20080616 Ver 1_Application_20080403

e ~a 4AiE u
~ ~.b,~
~.~ :,.~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
~ty ~ ' .w.
~~~~
~;~F ~ ~ r,~~r
~~~~ ~ FRery
DEPARTMENT OF 'TRANSPORTATION ~H
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
March 27, 2008
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington District Headquarters
P.O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator, Division 8
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
080616
SUBJECT: Application for Section 404 Nationwide Permit 42 and Section 401 Water
Quality Certification for the proposed Endor Iron Furnace Greenway (Phase I)
from Kiwanis Family Park on SR 1009 (Carbonton Road) to Boone Circle (an
unopened road), Sanford, Lee County, Division 8. WBS Element 33906.1.1,
TIP No. E-4981.
$240.00 Debit from WBS element 33906.1.1.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian
Transportation (DBPT) proposes to build Phase I of the Endor Iron Furnace Greenway from Kiwanis
Family Park on SR 1009 (Carbonton Road) to Boone Circle (an unopened road) in the City of Sanford.
Phase I of this bicycle and pedestrian trail will provide transportation as well as recreational trail access
between Kiwanis Family Park and commercial/residential destinations in Sanford. The multi-use trail,
when all phases are completed, will eventually connect to the proposed nature preserve and park at the .
Endor Iron Furnace historic site. The subject project will be approximately 1.43 miles long and will
consist of a 10-foot wide asphalt path with 2-foot wide crushed stone shoulders. A majority of the
project will be built on new location. The project proposes the installation of short sections of curb and
gutter at both Carbonton Road and the intersection corners of SR 1100 (Spring Lane) and the
construction of concrete retaining walls at several points along the geenway. This project also proposes
the installation of a reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) at two locations along an unnamed tributary
(UT) of Big Buffalo Creek (UT 1) and the placement of a 75-foot long prefabricated bridge structure
where the geenway crosses another UT of Big Buffalo Creek (UT 2). The bridge will span the creek and
result in no impacts to jurisdictional waters.
Please see the enclosed copies of the Pre-Construction Notification (PCN), permit drawings, design
plans, U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Jurisdictional Determination (Rapanos) form, and
Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR; July 2007) for the above-referenced project. The
Independent Bicycle/Pedestrian Project Categorical Exclusion (CE) is currently being drafted and has an
estimated completion date of April 2008. The CE will be distributed shortly thereafter. Copies of this
document will be available upon request.
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
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598 WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (sub-basin 03-06-11). This area is part of Hydrologic
Cataloging Unit 03030003. UT 1 and UT 2 to Big Buffalo Creek are the only water resources being
traversed by the greenway. There are no wetlands associated with this project. No Jurisdictional
Determination (JD) site visit with the USACE was performed for this project because both streams were
perennial and, therefore, jurisdictional.
UTs 1 and 2 are tributaries to Big Buffalo Creek and are, therefore, assigned the same stream
classification as the portion of Big Buffalo Creek that receives them. The segment of Big Buffalo Creek
associated with this project has been assigned Stream Index Number 17-40 (09/01/1974) by the North
Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) and has a best usage classification of C.
UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that flows into Big Buffalo Creek from the east, just
north of Spring Lane. The project runs adjacent to this UT from where the greenway turns northwest
away from U.S. Route 1 to near the creek's confluence with Big Buffalo Creek. This creek has a channel
width of approximately 12 to 14 feet, a wetted width of 4 to 10 feet, a bankful height of 4 to 6 feet, and a
water depth of between 6 inches and 1 foot. During a field visit associated with the NRTR on May 21,
2007, the water clarity ranged between clear and slightly cloudy, the latter resulting from sediment input
from nearby development and urban areas. The flow was slow to moderate and the substrate was
composed of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder.
UT 2 to Big Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that flows into Big Buffalo Creek from the east and
crosses the project approximately halfway between Spring Lane and Boone Circle. The creek has a
channel width of approximately 8 to 10 feet, a wetted width of 6 to 8 feet, a bankful height of 1 to 7 feet,
and a water depth of between 0 inches and over 1 foot. During the field visit on May 21, 2007, the water
clarity ranged between clear and somewhat cloudy/murky, the flow was moderate, and the substrate was
composed of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area. However, a review of NCDWQ's
2006 Final 303(d) List of Impaired Waters for North Carolina indicated that Big Buffalo Creek, from its
source to the Deep River, is listed for impaired biological integrity, possibly due to stormwater runoff.
Permanent Impacts
Site 1
A total of 28 linear feet of permanent stream impacts will occur to UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek. These
impacts are a result of the placement of adouble-barreled RCBC into the creek.
Site 2
A total of 28 linear feet of permanent stream impacts will occur to UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek. These
impacts are a result of the placement of adouble-barreled RCBC into the creek.
E-4981 Permit Application
2

Temporary Impacts
Site 1
A total of 1241inear feet of temporary stream impacts will occur to UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek due to the
placement of the above-mentioned RCBC. As part of its construction, impervious sand bag dikes will be
built upstream and downstream of where the RCBC will be installed and the area between them will be
dewatered. A temporary 5-foot base diversion ditch will also be constructed to redirect water from the
creek around the area of construction. This non jurisdictional ditch will be excavated just south of UT 1
and will tie into the creek upstream and downstream of the impervious dikes.
Site 2
A total of 1321inear feet of temporary stream impacts will occur to UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek due to the
placement of the above-mentioned RCBC. As part of its construction, impervious sand bag dikes will be
built upstream and downstream of where the RCBC will be installed and the area between them will be
dewatered. A temporary 5-foot base diversion ditch will also be constructed to redirect water from the
creek around the area of construction. This non jurisdictional ditch will be excavated just west of UT 1
and will tie into the creek upstream and downstream of the impervious dikes.
Utility Impacts
No impacts to jurisdictional waters will occur as a result of utility work associated with this project.
RESTORATION PLAN
Upon the completion of each culvert, flow will be redirected through the culvert from the diversion
ditches, impervious sand bag dikes will be removed from the creek both upstream and downstream of the
culvert, and the diversion ditches will be obliterated and filled. Any additional foreign material 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
All materials used in the construction of the RCBCs will be removed from the stream after work is
completed. This construction material will be removed by the contractor using standard excavation and
extraction 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 project.
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 U.S. The following is a list of the project's
avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
E-4981 Permit Application
3

Avoidance/Minimization
• Retaining walls will be constructed at several locations to avoid impacts to jurisdictional waters and
surrounding properties.
• The 75-foot long prefabricated bridge will span UT 2 to Big Buffalo Creek, resulting in no impacts to
this jurisdictional water.
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of NCDOT's Best Management
Practices (BMP) for Protection of Surface Waters.
Compensatory Mitigation
No mitigation is proposed for the 56 linear feet of permanent stream impacts to UT 1 to Big Buffalo
Creek (28 linear feet at both Site 1 and Site 2) 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 January 31, 2008, the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) website lists three federally protected species for Lee County.
These species and their associated biological conclusions are listed below in Table 1.
Table 1. Federally Protected Species for Lee County
Federal Habitat .Biological
Common Name Scientific Name Status Present Conclusion
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E No No Effect
red-cockaded

woodpecker* Picoides borealis E No No Effect
harperella* Ptilimnium nodosum E No No Effect
t; - trndangered.
* -Historic record; the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
A field survey/ habitat evaluation for the Cape Fear shiner was performed by NCDOT biologists Neil
Medlin, Jared Gray, Anne Burroughs, and Cheryl Gregory on June 7, 2007. No individuals were
observed and no suitable habitat existed within the project study area. Additionally, a search of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database (GIS shapefiles most recently updated on
February 13, 2008) revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project. Given
the results of the site visit/habitat evaluation and the distance to the nearest known population of this
species, the completion of this project will have "No Effect" on the Cape Fear shiner.
A red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) survey/habitat assessment of the project study area and the
surrounding habitat was performed by NCDOT biologists Ashley Cox, Jim Mason, and James Pflaum on
May 21, 2007. The survey took a total of 19.5 man-hours to complete. Much of the habitat present
within the project study area was Maintained/Disturbed and highly urbanized. No foraging or nesting
habitat was observed within the study area, nor were any individuals observed. Habitat present within
0.5 mile of the project was highly urbanized and very similar to habitat found in the study area. All pine
stands within the study area and the 0.5 mile radius appeared to be younger than 30 years or age.
Additionally, these stands were too dense to support RCW's. In addition to the field survey, a search of
the NCNHP database on March 11, 2008 revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile
E-4981 Permit Application
4

of the project study area. Since no habitat is present, no individuals were observed, the species records in
the county are historic, and no known populations are present within 1.0 mile of the project, a biological
conclusion of "No Effect" has been assigned to this species.
A harperella survey/habitat assessment was performed by NCDOT biologists Jim Mason and Duncan
Quinn on July 6, 2007. The survey took a total of 4.5 man-hours to complete. No suitable habitat or
individuals were observed in Big Buffalo Creek or UTs 1 and 2 to Big Buffalo Creek. In addition to the
field survey, a search of the NCNHP database on March 11, 2008 revealed no known populations of this
species within 1.0 mile of the project study area. Since no habitat is present, no individuals were
observed, the species records in this county are historic, and no known populations are present within 1.0
mile of the project, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" has been assigned to this species.
SCHEDULE
It is anticipated that construction on this project will begin some time during the 2008 calendar year. A
more specific start date will be determined upon receipt of Section 404 and Section 401 permits.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: The NCDOT requests that activities described in this application be authorized by a
Nationwide Permit 42 (72 FR 11092-11198; March 12, 2007).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate that Section 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC) 3705
will apply to this project. All general conditions of these WQCs will be met. Written concurrence is
required for WQC 3705. In compliance with Section 143-215.3D(e) of the NCAC, we will provide
$240.00 to act as payment for processing this Section 401 permit application. In accordance with 15A
NCAC 2H, Section .0500 and 15A NCAC 2B, Section .0200, we are providing five copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR),
NCDWQ, for their review and approval.
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 contact Mr. Jim Mason at [phone] or [e-mail].
Sincerely,
;~
~/ ~
t` ~ ,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
E-4981 Permit Application
5

w/attachment
Mr. Brian Wrenn, NCDWQ (5 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
w/o attachment (see website for attachments)
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, P.E., Project iervices Unit
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Kumar Trivedi, P.E., Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
Mr. Robert Hayes, Division of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
E-4981 Permit Application
6

Office Use Only: Form Version March OS
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
~u any pantcutar Item is not appttcante to tats 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: Nationwide 42
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: Gre~orv J. Thorpe PhD Environmental Management Director
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 9

III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale ~ and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USAGE 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: The proposed Endor Iron Furnace Greenwav (Phase I) from Kiwanis
Family Park on SR 1009 (Carbonton Road) to Boone Circle (an unopened road) in the City
of Sanford.
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): E-4981
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Lee Nearest Town: Sanford
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers/names, landmarks, etc.): From points north, take
U.S. Route 1 south to Sanford. Exit hi away onto Spring Lane take right Greenwav will
cross Springy Lane at its intersection with River Birch Shopping Center entrance
5. Site coordinates (For linear projects, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that
separately lists the coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
Decimal Degrees (6 digits minimum): °N °W
6. Property size (acres): please see attached drawings
7. Name of nearest receiving body of water: Big Buffalo 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: A maiority of the eenwav will be built on new location
Land use in the area includes residential business and forested areas.
Page 2 of 9

10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: See
attached cover letter for project description Heavy duty excavation equipment will be used
such as trucks, dozers, and other various equipment necessa for greenway construction
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: _ Phase I of this bicycle and pedestrian trail will
provide transportation as well as recreational trail access between Kiwanis Fami~ Park and
commercial/residential destinations in Sanford The multi-use trail when all phases are
completed, will eventually connect to the proposed nature preserve and park at the Endor
Iron Furnace historic site.
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
riprap dissipater pads). Be sure to indicate if an impact is temporary. All proposed impacts,
permanent and temporary, must be listed, and must be labeled and clearly identifiable on an
accompanying site plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial)
should be shown on a delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems.
Wetland and stream evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate.
Photographs may be included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for
wetland or stream mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional
space is needed for listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: See attached cover letter.
Page 3 of 9

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)
T e of Im act
yp p 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) 0.00
2. List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property:0.00
3. 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.
Stream Impact
perennial or Average Impact Area of
Number Stream Name Type of Impact
Intermittent? Stream Width Len th Im act
r
(indicate on ma) Before Im act (linear feet) (a
es
1 UT 1 to Big Double-barreled

Buffalo Creek
RCBC (Permanent) perennial 12-14 28 0.01
UT 1 to Big Temporary
1 Buffalo Creek dewatering and Perennial 12-14 124 0.04
diversion ditch
2 UT 1 to Big Double-barreled

Buffalo Creek
RCBC (Permanent) perennial 12-14 28 0.01
UT 1 to Big Temporary
2
Buffalo Creek dewatering and Perennial 12-14 132 0.03
diversion ditch

Total Stream Impact (by length and acreage) 312 0.09
Page 4 of 9

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

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

Type of Impact Type of Waterbody

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

Impact
(acres)

Total Open Water Impact (acres) 0.0
5. List the cumulative impact to all Waters of the U.S. resulting from the project:
Stream Impact (acres): 0.09
Wetland Impact (acres): 0.00
Open Water Impact (acres): 0
Total Impact to Waters of the U.S. (acres) 0.09
Total Stream Impact (linear feet): 312
6. 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.
7. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ^ uplands ^ stream ^ wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local 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
Page 5 of 9

were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts. See attached cover letter.
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 iri DWQ's
Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html:
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
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
Page 6 of 9

additional information regarding the application process for the NCEEP, check the NCEEP
website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htin. 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): 0.00
Amount ofNon-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): 0.00
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
1. Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state/local) funds or the use of
public (federal/state) land? Yes ® No ^
2. If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ^
3. If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please
attach a copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter. Yes ® No ^
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
1. Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 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
Page 7 of 9

2. If "yes", identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers.
If buffer mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the
buffer multipliers. .
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 0 3 (2 for Catawba) 0
2 0 1.5 0
Total 0 0
Lone 1 extends out 3U teet perpendicular from the top of the near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
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.
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ^ No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application? Yes ^ No
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).
S~
<.
~ ~ Z-~ . Ct
Applicant/Agen s Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 9 of 9

i
'~J
ll `~ ~..
~~ i~
~~~~ ~ :z~~ U N
~;~, 4z~ ~ _s.
..;
1
s o„ ,' / `
~.i~
E ~, Q~ ~~
nd Project .
r '
w 5a: ~~~
.~ ro
Sanford
-~ ~~
~l z
1- t ~ ~ ~
~'
~b ,.
Begin Project
` .E_ ,. ~. _,.,,~..
.._ r . Ems. ,:V: i 4:'i-5.u9~
L: -1~~~:
_. _. ~,.-_~I"u-~ v_~,'Y_~.o a:.'j~. .='~~k +~.tir, AC1?~i4i?!a'3~,Tal~~-.. -:3...~>f
Endor Iron Furnace Trail, Phase 1 3
Sanford, Lee Coun
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN f'
CITY OF RALEIGH, WAIF COUNTY ~"
PROJECT TIP N0. E-4981
ENDOR FURNACE GREENWAY, PHASE 1
SHEET ~OF ~ py2yjppg

- w., ~, ~ -
4
1 ~~
C'.
~, 1
i,
~~
. , ' i / ~'~ ~ ~ ~~Y~ eaaa`
ffi ~
~ '
/ BYP
1--
h ,~ i \ .~ so, j
` ~ R
,~~ ~ 4 1
Q ~, ..--
a~,4 Q 1aB~tt ~ ~ ~~
End Project r .
,2,
~~ _
., ~ o
~~
t~~ ~ ~
w
~' r~wo..~
~. EiwiW,tMYYN
M-
,,~"° ping t ~
~ ,,+
San ord ~ ~' ~~ 4 f.
U r , ~ ,~ J~
• a
12 g a.m+ ~ b R `~ ~ -~
~..f''' ~
~`~ V ~~ ) a a Ig ti1G= ~
J ~~ry
Begin Project
T~I~I11tITY 1~1AP
Endor Iron Furnace Trail, Phase 1
Sanford, Lee County
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTA
DMSION OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
CITY OF RALEIGH, WAIF COUNTY
PROJECT TIP NO. E-4981
ENDOR FURNACE GREENWAY, PHASE 1
SHEET Z OF ~ 02/25/2008

•
Property Owners
Parcel Number Names Addresses
DB 499 PG 229 Mr. Ivon D. Rohrer, Jr Birch Field Creek Road
Newland, NC 28657
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DMS[ON OF BICYCLE AND PEDESTRIAN
LEE COUNTY
WBS - 33906.1.1 (E-4981)
SHEET 3 D~ 3/ I I /loos

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLANDIMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(From(1-o)

Structure
Size/Type

Fill In
Wetlands
ac

Temp. Fill
In Wetlands
ac

Excavation
In Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
(Method III)
(ac Temporary
Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ft) Temporary
Existing
Channel
Impacted
ac) Permanent
Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ft Permanent
Existing
Channel
Impacted
(ac
1 -G- 37+gg TO 38+13 28-ft of 2 8'x7' RCBC - - - - 124 0.04 28 0.01

2 -G- 47+62 TO 47+g0 28-ft. of 2 9'xg' RCBC - - - - 132 0.03 28 0.01

3 -G- 65+20.5 TO 65+75.5+gp 10-ft. wide x75-ft Bride - - - - No im act. No structure in stream.

TOTALS: 0 0 0 0 0 256 0.07 56 0.02
Form Revised 3/22/01

,~ `~ ~`a ~ ~ .~n~aerWous Dace t ' pogait
i ii
q!y ,,,~~,, ~ ~ 9
t
5-ft, Bose ,~ '~
Dtveraton Ottcr~ , ~:
/ ~tl// F y~ ',~. i -~
V/ ~r ~~
v ~' X,
_ Y
~ ~BOSiA ~ ~~O x ~
Cx
28' of 2 O 8'xT' RCBC ~' ~ ~ ~ ~`~~ • ~'~ ~ ~~
D ~~ ~.aa ~ ~" '~
~~
~` '`~ y \
r~ _ x
O
`~ ~ x ' ,~ ~ .~ x
Area of Tem ovary Impact ~~~ , ~ "~
• • • i 783 sq, ft. "~----~...
124 linear feet x
Area of Permanent Impact " ~,
336 sq, ft. ~' ~
~Gl~ 28 linear feet ~;~
~._R.
6 0 10 ZO
~. ` 1 ~
~ 1
V ~_ 1
,~
~~.
Sa u+
~~O
~~ x
ti~
Q'
~~~
=,et ,
1
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DMSION OF BICYCLE MID PEDESTRIAN
CrfY OF RALEION, YYAIO= COUNiY
PROJECT TIP NO. E~OS1
ENDOR FURNACE,jiREENVWY, PW13E 1

``
~~ ~
. ~;. , _ . -
~r~~
~` ~
i
M er.
/,
gym
/ r. *,,
fi-~~ \
~ Ll. ~
~~,t. ~
~ ~.
`-
l~"'r~-w
~..~4IT;
5-ft. Base
Diversion Ditch
~~- 36 cu. ft. Stilling Basin
~,
28' of 2Q9'JC9' RCB¢ ,
J r(r
Dike (sand bags)
M_p ~.r
_~~1
Area of Temporary Impact
~ ~ 1495 sq. $.
1S2 linear
J~ Of Permanent Impacl
504 aq. ft.
_ 28 linear feet
'Pao .
Site 2
N.C. DEPT. OF TRANN',ORTA71ON
DR9SION OF EIC1fCLEMD PEDEaTRMN
CfiY CF RALEKaFI, VWIO= COUIIY
PROJECT 7P N0. E~1
ENDOR Y, PMIISE 7
eRE:T OF aL~/Jfl0!
I
/' '
~~~ / A
/ /.
~ / 1
~'

...l...
o ~~
• _Y~~w r
~
~
~
v
1
_~~
~
,
E ~ Pro~ect~ t ~'
~.
!aJ ~-=-
Begin ProjP~t
VICINITY 11
01
d'
~.
m
v
m
~V
m
y
w
~^
O
~~~,
~; a~
o~
~~
off,
~,.
1a c
D
CA

i
,, ~~
LEA COU11~
~~ ~~ ~ ~ T Y
~-~
LOCATION: From Kiwanis Family Park to Boone Circle
~ ' ~ in City of Sanford
--,,,
~~'
4 .:~ TYPE OF WORK: Grading, Paving, Drainage and Structures
GRAPHIC SCALES
20 0 20 40
~~ ,
PLANS
20 0 2D 40
PROFILE 4(HORIZONTAL)
2 0 2 4
,,~r~ _.~
PROFILE (VERTICAL)
IIYDRA `NGS,~NGINESR
4~s1r1io~
r 72619 `
~1 IN4~~ ~
srwwruax
BICY 101{' CILITy
DESI lei
.~
20761
lf~. ~;`.,~e
u1 ~' M P$
X11
RAil RAf1 M010.T ~ N0 NIR! nITAL
seen
.~. E-4981 1
RAII AOe1p e,.~AN116 1~•
r
`iPieiOn of
~~ioycle ~
'~
edeetrien
ranepotretio2-
PROJECT LENGTH
TRAIL• 7,554.31 FEET/1.43 MILES
D$SIGN DATA
V = 20 MPH
1006 sPECI~rcATroxs
-.~
THOMAS P. NORMAN
DIRECTOR

T
w
a
°m
9'
C~
L

3 ~ 2' 2' ~ 3'
I, rU11Vl
~ ~ I
V
1/2'/ T• 1/4'/FT,
2~1. II
J I I
T GRADE TO THIS LINE P J
J T
"SEE PARTIAL TYPICAL SECTIONSEls2 &E3 TYPICAL SECTION N0.1
FROM STA. 10+00 TO STA. 15+68.85'•
FROM STA, ib+03.13 TO STA. 17+85.36
FROM STA. 19+72.50 TO STA. 49+97.23"
FROM STA. 53+65.11 TO STA. 65+20.50 (BEGIN BRIDGE
FROM STA. 65+95.50 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 85+41.64
'-6" VAR_~ _ 5-_
'-0'
POINT
SEE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTIONS
FOR LOCATION OF SAFETY FENCE
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER

1/4'/FT. 'i/2,/F I.
~ ~ CARBONTON ROAD
;< e. -------- C
T PROP.C&G RIVERBIRCH PARKING ]/2'/FT• ]/4'/FT.
J P -------___ `-
PARTIAL TYPICAL SECTION 1 MArcH a sT~. c~G 1 T
P J
FROM STA. 10+00 TO STA. 15+68.85
PARTIAL TYPICAL SECTION 2
2,5'TO
11.6'
0.5'
SEE PL4N AND CROSS-SECTIONS
FOR LOCATION OF SAFETY FENCE
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4' CONCRETE
SPRING LANE 1/2'/FT, 1/4'/FT. 1/4'/FT. 1/2'/F .
II RETAINING WALL
PROP.CIkG GRADE TO THIS LINE J SEE DETAIL
OR EXIST, CdIG SEE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTIONS
SEE PLAN AND CROSS,SECTIONS FOR LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL
FOR LOCATION OF CURB AND GUTTER R AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
TYPICAL SECTION N0.2
FROM 5TA.50+43.25 TO STA. 51+08.57
3,_0.. 5,_0..
0.5'
SEE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTIONS -~'
FOR LOCATION OF SAFETY FENCE
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
4' CONCRETE
I i/2'/FT~ ]/4'/FT,
_~
RETAINING WALL II
SEE DETAIL ~
SEE PLAN AND CROSS,SECTIONS
FOR LOCATION OF RETAINING WALL
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
5'-0'. _ ~ _ 5'-0'
/POINT
~~
2,
RADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION N0.3
FROM STA. 51+68.30 TO STA. 53+65.11

FROM STA, 29+95,90 TO STA. 30+85.50
5'-0' 2'-0" I'-6" 6.8' TO 15.7'
SEE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTIONS
FOR LOCATION OF SAFETY FENCE
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
i/2'/FT,
-tea I 2rl
L
~ n ~~
SEE PLAN AND CROSS-SECTIONS
FOR IOCATION OF RETAINING W
OR AS DIRECTED BY THE ENGINEER
PARTIAL TYPICAL SECTION 3
FROM STA. 34+40.00 TO STA. 35+70.00
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C PROP. APPROX. 2" BIT. CONC. SURFACE COURSE. TYPE SF 9.5 A, AT AN
AvERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER SO. YD. IN EACH OF Two LAYERS.
~ PROP. 6" AGGREGATE BASE COURSE.
P PRIME COAT AT THE RATE OF 0.35 GAL. PER S0. YD.
T EARTH MATERIAL
~ PROPOSED APPROXIMATE 2" DF SELECT GRANULAR MATERIAL.
"""' "" ~ ^•~mClv~ tubt ~LUrts ARE 1: I.
RETAINING WALL
SEE DETAIL
ALL

W I I fl, it ~,
I/I.l
l/ ~ ~
~ n I~
- J~ ~ ~~ u
ICJ ,~ 1'
\` ~° ~~ ~
\ n~RaBpRe I II e
~ a,» wrn
0 JL
`~q \ SAFETY F NC 11 FROM AP tiOX.
"f ST,45l+8OJ 0 93+75
~ ~ J~ I~ ~
a S '~`' DINING WA~L FRp~V x.
M ~2 f'`~f ST I+BOI Tq'~ 53+24,8.5 ,RT?
(` ~'1lS CTEQq BY ENG1N
~~ SEE x- PIONS
vo'z'fo Q'E ~~
7 rt
~og0 \~~ c ,I c
=- N~ ~~ x .
00 °c~ ~Q F' 1
~c
c ~6 ~c I rv~ ~b 15 ~o+ r i i
T, y
as 8. ~TlIe~tolj
ekmet. C
y~ ~
Q1 .... N .n4'M-r16'R i~ le
JURIS AL ST MS 5f Nox02 ~ .-
QETER ~arBY Q~1AD PS ~P~&xsx :~ ~~
l /~ ii
3p, S ~ \... ~-
. - ~~ oe n Fe ef. \\
- .- ` >~` ra o ua ss
e
~r n "~"°s-°=°^ .68 p5fo53 555g~ 1 I ~ b '\ \ ' ~ ~_.,
~.
~' ~' ISto~~,1$82'(R11 D e 1143 ~ I'o •.. '~__~_..
r o, 53 p ~ 7 p0 ~ :~
I ~ ~."'1,: *BSrr ~ . 20 R - `~ ~ Io b~ p p / \~~ ' \ ..
I ~RETAIN/NG WALL 1 ° ~'~ x ~I o II ° ~ f~ / ~ \
b i As DIRECTED Br' fNGI ER ~ I ~, II ~ ~ ,~ ° ; ~ \
I TOP OID SIGN eu7 ea,~ij ~° ~~, w b ~ 7'I $f0 53+2581 B ~~ ~~
t + oewo rom ~ I II o Q O ~5'S0'55A5fRT % +s~ c\ F
I
n.7 Poth K b s<a a7-' /~ b D = 7523' 3974 ~
,z to should be sto bb ~~ J~ b / L ~ 13856 ~ ~ ~ \
om Retotntn0 woNed o•oy b b `) R, a `C,o© ~/ R e glg~
moo b ~
~ ~ o b0 ~ t + 0 fl O O b /~ $ b / /~~/ // ?I SIO 56+4620 n / X
D ~ 3538'l9l9'fRTI /
'~T,o 2T5.]3 I I+ n j ~~ ~/ ~ ~~ D ~ 5rn'448r
tFr " pa M5 0 - / //~ + T ~ 3315 //
Tle Mto
zlerlno cs °a //o'\\//p/ / PIS1o 60+550 /fl //
,,p~p\L ~ - 30'32'4315'fLTI
.. T~=275.83 „_ + 31 /~r~a°~fi. .' n ~ tarreem. ~D/.~
Faoa:eT aereaeNta No: amtr ro,
E-498!
FW WlCi N0.
FACINY OL~6N Hyp~Wa
eHCn,ee ermlrleea
~~R~naurr~~ mar
A CAS ~ „a nr
~`~E4SS%y,4't~f/r4y ~p~`.~"ESS~O+
SEAL ] a p~ SEAL
20761 (~+ 3 Gs~` 32619
OWNER
~~'fS:f

300
80
~o
60

Q
S
0
0'
W
W
N
L
a
~~~
~~
~~
ra~l
2,1
wa
a~
~~
OWNER
~"~-~"!

1 ~ 1 / ~~... !lWECT lBflErlCE N0. !M!fl N0.
~ E-4981 9
P/Sfa +5201 PlSto 64+7598 PISIO tA7;2r%"'~-. ~ Sf Alox A2 ~ sHEeNO.
p < II 4422' IRT1 p < 5' 25' 2809' (L71 p < PI Sio 69+6713
saePlo/u & XSEC p • 6536'19.88'fLTJ r~nurro~aN Nr~lwua
D < 601 4065' D < 6018" 40.85' D < 601 40.85' e+cua! eNUNee!
D < 6015' 4085'
A • UnNUrr
L < 1831 L < 899 L < 4804 ~ L < 115.4! o "j11U~f"', tAe''n
T = 919 T = 450 T ~ 2455 ~ T =6603 =p4f;»••~.°~/"4y ~F'4tNr,,,»„~l~q
R =95,00 R < 9500 R < 95D0 R = 9500 ~`pFkSSI ~•'! ;'~~oEFl1/~;~
,~ 6 {fi S ~, 9 E ~~~ s~ ;
~ { 10761 ~` ~} 91619
1 ~ 1 !!!
~... .,F X10 ~~f 4,, ~
n, arsl~n road ~ ~/. ~ ~., /M~IN4`~a ~ ~'I'+,~INE~~~
~~ 1 k o SLOE x \. A!'u1ui uLgP ~rrN+aulnOra
.. .. ~ 1 ..
fro ~~ ~ i
~... \.
dp~0 * y N ,wl, BEGIN SAr:E7r RaL ~-..~-_~'~-
G~ /~ {1 "bops STA67+I5 0~~
!MW .. .. C ~, p1y3°f S~
~- y/
-fit ;1 ~ 4 .ysc*' ~ f ~p~x'~ p'
'q"~
ay t° s: ~!e ~ ~ ~ ! mNb,
i~ N gse'd' N \m ~ ~' .~ ~ \ ~\~ .a
,\~ p ° _~ ° ° D ° °° D ° 0 °0 D ~ F E STRUCTURE PCANS ~ - -~'m~ m ~ J o~~J M1 ~ ~ , ~
D-~ ° 0 _.~_=a A°PAOACH RAIC DETAIL ~ ~~ R ~ ~- ~B,y, , • F /
__ ~-'_~_--- ~m
F ,\ ~•
\ \` ~------ I~ BEGIN BRIDGE `~
\~\ ~- ~ o o\ N STA65+20,5 ^ ~ fND BRIC<,E '~ \ ~ /
\~\ ~ ° I~1LLSSr urtEltnNrrn ar swal.uc I ~ / ~ k~sLa ~ \ ~~ .~ ~,~~ w°pp5
a a Esc w xs ~ ( ~ ~,o
\ ~ °D ° M) K O SLOE 3}•1 Ila `' ~ \ ~. ~ ^ aFET1'
~~ ~~ ytiti^~~y ~ Hm °' ~I * END ~+75 aL
\\\ ~ ~2 ~OQGO ~ \~ C IIhti1°j~ / N b' ~ 1t6g' N
+o0 64+
+00 67+00

m
a
c
m
c
w
v
v
r
N
d
A
r~
/ ~i
~/
.`y'
l[[ CGINTT
[! N rG 2q
SE Yox D2
SEC Plo/K & XSlC
w~Le+cL Na u~m wo.
•498r rr
Rw ~m No.
SEAL ` 3 E ~ SEAL
20761 ~ ~s 32614

APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION FORM
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
This form should be completed by following the instructions provided in Section IV of the JD Form Instructional Guidebook.
SECTION I: BACKGROUND INFORMATION
A. REPORT COMPLETION DATE FOR APPROVED JURISDICTIONAL DETERMINATION (JD):
B. DISTRICT OFFICE, FILE NAME, AND NUMBER: E-4981 - Endor Iron Furnace Greenway (Phase I) in Sanford
C. PROJECT LOCATION AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION: form for Unnamed Tributaries (UT) 1 and 2 to Big Buffalo
Creek (BBC).
State: NC County/parish borough: Lee City: Sanford
Center coordinates of site (lat/long in degree decimal format): Lat. ° P1ek Llst, Long. ° Pick List.
Universal Transverse Mercator: 17 663166E 3928621 N
Name of nearest waterbody: Big Buffalo Creek
Name of nearest Traditional Navigable Water (TNW) Into which the aquatic resource flows: Big Buffalo Creek flows into Deep River
Name of watershed or Hydrologic Unit Code (HUC): 03030003
Check if map/diagram of review area and/or potential jurisdictional areas is/are available upon request.
Check if other sites (e.g., offsite mitigation sites, disposal sites, etc...) are associated with this action and are recorded on a
different JD form.
D. REVIEW PERFORMED FOR SITE EVALUATION (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
Q Office (Desk) Determination. Date:
Field Determination. Date(s):
SECTION II: SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
A. RHA SECTION 10 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are no "navigable waters of the U.S." within Rivers and Harbors Act (RHA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 329) in the
review area. [Required)
^ Waters subject to the ebb and flow of the tide.
Q Waters are presently used, or have been used in the past, or may be susceptible for use to transport interstate or foreign commerce.
Explain:
B. CWA SECTION 404 DETERMINATION OF JURISDICTION.
There Are "waters of the U.S" within Clean Water Act (CWA) jurisdiction (as defined by 33 CFR part 328) in the review area. [Required]
Waters of the U.S.
a. Indicate presence of waters of U.S. in review area (check all that apply): ~
TNWs, including territorial seas
Wetlands adjacent to TNWs
Relatively permanent watersz (RPWs) that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs
Impoundments of jurisdictional waters
Isolated (interstate or intrastate) waters, including isolated wetlands
b. Identify (estimate) size of waters of the U.S. in the review area:
Non-wetland waters: 427 linear feet: width (fr) and/or acres.
Wetlands: acres.
c. Limits (boundaries) of jurisdiction based on: Established by OHWM.
Elevation of established OHWM (if known):
Z. Non-regulated waters/wetlands (check if applicable):3
Potentially jurisdictional waters and/or wetlands were assessed within the review area and determined to be not jurisdictional.
Explain:
~ Boxes checked below shall be supported by completing the appropriate sections in Section III below.
z For purposes of this form, an RPW is defined as a tributary that is not a TNW and that typically flows year-round or has continuous flow at least "seasonally"
(e.g., typically 3 months).
Supporting documentation is presented in Section IILF.

SECTION III: CWA ANALYSIS
A. TNWs AND WETLANDS ADJACENT TO TNWs
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over TNWs and wetlands adjacent to TNWs. If the aquatic resource is a TNW, complete
Section III.A.1 and Section III.D.1. only; if the aquatic resource is a wetland adjacent to a TNW, complete Sections III.A.1 and 2
and Section III.D.1.; otherwise, see Section III.B below.
1. TNW
Identify TNW:
Summarize rationale supporting determination:
2. Wetland adjacent to TNW
Summarize rationale supporting conclusion that wetland is "adjacent":
B. CHARACTERISTICS OF TRIBUTARY (THAT IS NOT A TNW) AND ITS ADJACENT WETLANDS (IF ANY):
This section summarizes information regarding characteristics of the tributary and its adjacent wetlands, if any, and it helps
determine whether or not the standards for jurisdiction established under Rapanos have been met.
The agencies will assert jurisdiction over non-navigable tributaries of TNWs where the tributaries are "relatively permanent
waters" (RPWs), i.e. tributaries that typically flow year-round or have continuous flow at least seasonally (e.g., typically 3
months). A wetland that directly abuts an RPW is also jurisdictional. Ifthe aquatic resource is not a TNW, but has year-round
(perennial) flow, skip to Section III.D.2. If the aquatic resource is a wetland directly abutting a tributary with perennial flow,
skip to Section III.D.4.
A wetland that is adjacent to but that does not directly abut an RPW requires a significant nexus evaluation. Corps districts and
EPA regions will include in the record any available information that documents the existence of a significant nexus between a
relatively permanent tributary that is not perennial (and its adjacent wetlands if any) and a traditional navigable water, even
though a significant nexus finding is not required as a matter of law.
If the waterbody° is not an RPW, or a wetland directly abutting an RPW, a JD will require additional data to determine if the
waterbody has a significant nexus with a TNW. If the tributary has adjacent wetlands, the significant nexus evaluation must
consider the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands. This significant nexus evaluation that combines, for
analytical purposes, the tributary and all of its adjacent wetlands is used whether the review area identified in the JD request is
the tributary, or its adjacent wetlands, or both. If the JD covers a tributary with adjacent wetlands, complete Section III.B.1 for
the tributary, Section III.B.2 for any onsite wetlands, and Section III.B.3 for all wetlands adjacent to that tributary, both onsite
and offsite. The determination whether a significant nexus exists is determined in Section III.C below.
1. Characteristics of non-TNWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) General Area Conditions:
Watershed size: Pick Ll.4t
Drainage area: Pick List
Average annual rainfall: inches
Average annual snowfall: inches
(ii) Physical Characteristics:
(a) Relationship with TNW:
^ Tributary flows directly into TNW.
^ Tributary flows through PtckLjst tributaries before entering TNW.
Project waters are Plck'Iaat river miles from TNW.
Project waters are PldtLlst river miles from RPW.
Project waters are PidcLia! aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Project waters are PIckLLs~ aerial (straight) miles from RPW.
Project waters cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
Identify flow route to TNWS:
Tributary stream order, if known:
"Note that the Instructional Guidebook contains additional information regazding swales, ditches, washes, and erosional features generally and in the arid
West.
s Flow route can be described by identifying, e.g., tributary a, which flows through the review area, to flow into tributary b, which then flows into TNW.

(b) General Tributary Characteristics (check all that apply):
Tributary is: ^ Natural
^ Artificial (man-made). Explain:
^ Manipulated (man-altered). Explain:
Tributary properties with respect to top of bank (estimate):
Average width: feet
Average depth: feet
Average side slopes: Pick List.
Primary tributary substrate composition (check all that apply):
^ Silts ^ Sands ^ Concrete
^ Cobbles ^ Gravel ^ Muck
^ Bedrock ^ Vegetation. Type/% cover:
^ Other. Explain:
Tributary condition/stability [e.g., highly eroding, sloughing banks]. Explain:
Presence of run/riflle/pool complexes. Explain:
Tributary geometry: Pick Lief
Tributary gradient (approximate average slope):
(c) Flow:
Tributary provides for: 1~ck List
Estimate average number of tlow events in review area/year: Pk'.1[ List
Describe flow regime:
Other information on duration and volume:
Surface flow is: )plek ~Iat. Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: PickLis~. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
Tributary has (check all that apply):
^ Bed and banks
^ OHWM6 (check all indicators that apply):
^ clear, natural line impressed on the bank ^
^ changes in the character of soil ^
^ shelving ^
^ vegetation matted down, bent, or absent ^
^ leaf litter disturbed or washed away ^
^ sediment deposition ^
^ water staining ^
^ other (list):
^ Discontinuous OHWM.' Explain:
If factors other than the OHWM were used to determ
High Tide Line indicated by:
^ oil or scum line along shore objects
^ fine shell or debris deposits (foreshore)
^ physical markings/characteristics
^ tidal gauges
^ other (list):
the presence of litter and debris
destruction of terrestrial vegetation
the presence of wrack line
sediment sorting
scour
multiple observed or predicted flow events
abrupt change in plant community
ine lateral extent of CWA jurisdiction (check all that apply)
Mean High Water Mark indicated by:
^ survey to available datum;
^ physical markings;
^ vegetation lines/changes in vegetation types.
(iii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize tributary (e.g., water color is clear, discolored, oily film; water quality; general watershed characteristics, etc.).
Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
6A natural or man-made discontinuity in the OHWM does not necessarily sever jurisdiction (e.g., where the stream temporarily flows underground, or where
the OHWM has been removed by development or agricultural practices). Where there is a break in the OHWM that is unrelated to the waterbody's flow
regime (e.g., flow over a rock outcrop or through a culvert), the agencies will look for indicators of flow above and below the break.
'Ibid.

(iv) Biological Characteristics. Channel supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian comdor. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Wetland fringe. Characteristics:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
2. Characteristics of wetlands adjacent to non-TNW that flow directly or indirectly into TNW
(i) Physical Characteristics:
(a) General Wetland Characteristics:
Properties:
Wetland size: acres
Wetland type. Explain:
Wetland quality. Explain:
Project wetlands cross or serve as state boundaries. Explain:
(b) General Flow Relationship with Non-TNW:
Flow is: PlckList. Explain:
Surface flow is: PkkList
Characteristics:
Subsurface flow: Pick List. Explain findings:
^ Dye (or other) test performed:
(c) Wetland Adjacency Determination with Non-TNW:
^ Directly abutting
^ Not directly abutting
^ Discrete wetland hydrologic connection. Explain:
^ Ecological connection. Explain:
^ Separated by berm/tamer. Explain:
(d) Proximity (Relationship) to TNW
Project wetlands are Pick,Litrt river miles from TNW.
Project waters are Pick L~{ aerial (straight) miles from TNW.
Flow is from: Pick Lid.
Estimate approximate location of wetland as within the Fick LIst floodplain.
(ii) Chemical Characteristics:
Characterize wetland system (e.g., water color is clear, brown, oil film on surface; water quality; general watershed
characteristics; etc.). Explain:
Identify specific pollutants, if known:
(iii) Biological Characteristics. Wetland supports (check all that apply):
^ Riparian buffer. Characteristics (type, average width):
^ Vegetation type/percent cover. Explain:
^ Habitat for:
^ Federally Listed species. Explain findings:
^ Fish/spawn areas. Explain findings:
^ Other environmentally-sensitive species. Explain findings:
^ Aquatic/wildlife diversity. Explain findings:
3. Characteristics of all wetlands adjacent to the tributary (if any)
All wetland(s) being considered in the cumulative analysis: I'iCJc Lit
Approximately ( )acres in total are being considered in the cumulative analysis.

For each wetland, specify the following:
Directly abuts? (Y/N) Size in acres) Directly abuts? (YM) Size (in acres)
Summarize overall biological, chemical and physical functions being performed:
G SIGNIFICANT NEXUS DETERMINATION
A significant nexus analysis will assess the flow characteristics and functions of the tributary itself and the functions performed
by any wetlands adjacent to the tributary to determine if they significantly affect the chemical, physical, and biological integrity
of a TNW. For each of the following situations, a significant nexus exists if the tributary, in combination with all of its adjacent
wetlands, has more than a speculative or insubstantial effect on the chemical, physical and/or biological integrity of a TNW.
Considerations when evaluating significant nexus include, but are not limited to the volume, duration, and frequency of the flow
of water in the tributary and its proximity to a TNW, and the functions performed by the tributary and all its adjacent
wetlands. It is not appropriate to determine significant nexus based solely on any specific threshold of distance (e.g. between a
tributary and its adjacent wetland or between a tributary and the TNW). Similarly, the fact an adjacent wetland lies within or
outside of a floodplain is not solely determinative of significant nexus.
Draw connections between the features documented and the effects on the TNW, as identified in the Rapanos Guidance and
discussed in the Instructional Guidebook. Factors to consider include, for example:
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to carry pollutants or flood waters to
TNWs, or to reduce the amount of pollutants or flood waters reaching a TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), provide habitat and lifecycle support functions for fish and
other species, such as feeding, nesting, spawning, or rearing young for species that are present in the TNW?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have the capacity to transfer nutrients and organic carbon that
support downstream foodwebs?
• Does the tributary, in combination with its adjacent wetlands (if any), have other relationships to the physical, chemical, or
biological integrity of the TNW?
Note: the above list of considerations is not inclusive and other functions observed or known to occur should be documented
below:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW that has no adjacent wetlands and flows directly or indirectly into TNWs. Explain
findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary itself, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for non-RPW and its adjacent wetlands, where the non-RPW flows directly or indirectly into
TNWs. Explain findings of presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its
adjacent wetlands, then go to Section III.D:
Significant nexus findings for wetlands adjacent to an RPW but that do not directly abut the RPW. Explain findings of
presence or absence of significant nexus below, based on the tributary in combination with all of its adjacent wetlands, then go to
Section III.D:
D. DETERMINATIONS OF JURISDICTIONAL FINDINGS. THE SUBJECT WATERS/WETLANDS ARE (CHECK ALL
THAT APPLl~:
TNWs and Adjacent Wetlands. Check all that apply and provide size estimates in review area:
^ TNWs: linear feet width (ft), Or, acres.
^ Wetlands adjacent to TNWs: acres.
RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
® Tributaries of TNWs where tributaries typically flow year-round are jurisdictional. Provide data and rationale indicating that
tributary is perennial: There are two RPWs associated with this project. Water flows within Unnamed Tributaries (UT) 1 and
2 to BBC year-round. Additionally, the tributaries have established, stable banks and possessed several geomorphological and
hydrological indicators indicative of perennial tributaries. UTs 1 and 2 flow into BBC and BBC flows into the Deep River.
~] Tributaries of TNW where tributaries have continuous flow "seasonally" (e.g., typically three months each year) are
jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section II[.B. Provide rationale indicating that tributary flows
seasonally:

Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: 427 linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
3. Non-RPWss that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Waterbody that is not a TNW or an RPW, but flows directly or indirectly into a TNW, and it has a significant nexus with a
TNW is jurisdictional. Data supporting this conclusion is provided at Section [[I.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional waters within the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
4. Wetlands directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands directly abut RPW and thus are jurisdictional as adjacent wetlands.
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow year-round. Provide data and rationale
indicating that tributary is perennial in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is
directly abutting an RPW:
Wetlands directly abutting an RPW where tributaries typically flow "seasonally." Provide data indicating that tributary is
seasonal in Section III.B and rationale in Section III.D.2, above. Provide rationale indicating that wetland is directly
abutting an RPW:
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
5. Wetlands adjacent to but not directly abutting an RPW that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
^ Wetlands that do not directly abut an RPW, but when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent
and with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisidictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide acreage estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
6. Wetlands adjacent to non-RPWs that flow directly or indirectly into TNWs.
Wetlands adjacent to such waters, and have when considered in combination with the tributary to which they are adjacent and
with similarly situated adjacent wetlands, have a significant nexus with a TNW are jurisdictional. Data supporting this
conclusion is provided at Section III.C.
Provide estimates for jurisdictional wetlands in the review area: acres.
7. Impoundments of jurisdictional waters.9
As a general rule, the impoundment of a jurisdictional tributary remains jurisdictional.
^ Demonstrate that impoundment was created from "waters of the U.S.," or
^ Demonstrate that water meets the criteria for one of the categories presented above (1-6), or
^ Demonstrate that water is isolated with a nexus to commerce (see E below).
ISOLATED [INTERSTATE OR INTRA-STATE] WATERS, INCLUDING'ISOLATED WETLANDS, THE USE,
DEGRADATION OR DESTRUCTION OF WHICH COULD AFFECT INTERSTATE COMMERCE, INCLUDING ANY
SUCH WATERS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):to
^ which are or could be used by interstate or foreign travelers for recreational or other purposes.
^ from which fish or shellfish are or could be taken and sold in interstate or foreign commerce.
^ which are or could be used for industrial purposes by industries in interstate commerce.
^ Interstate isolated waters. Explain:
^ Other factors. Explain:
gSee Footnote # 3.
To complete the analysis refer to the key in Section IIl.D.6 of the Instructional Guidebook.
10 Prior to asserting or declining CWA jurisdiction based solely on this category, Corps Districts will elevate the action to Corps and EPA HQ for
review consistent with the process described in the Corps/EPA Memorandum Regarding CWA Act Jurisdiction Following Rapanos.

Identify water body and summarize rationale supporting determination:
Provide estimates forjurisdictional waters in the review area (check all that apply):
Tributary waters: linear feet width (ft).
Other non-wetland waters: acres.
Identify type(s) of waters:
Wetlands: acres.
F. NON-JURISDICTIONAL WATERS, INCLUDING WETLANDS (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY):
If potential wetlands were assessed within the review area, these areas did not meet the criteria in the 1987 Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual and/or appropriate Regional Supplements.
^ Review area included isolated waters with no substantial nexus to interstate (or foreign) commerce.
^ Prior to the Jan 200] Supreme Court decision in "SWANCC," the review area would have been regulated based solely on the
"Migratory Bird Rule" (MBR).
Waters do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such a finding is required for jurisdiction. Explain:
Other: (explain, if not covered above):
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area, where the sole potential basis ofjurisdiction is the MBR
factors (i.e., presence of migratory birds, presence of endangered species, use of water for irrigated agriculture), using best professional
judgment (check all that apply): "
^ Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, strepms): linear feet width (ft).
^ Lakes/ponds: acres.
^ Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
^ Wetlands: acres.
Provide acreage estimates for non jurisdictional waters in the review area that do not meet the "Significant Nexus" standard, where such
a finding is required for jurisdiction (check all that apply):
Non-wetland waters (i.e., rivers, streams): linear feet, width (ft).
Lakes/ponds: acres.
Other non-wetland waters: acres. List type of aquatic resource:
Wetlands: acres.
SECTION IV: DATA SOURCES.
A. SUPPORTING DATA. Data reviewed for JD (check all that apply -checked items shall be included in case file and, where checked
and requested, appropriately reference sources below):
^ NTaps, plans, plots or plat submitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant:
^ Data sheets preparedlsubmitted by or on behalf of the applicant/consultant.
^ Office concurs with data sheets/delineation report.
^ Office does not concur with data sheets/delineation report.
[~ Data sheets prepared by the Corps:
^ Corps navigable waters' study:
^ U.S. Geological Survey Hydrologic Atlas:
^ USGS NHD data.
^ USGS 8 and 12 digit HUC maps.
U.S. Geological Survey map(s). Cite scale & quad name:
^ USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service Soil Survey. Citation:
^ National wetlands inventory map(s). Cite name:
^ State/Local wetland inventory map(s):
^ FEMA/F[RM maps:
100-year Floodplain Elevation is: (National Geodectic Vertical Datum of 1929)
Photographs: ^ Aerial (Name & Date):
or ^ Other (Name & Date):
[] Previous determination(s). File no. and date of response letter:
^ Applicable/supporting case law:
^ Applicable/supporting scientific literature:
^ Other information (please specify):
B. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS TO SUPPORT JD: No wetlands were located within the project study area.
•• /v L1V111V111. 1~V. ///VV.1.1
The North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Raleigh, North Carolina
Prepared By:
Jim Mason, Environmental Biologist
Natural Environment Unit
July 2007
r

TABLE OF CONTENTS .....................................................................................................PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ............................................................................................................... l
1.2 Purpose .................................................................................................................................1
1.3 Methodology ........................................................................................................................1
1.4 Qualifications of Field Investigators ....................................................................................2
1.5 Definitions ............................................................................................................................3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .....................................................................................................4
2.1 Regional Characteristics ...................................................................................................... 4
2.2 Soils ................................................................................................. .. . - a
2.3 Water Resources .................................................................................................................. 5
2.3.1 Surface Water Characteristics ...................................................................................... 6
2.3.1.1 Best Usage Classification ..................................................................................... 7
` 2.3.2 Water Quality ............................................................................................................... 7
2.3.2.1 Listed Waters in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act ..................................... 7
2.3.2.2 Point and Non-Point Source Discharges .............................................................. 7
2.3.2.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Sampling Stations ......................................7
2.3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ..................................................................... 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ......................................................................................................9
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
.................................................................................................. 9
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ....................................................................................10
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest .......................................................................................................10
3.1.4 Terrestrial Wildlife .....................................................................................................10
3.2 Aquatic Communities ........................................................................................................11
3.3 Impacts to Biotic Resources ...............................................................................................12
3.3.1 Potential Terrestrial Impacts ......................................................................................12
3.3.2 Potential Aquatic Impacts ..........................................................................................12

4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .........................................................................................13
4.1 Waters of the United States ................................................................................................13
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Topics ..................................................................................................13
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
ii

4.2 Permit Issues ......................................................................................................................14
4.2.1 Mitigation ...................................................................................................................14
4.2.1.1 Avoidance ..........................................................................................................15
4.2.1.2 Minimization ......................................................................................................15
4.2.1.3 Compensatory Mitigation ..................................................................................15
4.3 Protected Species ...............................................................................................................16
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species .......................................................................................16
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern ........................................................................................19
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................21
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Coverage Area of Terrestrial Communities within the Project Study Area .....................12
Table 2. Jurisdictional Streams within the Project Study Area ......................................................14
Table 3. Federally Protected Species for Lee County ....................................................................16
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Lee County .................................................................... 20
APPENDIX A: FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity and Study Area ,
Figure 2a. Jurisdictional Streams and Terrestrial Communities
Figure 2b. Jurisdictional Streams and Terrestrial Communities
APPENDIX B: STREAM RATING FORMS
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
iii

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed projec
Lee County, within the city limits of the City of Sanford (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
submitted to assist in the
t. This project is located in
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to construct the first phase
of the Endor Iron Furnace Bicycle and Pedestrian Trail. The trail will begin at the Kiwanis
Family Park on Carbonton Road (SR 1009) and run approximately 1.43 miles north to Boone
Circle (an unopened road) (Figure 1). A portion of the trail will run adjacent to U.S. Route 1
(U.S. 1), while another portion will run along Big Buffalo Creek and one of its unnamed
tributaries (UT 1). Based on preliminary plans, the trail will consist of a 10-foot wide asphalt
path with 2-foot wide crushed stone shoulders. Curb and gutter work has also been proposed
along Carbonton Road and where the path intersects Spring Lane (SR 1100). It is also expected
that either culverts or bridges will be used to cross UT lto Big Buffalo Creek at three locations
and UT 2 to Big Buffalo Creek at one location.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, describe, and quantify the various
natural resources that may be impacted by the proposed action. Evaluations conducted for this
study include: 1) an assessment of physical resources, including soil and water resources, 2) an
assessment of biotic resources, including plant communities, aquatic habitats, terrestrial wildlife,
and aquatic species, 3) an evaluation of waters of the U.S., including surface waters and wetlands,
4) an assessment of raze and protected species habitat, and 5) an evaluation of potential impacts
resulting from construction, as well as recommendations for measures which may minimize
resource impacts.
These assessments and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts and the current project study area. If design parameters, study area limits, or criteria
change, additional field investigations will be required.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this research
included the following:
• U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 100K Quadrangle Map for Southern Pines and 24K
Quadrangle Map for Sanford (SANFOR)
• 1998 Color-Infrared (IR) Digital Orthophotography 24K Quadrangle Map for Sanford
• U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps
• Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation Service)
Soil Survey of Lee County (1989)
• NRCS Soil Data Mart website
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report
July 2007

• USFWS list of federally protected species (website; last updated May 1.0 2007)
• N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of state protected species, rare
species, and rare. habitats (website; last updated July 2,2007)
• NCNHP lists of rare plants and animals of North Carolina (2006)
• NCNHP County Inventory for Lee County (Cotterman 1996)
• N.C. Department of Environmental and Natural Resources (NCDENR), N.C. Division of
Water Quality (NCDWQ), and N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) resource
information
Field visits were performed to determine the approximate boundaries of plant communities.
These boundaries were transcribed onto aerial photography while in the field, then digitized in the
office into ArcGIS shapefiles for use in mapmaking and data analysis. Communities were
assessed within the project study area. Dominant plant species were identified in each stratum for
each plant community. When necessary, Radford et al. (1968), Weakley (unpublished), and
similar literature pertaining to the characteristics of vascular flora were used to assist in plant
identification. When possible, plant community descriptions were based on the classifications
utilized by Schafale and Weakly (1990). Jurisdictional waters were also examined during the
current field investigation to determine aquatic habitat and wildlife.
Wildlife occurrences were determined through field observations, habitat evaluation within the
project study area, the analysis of secondary indicators left by terrestrial and avian fauna (tracks,
scat, burrows, nests, and evidence of feeding), as well as by performing reviews of supporting
literature. Literature that was either reviewed or used in species identification included Elbroch
(2003), Sibley (2000), Menhinick (1991), Webster, et al. (1985), and Martof, et al. (1980). The
NCDWQ Stream Fish Community Assessment Program database was also utilized to assess
icthyofauna. Habitat assessments and species surveys were conducted for federally listed
Endangered or Threatened species. Field evaluations were also performed to determine whether
suitable habitat for Federal Species of Concern (FSC) existed.
Jurisdictional streams were identified based upon the methodology outlined in the NCDWQ
publication, Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial streams, Version
3.1 (2005). Where the status of a stream was questionable, an NCDWQ Stream Identification
Form and a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USAGE) Stream Quality Assessment Worksheet
were completed. Potential jurisdictional wetlands were examined using the methodology outlined
in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory 1987).
NCDOT biologists Jim Mason, Ashley Cox, and James Pflaum conducted a majority of the field
investigations for this project on May 21, 2007. An additional site visit by NCDOT biologists
Jim Mason and Duncan Quinn was made on July 6, 2007 to perform a harperella (Ptilimnium
nodosum) survey and to re-evaluate portions of the study area.
1.4 Qualifications of Field Investigators
Principal
Investigator: James S. Mason
Education: Bachelor of Arts, Biology, Colby College
Master of Science, Biology/Ecology, University of North Carolina at Charlotte
Experience: Environmental Biologist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, January 2007 -Present
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, June 2006 -January 2007
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report
July 2007
2

Coastal Waterbird Monitor, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Westport, MA,
Apri12005 -August 2005
Osprey Monitor, Project Osprey Watch, Martha's Vineyard, MA, May 2002 -
August 2002
Coastal Waterbird Monitor, Massachusetts Audubon Society, Barnstable, MA,
Apri12001 -August 2001
Expertise: Natural resource investigations, Section 7 field investigations, protected species
surveys, Section 404/401 permitting, technical report writing, wetland
delineation, benthic macroinvertebrate sampling
Investigator: Ashley B. Cox, Jr.
Education: B.S., Natural Resources-Marine and Coastal, North Carolina State University
Experience: Senior Environmental Technician (formerly Environmental Specialist), NCDOT,
November 2006 -Present
Environmental Technician, NCDOT, August 2003 -November 2006
Expertise: Natural resource investigations, wetland delineation, technical report writing
Investigator: James Pflaum
Education: B.S., Biology, Elon College
M.S., Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, January 2007 -Present
Environmental Specialist, N.C. Emergency Management, March 2006 -January
2007
Biological Technician (Fisheries), U.S. Forest Service, Petersburg, AK, May
2005 -Oct. 2005
Conservation Project Leader, International Student Volunteers, Sydney,
Australia, May 2004 -August 2004
Expertise: Natural resource investigations, protected species surveys, wetland stream
delineation, technical report writing
Investigator: Duncan Quinn
Education: B.S., Atmospheric Sciences, University of North Carolina at Asheville
Master of Forestry, North Carolina State University
Experience: Environmental Senior Technician, NCDOT, May 2007 -Present
Graduate Research Assistant, NCSU, August 1999 -December 2003
Environmental Health Technician, NCDENR, May 1999 -August 1999
Meteorologist, National Climatic Data Center, June 1994 -May 1999
Expertise: Natural resource investigations, wetland and stream delineation, ecological
restoration, technical report writing
1.5 Definitions
The definitions used for area descriptions in this report are as follows:
• Project Study Area denotes an area 50 feet wide (25 feet on either side of the proposed
centerline) along the length of the project.
• Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.5 mile 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 position.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
3

2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Regional Characteristics
The entire project is located in Lee County, North Carolina, .specifically within the incorporated
limits of the City of Sanford. Lee County is a borderline county in terms of physiography, with
portions in both the Piedmont Plateau and upper Coastal Plain Physiographic Provinces. The
project study area is located in the Piedmont Plateau Physiographic Province. It is also located
within the Triassic Basin Ecoregion, which is a broad, low-lying geologic feature created
approximately 250 million years ago during the Triassic period (Ecoregion 45g; Griffith et al.
2002). Topography in the Triassic Basin is generally flat to gently rolling with relatively wide
valleys and meandering, sometimes sluggish creeks (Cotterman 1996).
Within the project study area itself, the topography is gently rolling, with moderately-sized hills
rising from the low-lying areas adjacent to Big Buffalo Creek and UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek. A
majority of the study area is located within these low-lying stream sections. Elevation ranges
between 260 to 270 feet along the creeks to a high of 330 feet at the crest of a hill along U.S. 1.
One noteworthy characteristic of this hill along U.S. 1 is that there is a large field of boulders
present on the south-facing slope of the hill. The boulders are just west of a power line right-of-
way (ROW) and are within the project study area. Current land use within the project vicinity is
primarily urbanized, with commercial and residential development, and forested areas.
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 of Lee County (1989), the majority of the soils
located within the project study area are of the Mayodan-Pinkston and Chewacla-Wehadkee-
Congaree associations. The Mayodan-Pinkston association typically consists of gently sloping to
steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and clayey and loamy subsoils. This
association is usually found on uplands in the western and northern parts of Lee County and
comprises 40 percent of the county's soil content. The Chewacla-Wehadkee-Congaree
association consists of nearly level, well drained to poorly drained soils that have a loamy surface
layer and a loamy subsoil or underlying material. This association comprises five percent of the
county's soil content, with one of the largest areas occurring along Big Buffalo Creek.
Soil series include soils that have similar profiles except for differences in texture of the surface
layer or of the underlying material. They can also differ in slope, stoniness, salinity, wetness,
degree of erosion, and other characteristics. On the basis of such differences, soil series are
divided into soil phases and are depicted in the soil survey as mapping units. A description of
each of the four (4) identified mapping units, their general location in the project area, and their
hydric status are listed below in alphabetical order.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
4

Chewacla silt loam (Ch
This is the dominant soil type within the project study area. It is located throughout the
floodplains of Big Buffalo Creek and its tributaries and makes up a large majority of the northern
three-fourths of the project. This soil type is nearly level, somewhat poorly drained, and is
frequently flooded for brief periods. Chewacla silt loam has inclusions of both Congaree and
Wehadkee soils, the latter of which gives this soil type a "hydric rating". Approximately five
percent of the area mapped as Chewacla silt loam in Lee County contains areas of Wehadkee soil,
which is a relatively undrained soil type.
Congaree silt loam (Cp)
Congaree silt loam is located in two small areas within the floodplain of Big Buffalo Creek.
These areas are near the southern end of the project, in close proximity to Carbonton Road. This
soil is nearly level, well drained to moderately well drained, and is frequently flooded for brief
periods. Congaree silt loam has inclusions of both Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, the latter of
which gives this soil type a "hydric rating". Approximately five percent of the area mapped as
Congaree silt loam in Lee County contains areas of Wehadkee soil, which is a relatively
undrained soil type.
Mayodan fine sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes (MfD
This soil type is scattered throughout the project study area, with patches at the southem end
along Carbonton Road, along U.S. 1, and near Boone Circle at the northern end of the project.
Mayodan fine sandy loam is typically well drained and found along drainageways on short side
slopes of Piedmont uplands. Within the project study area,. this soil is located on upland slopes
adjacent to the floodplains of Big Buffalo Creek and UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek. This soil type
may have inclusions of both Pinkston and Creedmoor soils, with the former located on slightly
steeper slopes and the latter located in depressions. Mayodan fine sandy loam is non-hydric.
Mayodan-Urban land complex 2 to 8 percent sloes (MrB)
Only one area within the project study area contains this soil type. The area is associated with a
large shopping complex that is accessed via Spring Lane and adjacent to U.S. 1. This map unit
typically consists of approximately 60 percent Mayodan soil that is well drained, 30 percent
Urban land, and 10 percent other soils including soil areas disturbed during urbanization. It is the
dominant map type in the City of Sanford. Within this mapping unit, there are also inclusions of
Pinkston, Chewacla, and Dothan soils, with Pinkston soils on side slopes near drainage ways,
Chewacla on narrow flood plains, and Dothan in the southern part of Sanford at the boundary
between the Piedmont and the Coastal Plain. The Mayodan-Urban land complex is non-hydric.
2.3 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning surface water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resource assessments include the physical characteristics, best usage
standards, and water quality aspects of the water resources, along with their relationship to major
regional drainage systems. Probable impacts to surface water resources are also discussed, as are
means to minimize impacts.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007

2.3.1 Surface Water Characteristics
The proposed project may impact surface waters within the Cape Fear River Basin [Hydrologic
Unit (HU) code 03030003]. This river basin is the largest one in the state, covering 9,322 square
miles in 26 counties (NCDWQ 2000). The project study area is also located within NCDWQ
subbasin 03-06-11. A total of four surface waters were identified within the project study area,
including Big Buffalo Creek, two perennial UTs to Big Buffalo Creek (UTs 1 and 2), and an
intermittent stream (UT 3) (Figures 2 and 3). All study waters except UT 3 drain into Big
Buffalo Creek, which drains into the Deep River (NCDWQ 2005). No jurisdictional wetlands
are located within the project study area.
Big Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that flows north just inside the boundary of and adjacent
to the northern half of the project study area. It has a channel width of approximately 30 to 35
feet and a wetted width of 20-plus feet within the project study area. The creek has a bankfull
height of 6 to 10 feet and a water depth of between a few inches and 1 to 2 feet. During the field
visit on May 21, 2007, the water was clear to slightly murky with moderate flow and the creek
had a substrate of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder.
UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that drains into Big Buffalo Creek from the east,
just north of Spring Lane. The project study area follows this UT from where the project turns
northwest away from U.S. 1 to near its confluence with Big Buffalo Creek. It has a channel
width of approximately 12 to 14 feet and a wetted width of 4 to 10 feet within the project study
area. The creek has a bankfull height of 4 to 6 feet and a water depth of between 6 inches and 1
foot. During the field visit on May 21, 2007, the water was clear to slightly cloudy due to
sediment input from nearby development and urban areas. The flow was slow to moderate and
the creek had a substrate of silt, sand, gravel, cobble, and boulder.
UT 2 to Big Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream that flows into Big Buffalo Creek from the east
and crosses the project study area approximately 1,000 feet north of UT 1's confluence with the
main creek. The creek has a channel width of approximately 8 to 10 feet and a wetted width of 6
to 8 feet within the project study area. It has a bankfull height of 1 to 7 feet and a water depth of
between 0 inches and over 1 foot. During the field visit on May 21, 2007, the water was clear to
somewhat cloudy/murky, the flow was moderate, and the creek had a substrate of silt, sand,
gravel, cobble, and boulder.
UT 3 is located at the far northern end of the project. The stream originates at the top of a large
hill, springing from the ground at the base of a roadside ditch. The origin of the water is
unknown, but it is likely anon-natural source (possibly a leaking water pipe). The channel
proceeds west and downhill into the project study area, turns north, and goes subterranean in the
middle of a sanitary sewer line. UT 3 does not have an aboveground connection to Big Buffalo
Creek. During the original field visit on May 21, 2007, UT 3 received an NCDWQ Stream
Classification rating of 16.5 within the study area. However, since flow was observed throughout
the aboveground reach of the channel and it had not rained in some time, best professional
judgement was used to determine that it was at least intermittent. Flowing water was also
observed during a subsequent re-visit on July 6, 2007. UT 3 has a channel width of
approximately 1 foot and a wetted width of 8 inches within the project study area. The stream
had a bankfull height of 1 to 6 inches and a water depth between less than 1 inch and 2 inches.
There was a 10 inch deep pool at the northwestern end of the stream, where it goes underground.
The water was observed as being clear, the flow was slow, and the substrate was silt.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
6

2.3.1.1 Best Usage Classification
Big Buffalo Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of C [NCDWQ Index No. 17-40
(09/01/1974)]. The C designation denotes waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Secondary recreation refers to
human body contact with waters on an infrequent or incidental basis.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or Critical Areas (CA) occur within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Additionally, none of the streams located within the prpject study area support trout or
anadromous fish. No essential fish habitat has been designated for any of the streams located
within the project study area, nor are there any listed streams within one mile of the project study
area.
2.3.2 Water Quality
This section describes the water quality for the water resources within the project study area.
Waters listed on the Section 303(d) List of Impaired Waters are discussed, as are potential
impacts to water quality from point and non-point sources. Water quality assessments are based
upon published resource information and field study observations.
2.3.2.1 Listed Waters in Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act
Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act (CWA) requires states to develop a list of waters not
meeting water quality standards or which have impaired uses. A review of the 2006 Final
303(d) List of Impaired Waters for North Carolina indicates that Big Buffalo Creek, from
its source to the Deep River, is listed as an impaired waterway due to reduced biological
integrity. This impairment is a result of habitat degradation (NCDWQ 2007).
2.3.2.2 Point and Non-Point Source Discharges
Point source wastewater discharge sites are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to apply for a permit. Based
upon NCDWQ's database, there are no NPDES permit locations located either within the project
study area or within 1.0 mile upstream of the project study area (NCDWQ 2005).
Non-point source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater,
snowmelt, or atmospheric deposition. Non-point source runoff from land development,
construction, failing septic systems, roads and other impervious surfaces (including parking lots),
and lawns are likely the primary contributors of non-point source pollutants to the water resources
within the project vicinity. The land use surrounding and within the project study area is mainly
forested, residential, and commercial.
2.3.2.3 Benthic Macroinvertebrate and Fish Sampling Stations
The NCDWQ has initiated awhole-basin approach to water quality management for the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal, NCDWQ collects biological, chemical, and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed
every five years. Information pertaining to the water quality for subbasin 03-06-11 and the
project study area, in particular, is summarized in the Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan (NCDWQ 2005).
~-4v~1 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
7

One type of NCDWQ water quality monitoring performed within the Cape Fear River Basin
involves the assessment of benthic macroinvertebrate communities. This assessment is
comprised of macroinvertebrate sampling at fixed monitoring sites throughout the river basin.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, in general, have varying tolerances to pollution and can be used as
indicators for changes in water quality conditions. By determining the species present and their
relative abundance, the quality of a stream can be assessed and the presence or absence of
pollutants can be determined. A total of seven benthic macroinvertebrate monitoring sites are
present within subbasin 03-06-11. However, none are located within 1.0 mile of the project study
area. The closest monitoring site that was assessed for the current Basinwide Water Quality Plan
report is located on Little Buffalo Creek (station BB291), approximately 3.0 miles away. The site
was last monitored in 2003 and was "Not Rated" (NCDWQ 2005).
Fish communities are also sampled by NCDWQ under the Stream Fish Community Assessment
Program. The core mission of this program is to sample a set of fixed sites on lower Strahler-
order, wadeable creeks, streams, and rivers to support the NCDWQ's Basinwide Management
Plan Program. The assessment program uses methods developed for the application of the North
Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI; NCDWQ 2006). There are two fish monitoring sites
within subbasin 03-06-11. However, no stations are located within 1.0 mile of the project study
area. The closest station is located approximately 3.5 miles downstream along Big Buffalo Creek
(station BF37). This station was last sampled in 2003 and was rated as "Fair" (1VCDWQ 2005).
2.3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Construction of the proposed project may impact water resources, but the estimated linear impact
is not known since the project is still in the design phase. Project construction may result in the
following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in incident light levels and turbidity due to increased sedimentation rates and
vegetation removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Increases in nutrient loading during construction through runoff from temporarily
exposed land surfaces.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from runoff and/or construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
Measures to minimize these potential impacts include formulation of an erosion and
sedimentation control plan, provisions for waste material and storage, stormwater management
measures, and appropriate maintenance measures. NCDOT's Best Management Practices
(BMPs) for Protection of Surface Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines shall 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 project.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007

3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include terrestrial and aquatic communities. This section describes the
communities encountered and the relationships between fauna and flora found within these
communities. The composition and distribution of biotic communities within the project study
area are reflective of the topography, hydrologic influences, and the project area's past and
present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and generally follow those presented by Schafale and Weakly (1990),
where possible. The dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community
are described and discussed.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three (3) primary community types were identified within the project study area. These
included: 1) Maintained/Disturbed areas, 2) Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest, and 3) Floodplain
Forest. Figures 2 and 3 present how each community is represented within the study area.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed
The Maintained/Disturbed community type was present throughout the entire project study area
and included: 1) commercial facilities and their associated properties, 2) roads and associated
roadsides, 3) parking lots, 4) power line and sewer line ROWs, 5) disturbed, wooded stream
buffers, and 6) individual homes and their maintained lawns.
In the southern portion of the project study area, the proposed bike trail runs west along
Carbonton Road, then north through the yards of several residences and along a power line ROW.
The dominant herbaceous and vine species observed in these areas included fescue (Festuca
spp.), various lawn grass mixes, Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), white clover
(Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), common dandelion (Taraxacum o~cinale),
wild onion (Album spp.), goldenrod (Solidago spp.), sawtooth blackberry (Rubus argutus), daisy
fleabane (Erigeron annuus), bush clover (Lespedeza cuneata), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans). One area along Carbonton Road, where it crosses under U.S. 1, was inundated with
kudzu (Pueraria montana). Tree and shrub species observed within or on the edge of these areas
included red maple (Ater rubrum), white oak (Quercus alba), black cherry (Prunus serotina),
sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), loblolly pine (Pinus
taeda), and Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense).
The largest Maintained/Disturbed area was located in the area adjacent to Spring Lane, with a
large shopping center and associated businesses present on the south side of the road and
additional commercial buildings and lots present on the north side of the road. In this area, a
majority of the land is covered by buildings, parking lots, roads, and maintained yards/fields. ' In
areas where plant growth was possible, herbaceous and vine species observed included fescue,
various lawn grass mixes, common dandelion, daisy fleabane, crown vetch (Securigera varia),
common mullein (Verbascum thapsus), curly dock (Rumex cr-ispus), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus
carota), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), wild geranium
(Geranium carolinianum), and pennywort (Hydrocotyl spp.). Tree and shrub species included
several ornamental species, tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), sycamore (Platanus
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007

occidentalis), and river birch (Betula nigra), the latter two species being found adjacent to LJT 1
to Big Buffalo Creek.
3.1.2 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community occurred in the upland forested areas of the project
study area. Dominant canopy species throughout this community type included: loblolly pine,
sweet gum, red maple, white oak, tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), northern red oak
(Quercus rubra), mockernut hickory (Carya alba), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra).
Sycamore, river birch, American elm (Ulmus americana), swamp chestnut oak (Quercus
michauxii), and box elder (Ater negundo) were more prevalent along lower slopes adjacent to the
floodplain of Big Buffalo Creek, where this community intergrades into the Floodplain Forest
community. Dominant shrub and understory species included black cherry, sweet gum, red
cedar, red maple, American elm, box elder, flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), southern sugar
maple (Ater barbatum), sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and white mulberry (Morus alba).
Herbaceous and vine species identified included poison ivy, sawtooth blackberry, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), Japanese honeysuckle, Japanese grass, common greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), wisteria (Wisteria floribunda), English ivy (Hedera helix), and wild strawberry
(Fragaria spp). This forest community most resembles the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
3.1.3 Floodplain Forest
This community type was found within the floodplain of Big Buffalo Creek in the northern one-
third of the project study area. It is generally confined to the floodplain itself; however, species
common to this community were also located slightly up-slope, where the community type
intergrades into Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest. Dominant canopy species included sycamore,
river birch, sweet gum, American elm, box elder, swamp chestnut oak, and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). Dominant understory species included box elder, sweet gum, red maple, green
ash, American elm, sycamore, river birch, Chinese privet, ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
water oak (Quercus nigra). Herbaceous species observed included Japanese grass, false nettle
(Boehmeria cylindrica), orange jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), and deer tongue (Dichanthelium
clandestinum). This forest community most resembles the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial
Forest community described by Schafale and Weakley (1990).
3.1.4 Terrestrial Wildlife
Forest and forest edge habitats located within the project study area provide foraging, drinking,
shelter, and nesting opportunities for several avian species. Many of the same species may also
be observed in more open, Maintained/Disturbed areas, either passing through those areas to
access other forested habitat or foraging for food. Avifauna either visually or aurally observed in
one or more of the three identified community types included Carolina chickadee (Poecile
carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American robin (Turdus migratorius),
northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), pileated woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), barn
swallow (Hirundo rustica), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), common grackle (Quiscalus
quiscula), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), red-
bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), American crow (Cornus brachyrhyncos), fish crow
(Cornus ossifragus), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), summer tanager (Pirangra rubra),
and northern parula (Parula americana).
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
10

A large variety of mammalian species are also likely to be found within each of the terrestrial
communities. Forest and forest edge habitats offer similar resources to those available to avian
species. Those same species found in forested areas may also be observed in more open,
Maintained/Disturbed areas, either passing through, foraging, or nesting. Gray squirrels (Sciurus
carolinensis) were observed in both forested and open habitat types. Other mammals that are
typical to these community types include eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), several mouse
species (Mus spp.), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), and gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus).
Herpetofauna are also likely to utilize the terrestrial communities found within the study area.
Species observed during field visits included eastern box turtle (Terrapene Carolina), snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and green anole (Anolis
carolinensis). Additional reptile species that may be observed include black rat snake (Elaphe
obsoleta), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough green
snake (Opheodrys aestivus), fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), and a variety of other skink
species (Family: Scincidae). Amphibian species either visually or aurally observed during field
visits include gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis or Hyla versicolor) and green frog (Rama
clamitans). Both species were observed near water. Other amphibian species that are typical to
these terrestrial communities include American toad (Bufo americanus), bullfrog (Rana
catesbeiana), upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triseriata), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), and
several salamander species (families Ambystomatidae and Plethodontidae).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
The aquatic communities found within the project study area include Big Buffalo Creek, UTs 1
and 2 to Big Buffalo Creek, and LJT 3. Vegetation along the larger, undisturbed streams included
riparian species such as sycamore, river birch, red maple, box elder, sweet gum, Chinese privet,
and ironwood.
These streams and the terrestrial communities surrounding them may provide breeding, shelter,
and feeding opportunities for many amphibians. Common amphibians that either inhabit or use
these streams or the community around them may include gray treefrog, upland chorus frog,
spring peeper, bullfrog, green frog, pickerel frog (Rana palustris), northern cricket frog (Acris
crepitans), northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineata), eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), marbled salamander (Ambystoma
opacum), and spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum).
Aquatic fauna present in jurisdictional waters is dependent upon physical characteristics of the
water body and overall condition of the water resource. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a
water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities. The larger perennial streams within
the project study area are likely to support a variety of benthic macroinvertebrates including
mayflies, stoneflies, caddisflies, dragonflies, damselflies, beetles, chironomid midges, craneflies,
amphipods, isopods, and crayfish. The intermittent and smaller perennial streams most likely
support only chironomid midges, beetles, oligochaetes, crayfish, isopods, and amphipods.
The NCDWQ does not maintain a fish monitoring station on any surface waters within the study
area or within 1.0 mile of the project. However, a sampling site for their Stream Fish Community
Assessment Program exists along Big Buffalo Creek (station BF37), approximately 3.5 miles
downstream of the project. This site was last sampled on June 16, 2003. Common species
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
11

._
observed during these surveys included redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and coastal shiner (Notropis petersoni).
3.3 Impacts to Biotic Resources
3.3.1 Potential Terrestrial Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described
above. Any construction-related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact
biological functions. Table 1 provides the acreage of the three community types within the
project study area. The degree of impact to biological communities associated with the proposed
project is dependent on the final design of the project. The amount of impact may be higher or
lower than the coverage areas listed below, depending on whether revisions/modifications are
made to the design.
Table 1. Coverage Area of Terrestrial Communities within the Prn~Prt Cfi,ri.~ s row
Community Type Acres Percentage of Project'Study Area (%)
Maintained/Disturbed 3.84* 44.05
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 2.12 24.39
Flood lain Forest 2.75 31.56
TOTAL 8.71 100
-coaaways were mauaea wnen caicwanng Mamtatned/llisturbed acreage.
Impacts to plant communities associated with construction activities include the removal of
vegetation, soil compaction, damage to and/or exposing of root systems, as well as potential
impacts associated with chemical spills. Since plant communities serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various species, project construction and/or increased noise resulting from the
completion of the new facility may reduce the amount of usable habitat for faunal species. A
reduction in habitat has the potential to diminish faunal numbers. Some possible causes for this
decrease include: 1) an increase in mortality rates for avian and mammalian young that fall out of
nests due to the increase in impervious surfaces or 2) individuals evacuating the area in search of
less disturbed patches of habitat. Once construction is completed, some organisms that were
displaced are expected to return, settling in areas of remaining suitable habitat in or adjacent to
the project study area.
3.3.2 Potential Aquatic Impacts
Aquatic organisms are acutely sensitive to changes in their environment. Therefore,
environmental impacts from construction activities may result in long term or irreversible effects
to those species and to their habitat. Impacts usually associated with in-stream construction
include alterations to the substrate and impacts to adjacent streamside vegetation. Such
disturbance within the substrate leads 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
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
12

. -
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 near 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 higher oxygen concentrations.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
4.1 Waters of the United States
Section 404 of the CWA requires regulation of discharges into "Waters of the United States."
The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) is the principle administrative agency of
the CWA; however, the USACE has the responsibility for implementation, permitting, and
enforcement of the provisions of the Act. The NCDWQ also has regulatory input through Section
401 of the CWA.
The USACE promulgated the definition of "Waters of the United States" under 33 CFR
§328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate and intrastate surface waters,
tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or groundwater at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal circumstances do support, a
prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil conditions are considered
"wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include swamps, marshes, bogs, and
similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill materials into Waters of the
United States falls under the jurisdiction of the USACE and must follow the statutory provisions
under Section 404 of the CWA (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Jurisdictional Topics
Streams were identified and rated using the NCDWQ Stream Identification Form, which is part of
the NCDWQ publication Identification Methods for the Origins of Intermittent and Perennial
streams, Version 3.1 (2005). The purpose of this manual and its accompanying field form is to
identify and score geomorphic, hydrological, and biological stream features that .distinguish
between ephemeral, intermittent and perennial streams. Generally, streams that score below 19
are considered ephemeral, streams that score between 19 and 30 are intermittent, and streams that
score greater than or equal to 30 are perennial. Best professional judgement is also used when
classifying streams.
The streams located within the project study area, their associated mitigation requirements, and
their coverage area within the project study area are listed below in Table 2. Stream
characteristics for each stream are listed above in Section 2.3.1 and their locations are shown in
Figures 2 and 3. Copies of the NCDWQ Stream Classification Forms, completed for streams that
were not defmitively perennial, are included in Appendix B.
~-4vn[ Natural Kesources Technical Report July 2007
13

Table 2. Jurisdictional Streams within the Prniert Ctnrly erPa
Jurisdictional Stream Classification Mitigable or
Non-Miti able Coverage Area`
'nearft.
Bi Buffalo Creek Perennial Miti able 600
UT 1 to Big Buffalo Creek Perennial Mitigable 369
UT 2 to Bi Buffalo Creek Perennial Miti able $g
UT 3 Intermittent Unknown 121
TOT AL 1,148
,vv,agc v, ~uca,,s s apprux,ma[e.
The project study area was also surveyed for jurisdictional wetlands in accordance with
guidelines in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. This approach employs
the analysis of three criteria for 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. After performing
a field visit on May 21, 2007, it was determined that no jurisdictional wetlands are present
within the project study area.
A field visit with both USAGE and NCDWQ will be scheduled in the immediate future to verify
the above-mentioned jurisdictional features.
4.2 Permit Issues
This project will likely be processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines. It is anticipated that a Nationwide Permit (NWP) 23 (67 FR
2020, 2082, January 15, 2002) will be applicable to this project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed, in whole or in part, by
another Federal agency or department. Additionally, these activities are included within a
category of actions that neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the
human or natural environment. The NCDWQ has made available a General 401 Water Quality
Certification for NWP 23 (WQC 3632). If temporary structures are necessary for construction
activities, access fills, or dewatering of the site, then a NWP 33 (67 FR 2020, .2087; January 15,
2002) permit and the associated General 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC 3634) will be
required.
4.2.1 Mitigation
USAGE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of
this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of Waters of
the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by CEQ
to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing
impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
C-4vts~ /Vatura! /tesources T ethnical Report July 2007
14

4.2.1.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between
the USEPA and 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.
4.2.1.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce adverse
impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and pemut conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
proposed project footprint through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes,
and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to Waters of the
United States crossed by the proposed project include: 1) strict enforcement of sedimentation
control measures during the entire life of the project through BMP's for the Protection of Surface
Waters, 2) reduction of clearing and grubbing activity, 3) reduction/elimination of direct
discharge into streams, 4) reduction of runoff velocity, 5) re-establishment of vegetation on
exposed areas, 6) judicious pesticide and herbicide usage, 7) minimization of "in-stream" activity,
and 8) litter/debris control. All efforts will be made to decrease impacts to Waters of the United
States.
4.2.1.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters of the
United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible. It is recognized
that "no net loss of wetland" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit
action. In accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2092; January 15, 2002, USACE requires compensatory
mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal.
NCDWQ may also require mitigation if water quality effects resulting from the project are not
minimized. The size and type of the proposed project impact and the function and value of the
impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and
practicable compensatory mitigation. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is
required for unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable
avoidance and minimization opportunities have been implemented. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, preservation and enhancement, and creation of Waters of the United States.
Such actions should be undertaken first in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
In accordance with the "Memorandum of Agreement Among the North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, the North Carolina Department of Transportation, and the
United States Army Crops of Engineers, Wilmington District", July 22, 2003, the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources Ecosystem Enhancement Program (NCEEP),
will be requested to provide off-site mitigation to satisfy the federal CWA compensatory
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
15

mitigation requirements for this project. A final determination regarding mitigation rests with the
USACE and the NCDWQ.
4.3 Protected Species
4.3.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. The term "Endangered
Species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range;" and the term "Threatened Species" is defined as "any species which is likely
to become an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). As of May 10, 2007, the USFWS lists three federally
protected species for Lee County: Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), red-cockaded
woodpecker (Picoides borealis), and harperella (Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows, along with their biological conclusions associated with this
project.
Table 3. Federally Protected Sneciec fnr i,ee ('nnnty
Scientific Name Common Name Status Habitat Biological
Present Conclusion
Notro is mekistocholas Ca e Feaz shiner E Unknown Unresolved
Picoides borealis red-cockaded E No No Effect
wood ecker
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E No No Effect
F _ F.,a~..,.~0,7
Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) .................................................................. Endangered
Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small (approximately 2 inches long), yellowish minnow with a black
band along both sides of its body. The shiner's fms are yellow and somewhat pointed. It has a
black upper lip and a lower lip that bears a thin black bar along its margin. The Cape Fear shiner
is endemic to the upper Cape Fear River Basin in the Central Piedmont of North Carolina. The
species is known from tributaries and mainstreams of the Deep, Haw, and Rocky Rivers in
Chatham, Harnett, Lee, Moore, and Randolph counties. Only five populations of the shiner are
thought to exist.
The Cape Fear shiner was listed as Endangered with Critical Habitat on September 25, 1987. In
the last few decades, the shiner has undergone a reduction in range, population sizes, and
population numbers. At the time of listing, only three populations where known; therefore, these
areas were designated as critical habitat. Critical habitat is defined under the Endangered Species
Act as either: 1) the specific areas within the geographical area occupied by a species which have
physical or biological features essential to the conservation of the species and that may require
special management considerations or protection or 2) specific areas outside the geographical
area occupied by a species which are essential for the conservation of the species. No Designated
Critical Habitat is located in the vicinity of Sanford, North Carolina.
~-~yc~l lvatura[ tcesources T ethnical Report July 2007
16

Appendix A:
Figures

. -
The Cape Fear shiner is generally associated with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates, and has
been observed in slow pools, riffles, and slow runs. These azeas occasionally support water
willow (Justicia americana), which may be used as cover or protection from predators [e.g.
flathead catfish (Pylodictis olivaris), bass (Micropterus spp.), and crappie (Pomoxis spp.)~. This
species can be found swimming in schools of other minnow species, but is never the most
abundant species. During the spawning season (May through July), Cape Fear shiner adults move
to slower flowing pools to lay eggs on the rocky substrate. Juveniles are often found in slack
water, among large rock outcrops of the midstream, and in flooded side channels and pools.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ..................................................................................Unresolved
A search of the NCNHP database on July 7, 2007 using GIS-based shapefiles distributed to
NCDOT (last updated on July 2, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0
mile of the project study area. However, a species survey and habitat assessment of surface
waters within and adjacent to the project study area will need to be performed to determine
whether habitat and/or individuals are present. This survey will be performed by the NCDOT
Biological Surveys Group.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) ............................................................ Endangered
Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker is approximately 7 to flinches long, with a wingspan of about 15
inches. There are black and white horizontal stripes on its back and its cheeks and underparts are
white. Its flanks are black streaked. The cap and stripe on the side of the neck and the throat are
black. The male also has a small red spot on each side of the black cap. Red-cockaded
woodpeckers are a territorial, non-migratory, cooperative breeding species, frequently having the
same mate for several years. They nest between April and June, with the breeding female
generally laying three to four eggs in the breeding male's roost cavity. Group members incubate
the small white eggs for 10 to 12 days. Once hatched, the nestlings remain in the nest cavity for
about 26 days. Upon fledging, the young often remain with the parents, forming groups of up to
nine members, but more typically three to four members. There is only one pair of breeding birds
within each group, and they normally raise only a single brood each year. The other group
members, called helpers are usually males from the previous breeding season. These helpers
assist in egg incubation and help raise the young. Juvenile females generally leave the group
before the next breeding season, in search of solitary male groups.
Historically, this woodpecker's range extended from Florida north to New Jersey and Maryland,
as far west as Texas and Oklahoma, and inland to Missouri, Kentucky, and Tennessee. Today it
is estimated that there are about 6,000 groups of red-cockaded woodpeckers (15,000 birds) from
Florida to Virginia and west to southeast Oklahoma and eastern Texas; this represents about one
percent of the woodpecker's original range. They have been extirpated in New Jersey, Maryland,
Tennessee, Missouri and Kentucky.
For nesting/roosting habitat, open stands of pine containing trees 60 years old and older are
preferred. Red-cockaded woodpeckers are unique in that they need live, large older pines in
which to excavate their cavities. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) aze most commonly used, but
other species of southern pine, including loblolly, slash (P. elliottii), and pond (P. serotina) pines
are also acceptable. Dense stands (stands that are primarily hardwoods, or that have a dense
hardwood understory) are avoided. Foraging habitat is provided in pine and pine hardwood
stands 30 years old or older with foraging preference for pine trees 10 inches or larger in
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
17

diameter. In good, moderately-stocked, pine habitat, sufficient foraging habitat can be provided
on 80 to 125 acres.
Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, usually in those which are infected with a fungus
that produces red-heart disease (Formes pini). Cavity tree ages range from 63 to 300-plus years
for longleaf, and 62 to 200-plus years for loblolly and other pines. The aggregate of cavity trees
is called a cluster and may include one to 20 or more cavity trees on three to 60 acres. The
average cluster is about 10 acres. Completed cavities in active use have numerous, small resin
wells which exude sap. The birds keep the sap flowing apparently as a cavity defense mechanism
against snakes and other predators. The territory for a group averages about 200 acres, but
observers have reported territories running from a low of around 60 acres, to an upper extreme of
more than 600 acres. The expanse of territories is related to both habitat quality and population
density.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... No Effect
A species survey and habitat assessment of the project study area and the surrounding habitat was
performed by NCDOT biologists Ashley Cox, Jim Mason, and James Pflaum on May 21, 2007.
The survey took a total of 19.5 man-hours to complete and was performed along with
jurisdictional water and terrestrial community assessments. Much of the habitat present within
the project study area was Maintained/Disturbed and highly urbanized. The remaining wooded
habitat consisted of the hardwood-dominant Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest and Floodplain Forest
communities, both of which had a relatively thick understory. The most abundant pine species
found in the project study area was loblolly pine, but pine trees were mostly isolated and
interspersed within the hardwood stands. Some patches of loblolly were observed at higher
elevations, but they consisted of relatively young trees (25-40 years) and were small in size. No
pine trees were observed in the Floodplain Forest. No foraging or nesting habitat was observed,
nor were any individuals observed. Similar bird species observed included pileated and red-
bellied woodpeckers. Habitat present within 0.5 mile of the project was highly urbanized and
very similar to habitat found in the study area. In addition to the field survey, a search of the
NCNHP database on July 7, 2007 using GIS-based shapefiles distributed to NCDOT (last updated
on July 2, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project
study area. Since no habitat is present, no individuals were observed, and no known populations
are present within 1.0 mile of the project, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been assigned
to this species.
Harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) .............................. .................... Endangered
.............................
Family: Apiaceae
Date Listed: September 29, 1988
This annual herb grows to a height of 6 to 36 inches and has leaves that are reduced to hollow,
quill-like structures. The small, white flowers of this species occur in heads, or umbels, not
unlike those of Queen Anne's lace. Flowers have five regular parts and are either bisexual or
unisexual, with each umbel containing both perfect and male florets. Seeds are elliptical and
laterally compressed, measuring 0.06 to 0.08 inches in length. In pond habitats, flowering begins
in May, while riverine populations flower much later, beginning in late June or July and
continuing until frost.
Harperella is known from 12 extant populations rangewide. One population occurs in each of
two North Carolina counties: Granville and Chatham. This plant is a relatively prolific annual,
and large numbers may occur within each population, especially along rivers. This species
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report
18
July 2007

•
typically occurs in two habitat types: 1) rocky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-
flowing stream sections and 2) edges of intemuttent pineland ponds in the coastal plain.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION ..................................................................................... No Effect
A species survey and habitat assessment of surface waters within and adjacent to the project study
area was performed by NCDOT biologists Jim Mason and Duncan Quinn on July 6, 2007. The
survey took a total of 4.5 man-hours to complete. No habitat or individuals were observed in Big
Buffalo Creek or UTs 1 and 2 of Big Buffalo Creek. UT 3 was too small to contain habitat and,
therefore, was not surveyed. The three surface waters were highly urbanized, with slow moving,
turbid water. Surface waters within the project study area are highly impacted by runoff and
sedimentation, which has resulted in Big Buffalo Creek's inclusion on NCDWQ's 2006 Final
303(d) List of Impaired Waters. These impacts have also resulted in the creation of a large
number of bars and benches composed of silt, sand, and gravel in each of the creeks. These areas,
in many cases, were suitable for vegetation such as Japanese grass and Asian dayflower
(Murdannia keisak) to grow, but were unstable and shifting and did not provide habitat for
harperella. Some very small rocky shoals made of either naturally-occurring rocks or rip rap
were present in UT 1 and UT 2, but the streams were too small to provide habitat and,
considering the slow flow of the water, did not meet the habitat criteria for the species.
Additionally, large portions of Big. Buffalo Creek within the study area .were deep and did not
provide any habitat for this species. In addition to the field survey, a search of the NCNHP
database on July 7, 2007 using GIS-based Shapefiles distributed to NCDOT (last updated on July
2, 2007) revealed no known populations of this species within 1.0 mile of the project study area.
Since no habitat is present, no individuals were observed, and no known populations are present
within 1.0 mile of the project, a biological conclusion of No Effect has been assigned to this
species.
4.3.2 Federal Species of Concern
There are eight (8) Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed by the USFWS for Lee County. A
review of GIS-based shapefiles supplied to NCDOT by NCNHP (last updated on July 2, 2007)
revealed no known occurrences of any of these species within 1.0 mile of the study area. FSCs
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.
FSCs are defined as species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient
information to support listing as Threatened or Endangered. The status of these species may be
upgraded at any time, thus they are included here for consideration. Table 4 lists the FSCs and
whether suitable habitat is present.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
19

« -
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern fnr i,ee f nnnty
Scientific Name Common Name State Status $abitat Present
Amorpha georgiana var.
georgiana Georgia lead-plant E No
Anguilla rostrata American eel W 1 No
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail SR No
Lilium pyrophilum Sandhills bog lily E-SC No
Lindera sucoriacea bog spicebush T No
Moxostoma spp. 3 Carolina redhorse SR Yes
Parnassia caroliniana Carolina grass-of-
parnassus E No
Phacelia covillei
C~~ro Cr.. ~..... •..:..... ~.. buttercup phacelia SR-T No
va .~~asu~. esuuun~~ _
SR -Significantly Rare: Any species which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission as an
Endangered, Threatened, or.Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has been
determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring. (This is a N.C. Natural Heritage Program
designation.) Significantly Rare species include "peripheral" species, whereby North Carolina lies at the periphery of
the species' range (such as Hermit Thrush). The designation also includes marine and estuarine fishes identified as
"Vulnerable" by the N.C. State Museum of Biological Sciences (Ross et al., 1988, Endangered, Threatened and Rare
Fauna of North Carolina. Part II. A Reevaluation of the Marine and Estuarine Fishes).
WI -Watch Category 1: Includes species that are known to be declining in North Carolina, for one reason or another.
The distribution or population sizes of such species in the state are fairly well known; loss of habitat is not necessarily a
factor. A large number of species are known tto be declining in the state, such as Necyropical migrant birds, but the
species in this category must have an N.C. Rank of S3S4 or higher (S3, S2, SI, etc.).
State Status: Plants
E -Endangered: "Any species or higher taxon of plant whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's
flora is determined to be in jeopardy" (GS 19B 106: 202.12). (Endangered species may not be removed from the wild
except when a permit is obtained for research, propagation, or rescue which will enhance the survival of the species.)
-SC -Special Concern: "Any species of plant in North Carolina which requires monitoring but which may be collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of [the Plant Protection and Conservation Act]" (GS 19B
106:202.12). (Special Concern species which are not also listed as Endangered or Threatened may be collected from
the wild and sold under specific regulations. Propagated material only of Special Concern species which are also listed
as Endangered or Threatened may be traded or sold under specific regulations.)
SR -Significantly Rare: Species which are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction (and sometimes also by direct exploitation or
disease). These species are generally more common somewhere else in their ranges, occumng in North Caro]ina
peripherally to their main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. Also included are some
species with 20-100 populations in North Carolina, if they also have only 50-100 populations rangewide and are
declining.
T-Threatened: "Any resident species of plant which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range" (GS 19B 106:202.12). (Regulations are the same as for
Endangered species.)
-T -Throughout: These species are rare throughout their ranges (fewer than 100 populations total).
~-~yrs! waturat tcesources Technical Report
20
July 2007

i
5.0 REFERENCES
Cotterman, Laura Mansberg. 1996. A Preliminary Inventory of the Natural Areas of Lee County
North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Elbroch, Mark. 2003. Mammal Tracks and Sign: A Guide to North American Species. Stackpole
Books, Mechanicsburg, Pennsylvania.
Griffith, G.E., J.M. Omernik, J.A. Comstock, M.P. Schafale, W.H. McNab, D.R. Lenat, T.F.
MacPherson, J.B. Glover, and V.B. Shelburne. 2002. Ecoregions of North Carolina and South
Carolina (poster). United States Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.
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.
Menhinick, Edward F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife
Commission, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). Soil Data Mart website,
http://soildatamart.nres.usda.QOV/State aspx.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2000. 2000 Cane Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2002. Stream Fish Community Assessment Program
Database, http://www.esb.enr.state.nc.us/NCIBI.htm.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2005. 2005 Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Plan.. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2005. Identification Methods for the Ori 'ns of
Intermittent and Perennial streams Version 3 1. North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2006. Standard Operating Procedures Biolo ical
Monitorine: Stream Fish Community Assessment Program. North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Division of Water Quality. 2007. North Carolina Water Ouality Assessment and
Impaired Waters List (2006 Integrated 305(b) and 303(d) Report). North Carolina Department of
Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, Raleigh, North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of state protected species, rare species, and
rare habitats, http://www.ncnhp.org/Pages/heritagedata htn~l.
E-4981 Natural Resources Technical Report July 2007
21

~-
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2006. List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. 2006. List of Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Radford, Albert E., Harry E. Ahles, and C. Ritchie Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of
the Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Schafale, Michael P. and Alan S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, N.C.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Sibley, David Allen. 2000. The Sibley Guide to Birds. Alfred A. Knopf, New York, New York.
Simpson, Jerry V. 1989. Soil Survey of Lee County North Carolina. United States Department of
Agriculture, Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) (formerly Soil Conservation
Service).
United States Army Corps of Engineers. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual.
Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Threatened and Endangered Species in North
Carolina, http://www.fws.gov/nc-es/es/countyfr html.
Weakley, Alan S. Unpublished. Flora of the Carolinas Virginia Georgia and Surroundin Areas.
University of North Carolina Herbarium, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina.
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.
C-4vts1 Natural resources T ethnical Report July 2007
22

r
~«

r„

Appendix B:
Stream Rating Forms

•`

North Carolina Division of Water Quality -Stream Identification Form; Version 3.1
Date: Z ~' C; ~, Project: r` ~ `~ Latitude:
yy4~>
Evaluator-S.~r'iAS~r,lfa:i;IPi~",;x, Site- r -
• :`i~ rric 5 t' i-ia ~ ~~ • l i i .~ Longitude:
Total Points:
Stream is at least intermittent' / / County: Other
if z 19 or rennial if 2 30 ,1 -C e.g. Ouad Name:

A. Geomo holo (Subtotal = ~~ ~ II~~~I~~~~hAbaent"' ~'hWeakii~'!~!;~i~~~~~ ~IIi;~I~Moderate~~~j'i ~!~i ili~~h'Strong111~~U~~~ii!i

18. Continuous bed and bank 0 1 2
3
2. Sinuosity 0 1 2 3
3. In-channel structure: riffle-pool sequence 0 1 ~2 3
4. Soil texture or stream substrate sorting 0 ~1 2 3
5. Activelrelic floodplain ~ 1 2 3
6. Depositional bars or benches r'0`7 1 2 3
7. Braided channel 1~ 1 2 3
8. Recent alluvial deposits ; 0,~ 1 2 3
9 8 Natural levees 0' 1 2 3
10. Headcuts ~ 1 2 3
11. Grade controls 0 0.5 1 1.5
12. Natural valley or drainageway 0 0.5 1 ',1.5
13. Second or greater order channel on existing
USGS or NRCS map or other documented
' evidence. _..._~,h
No = Of
--~----
Yes = 3

man-moue uncnes are no[ ra[eQ; see~oISCUSS1orIS In [manual
B. Hvdroloav (Suhtntal = (-, 1
14. Groundwater flow/discharge 0 1 2 3
15. Water in channel and > 48 hrs since rain, or
Water in channel - d or rowin season 0 1 ~ 3
16. Leaflitter 1.5 ~'1 l 0.5 0
17. Sediment on plants or debris 0 0.5 1
1 5
18. O omit debris lines or Iles
rg p' (Wrack lines) 0.5 1 1.5
19. Hydric soils (redoximorphic features) present? No = 0 Yes = 1.5
C. Bioloav (Subtotal = ~ 1
20 . Fibrous roots in channel 3 2: ~ ~ 0
21 . Rooted plants in channel 3 2 1' 0
22. Crayfish r"i9'7 0.5 1 1.5
23. Bivalves
~ 1 2 3
24. Fish ~ 0.5 1 1.5
25. Amphibians 0 0.5 ~
1.5
26. Macrobenthos (note diversity and abundance) (0 ,; 0.5 1 1,5
27. Filamentous algae; periphyton 0 } 1 2 3
28. Iron oxidizing baderia/fungus. ~ 0..% 0.5 1 1_
29 . Wetland plants in streambed FAC = 0.5; FACW = 0.75; OBL =1.5 SAV = 2.0; Other = 0
- -- -- - -- ~~ ---• •-- -. _~._.._ ,.............-.... ~., ...,.,.~~~ .,~. ~ ~~ w csen~e u~ ayuauc or weuana pianls. ~~
Notes: (use back side of this form for addffional notes.) Sketch:

7 (~ UM! :~ ~/V~G~/~ N r {'~:; rl'. j i~-(1..~~ ; i•+- i`~~~ .!. ~ . ~'~"1/t'~ j^'~!ir . - ` r ~' , S
n ~-, nn~rr~'. ~'s-~S1?~ , ~/d~~.vrr~~f,~.'° S ~,i! i,:~i.~,, ~~/r~ /; ; . ,r_,~ f~~,.1,~
'' ;~ %~ I / E''C.AJ 7 ~ / n 3~~' 1 Y ~ •/ /1/lY~• ~ i7r" 7 (•~• ~ G~.-I ~~ f. I~.I~ -T i - "~ '~i., /", i 1` n .7 ~..
-=-7 S Cat' ~ ~,,. , f' ~~_ % ~ , a'1~F' ~f 1
(~w-t/f~?~Ovr~c~~cr-ti, ~~,_1:.~~:~~c~~~h-_~~~~ ~~f ~i~ic:7 y~~zi~-.~~cv,"~_ ~-~~,
~ ;,
rl ~,~' ~ G l i' _ ,
F.L. . ~, f ~ ~ ~,~~,, ,
~~
Sibs ~~~i,~~ - 5 ,'l-~

s~ ~ USACE AID# DWQ # Site # (indicate on attached map)
;,~,; {,, STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
if I^' .,,. ~16,~ ~~ ~ { C j ~, ~-.:~d• ~ 12(h
Provide the following information for the strum reach under assessment:
~ -~ ,
1. Applicant's name: 2. Evaluator's name:~~ .,..1'('~liSr/1" ,1~'5~~~'~., ~r,^=~ lr--rr?%'; ~.'~/~ cy~
3. Date of evaluation:_s Z ~ Z~C ~ 4. Time of evaluation: -~~ J~,~
5. Name of stream: UI^J _ _ 6. River basin: C'=~-/7~ ~~-c.~`'_.
5L
7. Approximate drainage area: 8. Stream order: ~
/ /
9. Length of reach evaluated: r Z ~ ~ ~ ~~ 10. County: L ~~
11. Site coordinates (if known): prefer in decimal degrees. 12. Subdivision name (if any):
Latitude (ex. 34.872312): Longitude (e~, -77.55661 I ):
Method location determined (circle): GP Topo Sheet rlho (Aerial) Photo/GIS Other GIS Other
13. Location of reach under evaluation (note nearby roads an a marts and attach map identifying stream(s) location):
/~ 7 "f !7 ,11+! D"-''~ (' 7'~~"rf 'i~~j ::~: (i r"` ~ ~`~~F'./T •y l ;~.~ ~
' L ~=
14. Proposed channel work (if any):/l/~~-~
15. Recent weather conditi
' f ~..
s
16. Site conditions at time of visit: (~?.,~~•-,C G~r(~r . ~ -~A-~~ ~~ ~..~~vl~•~-~ ~ j' ,~;~' ;-.,~j~:'~~ F 1'
17. Identify any special waterway classifications known: -Section 10 -Tidal Waters -Essential Fisheries~Habitat
-Trout Waters -Outstanding Resource Waters -Nutrient Sensitive Waters -Water Supply Watershed (1-IV)
18. Is there a pond or lake located upstream of the evaluation point? YES~NO If yes, estimate the water surface are;t _.___
19. Does channel appear on USGS quad map? YES(IV~
21. Estimated watershed land use: SC7°io Residential
//'~~ .: ~~ % Forested
22. Bankfull width: ~ 115r'~
24. Channel slope down c~ of stream: Flat (0 to 2%)
20. Does channel appear on USDA Soil Survey'? YE$- J~O}
'~ v % Commercial _% Industrial _% Agricultural
_% Cleared /Logged _% Other
23. Bank height (from bed to top of bank): ~ ~~^'~ ~+~
Gentle (2 to 4%) -Moderate (4 to 10%) -Steep (> I G%}
25. Channel sinuosity: Straight -Occasional bends -Frequent meander -Very sinuous -Braided channel
Instructions for completion of worksheet (located on page 2): Begin by determining the most appropriate ecoregion based on
location, terrain, vegetation, stream classification, etc. Every characteristic must be scored using the same ecoregion. Assign points
to each characteristic within the range shown for the ecoregion. Page 3 provides a brief description of how to review the
characteristics identified in the worksheet. Scores should reflect an overall assessment of the stream reach under evaluation. If a
characteristic cannot be evaluated due to site or weather conditions, enter 0 in the scoring box and provide an explanation in the
comment section. Where there are obvious changes in the character of a stream under review (e.g., the stream flows from a pasture
into a forest), the stream may be divided into smaller reaches that display more continuity, and a separate form used to evaluate each
reach. The total score assigned to a stream reach must range between 0 and 100, with a score of ] 00 representing a stream of the
highest quality.
(from reverse): _ l
u~
This channel evaluati orm is intCnded to be used only as a guide to assist landowners and environmental professionals in
gathering the data r fired by the United States Army Corps of Engineers to make a preliminary assessment of stream
quality. The total score resulting from the completion of this form is subject to USACE approval and does not imply a
particular mitigation ratio or requirement. Form subject to change -version 06/03. To Comment, please call 919-876-8441 x 26.

STREAM QUALITY ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET
'' '~ CHARACTERISTICS ECOREG.ION POINT RANGE

`"-
` SCORE-
- • ~
~ _ ~ ~ Coastal ~~
- ~>~Piedmont' A9ountain~-

1 Presence offlow / persistent pools in stream
.
(no flow or saturation = 0; strop flow = max points). 0-5 0-4 0-5
"
2 Evidence of past humam alteration

(extensive alteration = 0; no alteration = max points) Q-6 0-5 0-5 ~

~- ' Riparian zone __

(no buffer = 0; contiguous; wide buffer.=max points) 0-6 0-4 0-j
`~-"`
~ 4 Evidence of nutrient or. chemial discharges

. ^.4' (extensive dischar. es =:,0; no dischar es= max points) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 4
5 - Groundwater discharge-;
;~: (no discharge = 0;'sprin. s, se s, wetlands, etc: = max points) `0 -' 0'- 4 -.0 - 4 '
6 Presence of ad3acenttloodplain ~

~,,

(no floodplain = 0; extenstve.tloodpiain'° max points)

0 - 4

0 - 4 ~

Q
'~- . ~ ' EntrendtmentJ•floodplain access
p"' (deeply entrenched = 0; fie uent•floodina = max oints) 0 - 5 0 - 4 0 - 2
Presence of adjacent wetlands

' ~ (no wetlands = 0 `la a ad"acent wetlands' = max points)"
0 - 6
0 4
0 - 2 O
'~ 9 Channel sinuosity -

(extensrve channelization =' 0;•'natural.meander = max points) 0-5 0-4 0-;
l
10 Sediment input
(extensive. deposition- 0; .little or no sediment ° maY oirits)
0 - ~
0 - 4
- 0 - 4
1 P Size & diversity of'channel bed_substrate ~ .
---f-
'
(line, homu~enous = 0; lar•ve; diverse sizes = max.points) ~
~'~'` 0 - 4 0 - 5"
~
~ Evidence of channel incision or widening.

~
`
_
- (deeply incised= 0; stable bed•& banks = may points). . 0-~ 0-4 0-5
~ -
.
1~,
Presence of major bank failures
~, (severe erosion =-0; ho erosion, sta'b`le banks = max oints) 0 - ~ 0 - 5 0 - 5 l
a' Root'depth and density-on<banks _,
r,,, (no visible roots = 0; dense`roots thro.utrhout - max;points) _-
~
15 Impact by-agi•icutture; fsvestocli;, or iinber production
_.
(substantial impact °0;-no evidence.= max pints) 0 --5 0 - 4 0- 5
lb Presence of rffffe-goof/ripple=pool complexes '-
E-+
(no rifflesfripples orpools ° 0; well-developed -max points)
0 '
0 - 5
0 - 6
~
17 Habitat complexity
r
O-6
0-G
0-6
~~;
l hale o
ito habitat
0; frequent, varied habitats = max points) ~

~
IS _ Canopy cove~•age over streambed
5
=

~
(no shadin vegetation = O;; continuous canopy = max points) _
0 0-5 -0
5
_

19. Substrate embeddedness
~ ~ ~
"
'
NA* a ~-
~. , ~ 0 4.
4 ~ 4

(deeply embedded = 0' loose
structure = max .
. (~
20 ~ Presence ofstream-invertebrates (seepage 4)
" ...
~

'~'
~ _
(no evidence = 0•:common, numerous types = max points) 0-4 0=5 ~, 0-5
/
U
(~

;Q
21'
~' ~ ,- Presence of.amptiibians .

(
n
id
= O
i
r
~ b _ 4 '0 4 0 - 4
~
o ev
ence
; common; r
ume
ous ty_ pes•= max
points) ,
<.
Q 72
" ~ :~ Presence offish
.
.
_~.
~G ,
_.

. (no evidence = O;,eommon.. numerous pes = max points).. 0-4 0-4 0-4

2~ ~ Evidence of wildlife use
~
v
0 - 6 -
0. 5
0 - 5
(no e
idence = 0• abundant evidence = max points) ,
3`}y~q ;,, Total Points Possible ~ -100 4`•
p ;1.00 `100
-
~
`
~~
,
~~,~'= t '}i'O~TAE SCORE ~~(also enter oar-~firstpa~e) ~ ,~; z ~ ~

r nese cnaracterrsncs are not assessed m coastal streams.