or inundated
seasonally flooded or inundated ~-
_~ intermittently flooded or temporary
surface water
no evidence of flooding or surface water
Wetland type (select one)
Bottomland hardwood forest Pine savanna
Headwater forest Freshwater marsh
Swamp forest Bog/fen
Wet flat Ephemeral wetland
Pocosin Carolina Bay
Bog forest _ < Other_T~e.
*The rating system cannot be applied to salt or brackish marshes or stream channels.
weight
R Water storage Z x 4.00 = 8
A Bank/Shoreline stabilization 1 x 4.00 = `I
T Pollutant removal ~-i x 5.00 = 5 25~
I Low flow augmentation ~_ x 2.00 = 2
N Wildlife habitat _~ x 4.00 = y
G Aquatic life 2 x 1.00 = L
Nearest road: 5Ri~3o
Wetland width: feet
'Add 1 point if in sensitive watershed and >10% nonpoint disturbance within'/z mile radius.

j
Appendix E
L
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission Correspondence

~ C"
® North Carolina ~Xlildlife Resources Commission
1721 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North .Carolina 27699-1721, 919-733-3633
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Norton Webster
Kimley-Horn
FROM: Shari Bryant, Fisheries Biologist
Division of Inland Fisheries
DATE: February 19, 2003
SUBJECT: Request for information regarding N.C. Department of Transportation bridge
replacement projects in Alamance, Guilford, and Orange Counties, North
Carolina.
Below is the aquatic and fisheries information you requested regarding the subject bridge
replacement projects.
1. Alamance Co. -Jordan Creek: Jordan Creek is in the Cape Fear R"fiver watershed and has a
water quality classification of WSII-NSW. No threatened or endangered aquatic species are
documented in Jordan Creek. Fishery data has been collected from two sites. Below is the
species list for each site. Given the diverse sunfish population in Jordan Creek, I request a .
moratorium on instream work from April 1 to June 15.
Date: 4 November 1993
Site: SR-1002
Collectors: N.C. Division of Water Quality
Gizzard shad Dorosoma cepedianum
Highfin shiner Notropis altipinnis
Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalccs
Coastal shiner Notropis petersoni
Creek chub Semotilccs atromaculatus
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus

4 ~ ' ~ ^s
c
NC DOT Bridge Replacements
Alamance, Guilford and Orange Co.
Yellow bullhead
Speckled killifish
Flier
Redbreast sunfish
Green sunfish
Pumpkinseed
W armouth
Bluegill
Redear sunfish
Largemouth bass
Tessellated darter
2
Ameiurus natalis
Fundaclacs rathbuni
Centrarchus macroptencs
Lepomis auritccs
Lepomis cyanellccs
Lepomis gibbosics
Lepomis gulosus
Lepomis macrochirus
Lepomis microlophus
Micropterus salmoides
Etheostoma olmstedi
Date: 1 August 2001
Site: SR-1763
Collectors: N.C. State Museum of Natural Sciences
Crescent shiner Luxilus cerasinus
Highfin shiner Notropis altipinnis
Bluehead chub Nocomis leptocephalus
Golden shiner Notemigonus crysoleucas
Swallowtail shiner Notropis procne
Rosyside dace Clinostomus funduloides
Creek chub Semotilus atromaculatus
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus
Notchlip redhorse Moxostoma collapsum
Speckled killifish Fundulus rathbuni
Redbreast sunfish Lepomis auritus
Pumpkinseed Lepomis gibbosus
Tessellated darter Etheostoma olmstedi
02/ 19/03
2. Alamance Co. -Wells Creek: Wells Creek is a tributary to Cane Creek in the Cape Fear
River watershed and has a water quality classification of C-NSW. There is no fishery survey
data for Wells Creek or Cane Creek. Fish (1968) lists the stream as too small to be of fishing
significance. No threatened or endangered aquatic species are documented in Wells Creek.
it likely supports a typical piedmont stream fishery including shiners, minnows, dace and
sunfish. No instream moratorium is requested on this stream, however, stringent sediment
and erosion control methods should be implemented at all times.
3. Guilford Co. -Bull Run: Bull Run is a tributary to the Deep River in the Cape Fear River
watershed and has a water quality classification of C. There is no fishery survey data for this
stream. No threatened or endangered aquatic species are documented in Bull Run. It likely
supports a typical piedmont stream fishery including shiners, minnows, dace and sunfish. In
addition, the lower section of Bull Run might support bullheads and largemouth bass. No
instream moratorium is requested on-this stream, however, .stringent sediment and erosion
control methods should be implemented at all times.

. r
NC DOT Bridge Replacements 3 02/19/03
Alamance, Guilford and Orange Co.
4. Orange Co. -New Hope Creek: New Hope Creek is in the Cape Fear River watershed and
has a water quality classification of C-NSW. No threatened or endangered aquatic species
are documented in New Hope Creek. Fish (1968) states that large catches of sunfish have
been reported from the section between the NC-54 bridge and SR-1734 and this section of
stream has an ecological classification of robin/warmouth. Data has been collected from one
site on New Hope Creek. Below is the species list. It is likely that New Hope Creek in
Orange County supports a good sunfish population, therefore, I request a moratorium on
instream work from April 1 to June 15.
Date: 31 August 1988
Site: Bridge at Hollow Rock on Erwin Rd'.
Collectors: Duke University
Chain pickerel Esox niger
Redfin pickerel Esox americanLCs
Pirateperch Aphredoderus sayanus
Largemouth bass Microptencs salmoides
Redear sunfish Lepomis accritus
Creek chubsucker Erimyzon oblongus
Silvery minnow Hybognathus nuchalis
Whitemouth shiner Notropis alborus
Flat bullhead Ameiuncs brunneacs
Johnny darter Etheostoma nigrum
References:
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters in North Carolina. Division of Inland
Fisheries, Raleigh, North Carolina. 312 pp.
If you have any questions regarding this information, please contact me at 336-449-7625 or
bryants5 @ earthlink.net.
cc: Travis Wilson, Highway Project Coordinator (e-mail)
Brian McRae, District S, Assistant Fisheries Biologist
~_

).