U-3630

„a $U7Fy
d ?aay?
Mwn
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR
May 21, 1999
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 12(
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric C. Alsmever.
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SECRETARY
Subject: Chatham County, Resurface and Widen US 64 From SR 1943 (Gum Springs
Church Road) to 0.1 mile East of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road), Federal Project No. STP-
64(39), State Project No. 8.152160 1, T.I.P. U-3630.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to widen
existing US 64 for a distance of approximately 0.6 miles. Approximately 0.001 hectares
(0.01 acres) of jurisdictional wetlands may be affected by the construction of the
proposed project.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit, but propose to proceed under Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII,
Volume 61, Number 241.
We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as a courtesy
copy for their review.
. + a
If you have any questions or need additional information please call Ms. Alice N.
Gordon at 733-7844 Ext. 307.
Sincerely,
Z9. L-
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, Corps of Engineers, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. G. Nance, P.E., Division 5 Engineer
Ms. Cindy Sharer, P.E., P & E Project Planning Engineer

Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
TIP Project No. U - 3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal Project No. STP-64(39)
A. Project Description:
Resurface and widen US 64 to provide 0.6 in (foot) 12aved shoulders from SR
1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 (Bubanks Road)
Chatham County (See Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
To enhance safety along the subject MAjon of US 64.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1Q. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
fQ. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
cQ. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers

Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements)
when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which
.there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
2
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D.
Estimated Cost:
Construction: $750,000
Right of Way: $200,000
Total: $950,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (1997): 4700 TTST = 7%
Design Year (2017): 9400 DUALS=5%
Proposed Typical Section: 2 - way, 2 - lane facility, 7.2 in (24 ft) with 1.8 in (6 ft)
shoulders including 0.6 in (2 ft) paved shoulder.
Design Speed:
100 Km/hr (62 miles/hr) POSTED: 90 Km/ hr (55 miles/hr)
Functional Classification: Rural Arterial
Wetland Impacts: 0.01 ha (0.1 ac) (See attached natural resources technical
report and addendum to that report)
No impacts to endangered or threatened species. (See attached natural resources
technical report)
No impacts to historic properties. (See attached historic architectural resources
memo)
E.
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
-
unique or important natural resource? 1 X
F
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ?X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X F-1
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
-
impacted by proposed construction activities? 1 X
F
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? F] X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? 5N/ N/A
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION y
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? N

/ N/A
F
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F-1 X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
-
regulatory floodway? 1 X
F
4
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X
SOCIAL_ ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES -) M L-Q
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? 1-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or F-1 X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? a
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? F-1 X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness
F-1
and/or land use of adjacent property? -2L
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
-
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 1 X
F
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore
in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
,
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
-
volumes? 1 X
1
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
FI
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) N/A N/
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? El X
5
-..0'0?
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws - F-1
relating to the envirommnetal aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-1 X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are F-1
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? F? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act x
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F] X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable ReMmes in Parr E
As noted in the natural systems technical memorandum, there is habitat for the Cape Fear
shiner, but the species was not evident possibly due to water quality degradation. Best
Management Practices will be utililized to limit impact to water quality during
construction. There was no habitat observed in the project vicinity for the three other
federally listed protected species (see attached natural systems technical memorandum
and addendum.
6
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. U-3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-64(39)
Project Description:
Resurface and widen US 64 to provide 0.6 m (2 foot) paved shoulders from SR
1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road),
Chatham County.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
S -2?-98 Ct/,
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
S-Z9'-9g > - ti, -7?
Date PlLeg1/Planning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
5-?i-9g ?;Q Awv.,,-
Date Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
'L' 'L, $ , 7?? '0--?
Date hivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7

SCA1

1F:
i.
" NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION'
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
t PLANNING AND E\11RONMENTAL
BRANCH
Piftboro
US 64 from SR 1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to
0.1 miles east of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road)
Chatham County,
F. A. Project STP-64(39)
State Project No. 8.1521601
TIP Project U-3630
I FIGURE 1
3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HuNT JR.
Govmm
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
May 26, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
E. Noms TOLSON
SECRETARY
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist C(-
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Natural Resources Technical
Report for proposed improvements to US 64 from SR
1943 to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 in Pittsboro,
Chatham County. TIP No. U-3630; State Project No.
8.1521601, F.A. Project STP-64(39)
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report prepared by
NCDOT Biologist Chris Rivenbark. December 1997.
This'addendum to the previously submitted Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) provides an inventory and description of a jurisdictional wetland
located within the project area to assist in preparation of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
One jurisdictional wetland is located within the project area. This wetland
is located on the north side of SR 1572 adjacent to the box culvert and extends
beyond the 30.5 m (100 ft ) right-of-way. Approximately 0.001 ha (0.01 ac) of the
wetland lies within the project right-of-way and may be impacted as a result of
project construction. The canopy is dominated by sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and American elm (Ulmus americana). The understory consisted of
soft rush (Juncus effusus), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Jack in the
Pulpit (Arisaema hiphyUum), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), and sedge
(Carex sp.).
Z]
Hydrologic indicators include saturated soils, standing water, rack lines,
and water-stained leaves. The soil matrix had a hue of 10, a value of 6, and a
chroma of 2. Mottles were abundant, common with a hue of 10, a value of 5,
and a chroma of 8. The Cowardin classification for this wetland is Palustrine
Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Permanently Flooded.
cc:
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: U-3630

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GovEtwOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
December 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wilson Stoud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
GAMAN C B. GARRE17 J R.
SECRETARY
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist C?-
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
improvements to US 64 from SR 1943 to 0.1 mile east
of SR 1572 in Pittsboro, Chatham County.
TIP No. U-3630; State Project No. 8.1521601
F.A. Project STP-64(39)
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the project area to assist
in preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). Estimations of
impacts likely to occur to. these resources as a result of project construction are
provided as well.
Note:
At the time of this document, final designs were not complete. Guardrails
may be installed pending final designs. If guardrails are installed or existing
culvert is extended, shoulders may be widened to compensate for the
recommended 2:1 ratio. This extension of shoulders may impact surface waters
and jurisdictional wetlands. Additional field investigations may be necessary.
cc:
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: U-3630
W
Improvements to US 64 from SR 1943 to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572
Pittsboro, Chatham County
Natural Resources Technical Report
T.I.P. No. U-3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal Aid Project No. STP-64(39)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
10 December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................I
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ..................................................................................................................1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................1
1.4 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................1
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................2
2.1 WATER RESOURCES ...................................................................................................2
2.2 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES ............................................................. 3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..............................................................................................3
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................4
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .......................................................:....................................... 5
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................................................ 5
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .....................................................................................6
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ................................................................................. 6
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................... 7
4.1.2 Approximate Impacts to Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands ............... 7
4.1.3 Permits ...............................................................................................................7
4.2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................ 8
4.3 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES ......................................12
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................14
List of Tables
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ...................................................... 5
TABLE 2. SURFACE WATERS AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA... 7
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR CHATHAM COUNTY .................................... 8
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR CHATHAM COUNTY ......................................12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist
in preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
1.1 Project Description
The project consists of improvements to US 64 in Pittsboro, Chatham County
from east of SR 1493 to east of SR 1572. The existing cross section is a 2-lane, 7.3 m
(24.0 ft) pavement roadway with a right of way of is 30.5 m (100.0 ft). The proposed
cross section is a 2-lane paved roadway with 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders. The proposed
right of way is 30.5 m (100.0 ft) with easements. The project length is. 0.97 km (0.60
mi).
At the time of this document, final designs were not complete. Guardrails may
be installed pending final designs. If guardrails are installed or existing culvert is
extended, shoulders may be widened to compensate for the recommended 2:1 ratio.
This extension of shoulders may impact surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands.
Additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing design
concepts. If preliminary design parameters change, an additional field investigation
may be necessary.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area (project area) denotes the
area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km
(61.8 sq mi)], with the project as the center point.
1.4 Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project
area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Pittsboro and Merry Oaks), NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area (1:1200), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats.
Afield survey for the project was conducted on 29 August 1997 by NCDOT
biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. Plant communities were identified
and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques,
including habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife
(sounds, skat, tracks and burrows).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Water Resources
Water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Field surveys revealed that jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project area.
Surface waters also exist in the project area and may be impacted by the project.
Streams have been assigned a Best Usage Classification which denotes water quality
conditions and potential resource usage by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The
proposed project crosses one unnamed tributary (UT) of Robeson Creek in the Cape
Fear River basin. At time of visit, the width of UT varied from 1.5 m- 3.0 m (4.92 ft- 9.84
ft) and had a depth of 2.5 cm-7.6 cm (1 in- 3 in). Flow in the stream was slow. The
substrate consisted of silt, cobble, and rock. The best usage classification of this UT is
WS-IV NSW. Unnamed tributaries are given the same DWQ index number as the
stream to which they flow into. The DWQ index number for the UT is 16-38-(3) [8/3/92].
Classifications
WS-IV -denotes Water Supplies-IV (waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; local programs to
control nonpoint source and stromwater discharge of pollution are required;
suitable for all Class C uses;
NSW -denotes Nutrient Sensistive Waters (waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs)
C- denotes Class C (aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and
secondary recreation, and agriculture).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-11), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project
study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Some
2
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. There is not a BMAN site within the project vicinity:
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There is no permitted point source
discharger within the project vicinity.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary,
some environmental impacts caused by the proposed project may be long term or
irreversible. Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or
extension of culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
- Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
- Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
- Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
- Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOTs Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances should
also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are
cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by (') in the text. Sightings of spoor
evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and
3
common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities, maintained roadside, mixed pine/ hardwood, and
residential, exist within the project area and are likely to be impacted by the subject
project. The maintained roadside community runs the length of the project and consists
of the highly maintained shoulders and some less intensively managed areas that
grade into the surrounding natural communities. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community
in an early successional state. As a result, the vegetation of this community is
dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the maintained roadside community include fescue (Festuca
sp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), Ozark tickseed-sunflower (Bidens aristosa), bush clover
(Lespedeza sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and plantain
(Plantago sp.). In the areas which receive lower levels of maintenance, more diverse
communities can develop. This community was populated by Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), muscadine (Vitus rotundifolia), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), and sensitive brier (Mimosa strigillosa).
The maintained communities extend into a mixed pine/ hardwood community.
Flora present in this community include those species described in the maintained
communities as well as loblolly pine (Pious taeda), shortleaf pine (Pious echinata),
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), mockemut hickory (C.
tomentosa), willow oak (Q. phellos), sassafras (Sassafras albidium), red maple (Acer
rubrum), mockemut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip
poplar (Lidodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and dogwood
(Corpus florida).
Residential communties exist along the western terminus of the proposed
project. These communties a include a variety of different plant species. Flora present
in this community include fescue, bead grass (Paspalum spp.), and Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon). Trees observed in this community include black walnut (Juglans
nigra), willow oak, red maple, dogwood, black cherry, loblolly pine, pecan (Carya
illinoensis), white oak (Quercus alba), azalea (Rhododendron sp.) and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera).
Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sy/vilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes.
4
Common reptiles found in such habitats include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina)
and predators such as black racer (Coluber constrictor), and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis). Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mourning dove
(Zenaida. macroura), and European starling (Stumus vulgaris).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, exists within the
project area. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water
quiality influence floral and faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Freshwater fishes likely to be found in a stream of this size could include creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), darter (Percina sp. or Etheostoma sp.), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), and green sunfish
(Lepomis cyanellus). Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
moderately sized piedmont perennial streams include northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), Southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), green frog
(Rana clamitans), pickeral frog (R. palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well,
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area (Table 1). Estimated impacts
are derived based on the project length of 0.97 km (0.60 mi) and the entire right-of-way
30.5 m (100 ft). The entire right-of-way will probably not be impacted, therefore actual
impacts to the disturbed communities may be considerably less.
1. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Maintained Roadside 2.88 ha (7.11 ac)
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood 0.04 ha (0.09 ac)
Residential 0.03 ha (0.09 ac)
Total 2.95 ha (7.29 ac)
5
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from project construction will
have minimal impact on populations of native flora and fauna. The project will only
impact disturbed areas such as roadside shoulders, commercial or residential areas,
and mixed pine/ hardwood communities, and thus will not have large-scale effects on
the natural communities of the project region. The affected communities are already
highly altered from their natural state, and residual species are well adapted to such
disturbed conditions.
Aquatic communities will be affected as a result of project construction.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified throughout
the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher trophic levels. Strict
erosion and sedimentation controls should be maintained during the entire life of the
project.
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental
factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should
repopulate areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is
unlikely that existing species will be displaced significantly from the project area
following construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project
construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly
after project completion to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected
species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state
mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the
impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
6
"Waters of the United States" are present in the project area. One surface water
and three jurisdictional wetlands are located near the western terminus of the project
area. Quantitative impacts to "Waters of the United States' will depend on final project
designs (guardrail installation or culvert extension). If project right-of-way remains
30.5 m (100 ft) and the culvert over the UT is not extended, impacts will not occur or
will be less than 1 ha (1/3 acre) to wetland and less than 3.0 m (10 linear ft) to surface
waters. Jurisdictional wetlands should be delineated during a future site visit.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands
One surface water (see Section 2.1) and three jurisdictional wetlands are
located within the project area. Wetland site one is located south of US 64, wetland
sites 2 and 3 are located north of the highway. The three wetland sites are located
within the floodplain of the UT crossed by the highway. Each of the wetlands are
located in the mixed pine/ hardwood community. The Cowardin classification of these
wetlands is Palustrine Forested Decidous. Hydrological indicators observed during the
site visit include: waterstained leaves, soils saturated at the surface, water marks, and
drainage patterns.
4.1.2 Approximate Impacts to Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands
Approximate impacts for each of the wetlands and surface water are given in
Table 2. Approximate impacts were calculated by using the entire right-of-way [30.5 m
(100 ft)]. Often, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore
actual impacts are likely to be less. Actual impacts will depend on final project designs.
Table 2. Surface Waters and
Area
UT n/a 3.05 m (10.0 linear ft)
Wetland site one 0.30 ha (0.75 ac) <0.01 ha (<0.01 ac)
Wetland site two 0.30 ha (0.75 ac) <0.01 ha (<0.01 ac)
Wetland site three 0.40 ha (1.0 ac) <0.01 ha (0.02 ac)
4.1.3 Permits
Current plans do not involve the removal of stream bank vegetation, stream
stabilization, or other mechanical activities that could result in the placement of fill into
"Waters of the United States'. Therefore, no permits will be required. Should the
scope of the project change to include placement of fill into or the construction of new
crossings of "Waters of the United States', those activities will require a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (23). A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is
required prior to the issuance of Section 404 Nationwide Permit (23).
7
4.2 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally protected, be subject to review. by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened
M, 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 4 November 1997, the FWS lists four federally protected species for
Chatham County (Table 3). Descriptions and biological conclusions for each species
are given below.
Table 3. Federally Protected
for Chatham
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Notropis meklstocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
Note:
"E" - denotes Endangered (a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
"T" - denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 3, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major
nesting population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs
do occur elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack
the white head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color
with blotchy white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles
8
can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range is length from 69-94 cm and have
a wingspan ranging from 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle
nests are found in proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water, in'the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
Eagle nests are approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish
are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable nesting habitat in the form of proximity to open water (within a half mile)
nor nests were not observed during a survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by
NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. However, the Haw River is
located approximately 2.98 km (1.85 mi) east of the project and Jordan Lake is located
approximately 3.83 km (2.38 mi) southeast of the project. Project construction is not
expected to impact foraging opportunities within the project area. In addition, a review
of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997
indicated that there is no known occurrence of the bald eagle within the project area.
Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered .
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 26, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The
strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population is
located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow that rarely exceeds
5 cm in length. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs
along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The
upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along its margin. It is easily
distinguished from other similar species by having an elongated digestive tract to
accommodate its diet of plant material.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
9
associated with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater,
among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools.
The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other
periphytes. Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal material. No
information is presently available on the breeding, fecundity, or longevity of the Cape
Fear shiner.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of streams with gravel or cobble substrates was
observed in the project area during a survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by
NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. Though Cape Fear shiner
once existed in Robeson Creek, the population has been extirpated, possibly by water
quality degradation (Pottem and Huish 1985). In addition, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997 indicated that there is
no known occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner within the project area. Though the
proposed project is unlikely to affect this species, precautions must be taken to
minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOTs Best Management
Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced
throughout the construction stage of the project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal
states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern
Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain
are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Pinus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
10
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW
against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding
pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All
members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed
mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Though suitable habitat in the form of trees that are >60 years old that are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age was not observed during a survey
conducted on 29 September 1997 by NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc
Recktenwald. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997 indicated that there is no known occurrence of
the red-cockaded woodpecker within the project area. Therefore, this project will not
affect this species.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
The historic range of Ptilimnium nodosum included the states of Maryland, West
Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, and the coastal plains of Georgia and
South Carolina. It is now known from only ten populations in its historic range and it
has been eliminated from over half of its known range. North Carolina currently has
two known populations of harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with fibrous roots and erect to
spreading stems. The stems are green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and
they may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow, cylindrical, and septate, with
broadly clasping bases. Basal and lower leaves up to 30 cm long and decreasing
upwards on the stem. Flowers are 5-15 compound umbels, each umbel subtended by
an involucre of small lanceolate bracts 0.5 cm long.
11
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals in the
margins of clear, swift flowing stream sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland
ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is always found in
saturated substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preference
for sunny areas and this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream erosion,
usually on the downstream side of large rocks or amidst thick clones of water willow.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of rocky or gravel shoals was not observed during a
survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and
Marc Reddenwald. At time of site visit, the UT in the project area had a slow current as
opposed to the swift flowing current that harperella prefers. In addition, a review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997
indicated that there is no known occurrence of harperella within the project area.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
4:3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Chatham County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there
was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species
state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
12
Table 4. Federal Candidate
for Chatham
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow No SC
A/asmidonta varicosa Brook floater Yes T
Fusconaia mason Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly No SR
Lampsilis cariosa yellow lampmussel No T
lsoetes virginica Virginia Quillwort No C
Note:
"Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
"C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SC" denotes Special Concern (a species of wild animal native or once-native to
North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources. Commission to
require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under
the provisions of this Article).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction. This species is generally more common
somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their
main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina. .
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats
on 14 August 1997 revealed no records of.North Carolina rare and/or protected species
in or near the project study area.
13
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison Ill. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, AE., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third. Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill and London.
14
Memorandum
TO: Ed Lewis
Project Planning
FROM: Jill Marie Lord 4?
Historic Architecture Resources Section
RE: CE statement for U-3630
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project
has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
comment.
In her survey for the US 64/Pittsboro Bypass (TIP R-2219 A/B), Mary L. Reeb surveyed
the area of potential effect (APE) for U-3630. She identified one property over fifty years
of age within the APE of U-3630. The house was determined not eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places in the Architectural Resource Survey Report for
US 64/Pittsboro Bypass (Reeb, 1990). On September 5, 1997, North Carolina
Department of Transportation architectural historians surveyed the project area. They
saw no additional properties over fifty years of age and no evidence to warrant
reevaluation of the aforementioned property.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.
STATE a
Z s
S? ? OO S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF Tk NSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR- P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
May 26, 1998
E. Noms TOLSON
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
FROM: Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist CP-
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Natural Resources Technical
Report for proposed improvements to US 64 from SR
1943 to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 in Pittsboro,
Chatham County. TIP No. U-3630; State Project No.
8.1521601, F.A. Project STP-64(39)
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report prepared by
NCDOT Biologist Chris Rivenbark. December 1997.
This addendum to the previously submitted Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) provides an inventory and description of a jurisdictional wetland
located within the project area to assist in preparation of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
One jurisdictional wetland is located within the project area. This wetland
is located on the north side of SR 1572 adjacent to the box culvert and extends
beyond the 30.5 m (100 ft ) right-of-way. Approximately 0.001 ha (0.01 ac) of the
wetland lies within the project right-of-way and may be impacted as a result of
project construction. The canopy is dominated by sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and American elm (Ulmus americana). The understory consisted of
soft rush (Juncus effusus), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Jack in the
Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), and sedge
(Carex sp. ).

Hydrologic indicators include saturated soils, standing water, rack lines,
and water-stained leaves. The soil matrix had a hue of 10, a value of 6, and a
chroma of 2. Mottles were abundant, common with a hue of 10, a value of 5,
and a chroma of 8. The Cowardin classification for this wetland is Palustrine
Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Permanently Flooded.
cc:
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: U-3630

STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GovERNOR
April 27, 1999
E. N
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Department of Environment and Natural Resource
FROM: Cindy Sharer, P. E., Project Development and `
Environmental Analysis Branch
SUBJECT: US 64 from west of SR 1943 in Pittsboro to east of
SR 1943, Chatham County, TIP No. U-3630,
Project No. 8.152160 1, Federal Aid No. STP-64(39)
A review of projects on our 12-month let list indicates you need a copy of the
environmental document for the subject project. I am enclosing the Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion signed May 29, 1998. Please let me know if you need additional
information.
cc: David Robinson, P. E.
a
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
TIP Project No. U - 3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal Project No. STP-64(39)
A. Project Description:
Resurface and widen US 64 to provide 0.6 m (foot) paved shoulders from SR
1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road)
Chatham County (See Figure 1).
B. Purpose and Need:
To enhance safety along the subject portion of US 64.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
1Q Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
fO. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
cO. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or. upgrading median barriers

Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94 a
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
d. Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements)
when located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which
.there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial- or transportation purposes where such
2

Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
D.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
Estimated Cost:
Construction: $750,000
Right of Way: $200,000
Total: $950,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year (1997): 4700 TTST = 7%
Design Year (2017): 9400 DUALS = 5%
E.
Proposed Typical Section: 2 - way, 2 - lane facility, 7.2 m (24 ft) with 1.8 m (6 ft)
shoulders including 0.6 m (2 ft) paved shoulder.
Design Speed:
100 Km/hr (62 miles/hr) POSTED: 90 Km/ hr (55 miles/hr)
Functional Classification: Rural Arterial
Wetland Impacts: 0.01 ha (0.1 ac) (See attached natural resources technical
report and addendum to that report)
No impacts to endangered or threatened species. (See attached natural resources
technical report)
No impacts to historic properties. (See attached historic architectural resources
memo)
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
US NQ
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? F1 X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? ?X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? F-1 X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X F
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
F-
impacted by proposed construction activities? 1 X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding Water
Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? F1 X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? FN/ l N/A
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
-
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? F
1 X
PERM ITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"
Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? [N/ N/A
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? F] X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
F-1
X

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
-
regulatory floodway? 1
1 X

4
,. Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? F-1 X
SOCIAL. ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? F-1 X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? F-1 X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or F1 X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the F
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
-1
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? F] X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness a
and/or land use of adjacent property?
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
-
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? 1 X
F
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore
in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
X
,
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
-
volumes? 1 X
1
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing F-1
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? x_
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) N/A N/
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? X
5
Original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the envirommnetal aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F] X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains which are
important to history or pre-history? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as defined
by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation Act F-1 X
of 1965, as amended?
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites or historic bridges, as defined in Section 4(f)
of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of 1966)? F-1 X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? F-1 X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
As noted in the natural systems technical memorandum, there is habitat for the Cape Fear
shiner, but the species was not evident possibly due to water quality degradation. Best
Management Practices will be utililized to limit impact to water quality during
construction. There was no habitat observed in the project vicinity for the three other
federally listed protected species (see attached natural systems technical memorandum
and addendum.
6
original Form Approved: 1/93
Form Revised: 7/97, 5/97, and 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. U-3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal-Aid Project No. STP-64(39)
Project Description:
Resurface and widen US 64 to provide 0.6 m (2 foot) paved shoulders from SR
1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road),
Chatham County.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
s -2a-q8 c7 01/, D
Date Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch -'r?
.SIV -V > . GJ.
Date Pl ie?lanning Unit Head
Planning and Environmental Branch
5-7q-qo
Date
3:W Awv;,-
Project Planning Engineer
Planning and Environmental Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
5/2 9 g8 ?
Date ivision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
`,,'SIS,S....1•6"j1

..14:
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
(01 BRANCH G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
? ? ? M{E
Pittsboro
US 64 from SR 1943 (Gum Springs Church Road) to
0.1 miles east of SR 1572 (Eubanks Road)
Chatham County,
F. A. Project STP-64(39)
State Project No. 8.1521601
TIP Project U-3630
FIGURE 1
y -i 2 !
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMEs B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
-May 26, 1998
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wilson Stroud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
E. NoRRts ToLSON
SECRETARY
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist C(-
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Addendum to the Natural Resources Technical
Report for proposed improvements to US 64 from SR
1943 to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572 in Pittsboro,
Chatham County. TIP No. U-3630; State Project No.
S. 1521601, F.A. Project STP-64(39)
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
REFERENCE: Natural Resources Technical Report prepared by
NCDOT Biologist Chris Rivenbark. December 1997.
This addendum to the previously submitted Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) provides an inventory and description of a jurisdictional wetland
located within the project area to assist in preparation of a Programmatic
Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
One jurisdictional wetland is located within the project area. This wetland
is located on the north side of SR 1572 adjacent to the box culvert and extends
beyond the 30.5 m (100 ft ) right-of-way. Approximately 0.001 ha (0.01 ac) of the
wetland lies within the project right-of-way and may be impacted as a result of
project construction. The canopy is dominated by sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua) and American elm (Ulmus americana). The understory consisted of
soft rush (Juncus effusus), spicebush (Lindera benzoin), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Jack in the
Pulpit (Arisaema triphyllum), fowl mannagrass (Glyceria striata), and sedge
(Carex sp.).
?Qlt
Hydrologic indicators include saturated soils, standing water, rack lines,
and water-stained leaves. The soil matrix had a hue of 10, a value of 6, and a
chroma of 2. Mottles were abundant, common with a hue of 10, a value of 5,
and a chroma of 8. The Cowardin classification for this wetland is Palustrine
Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Permanently Flooded.
cc:
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: U-3630

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
December 10, 1997
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wilson Stoud, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
GARLAND B. GARRm JR.
SECRETARY
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist tf-
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
improvements to US 64 from SR 1943 to 0.1 mile east
of SR 1572 in Pittsboro, Chatham County.
TIP No. U-3630; State Project No. 8.1521601
F.A. Project STP-64(39)
ATTENTION: Ed Lewis, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) provides
inventories and descriptions of natural resources within the project area to assist
in preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE). Estimations of
impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction are
provided as well.
Note:
At the time of this document, final designs were not complete. Guardrails
may be installed pending final designs. If guardrails are installed or existing
culvert is extended, shoulders may be widened to compensate for the
recommended 2:1 ratio. This extension of shoulders may impact surface waters
and jurisdictional wetlands. Additional field investigations may be necessary.
cc:
V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Unit Head, Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources
Hal Bain, Natural Resources Supervisor
File: U-3630
M
Improvements to US 64 from SR 1943 to 0.1 mile east of SR 1572
Pittsboro, Chatham County
Natural Resources Technical Report
T.I.P. No. U-3630
State Project No. 8.1521601
Federal Aid Project No. STP-64(39)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning and Environmental Branch
Permits, Mitigation, and Natural Resources Unit
Chris Rivenbark, Environmental Biologist
10 December 1997
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Table of Contents ...........................................................................................................i
1.0 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................1
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ...................................................................................................................1
1.3 TERMINOLOGY AND DEFINITIONS ..................................................................................1
1.4 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................1
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ........................................................................................2
2.1 WATER RESOURCES ................................................................................................... 2
2.2 ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO WATER RESOURCES ............................................................. 3
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..............................................................................................3
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ........................................................................................4
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ...............................................................................................5
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ............................................................................ 5
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .....................................................................................6
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .................................................................................6
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands .......................... 7
4.1.2 Approximate Impacts to Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands ............... 7
4.1.3 Permits ..............................................................................................................7
4.2 FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES ................................................................................ 8
4.3 FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN AND STATE LISTED SPECIES ......................................12
5.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................14
List of Tables
TABLE 1. ESTIMATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ...................................................... 5
TABLE 2. SURFACE WATERS AND JURISDICTIONAL WETLANDS WITHIN THE PROJECT AREA... 7
TABLE 3. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR CHATHAM COUNTY .................................... 8
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES FOR CHATHAM COUNTY ......................................12
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) is submitted to assist
in preparation of a Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE).
1.1 Project Description
The project consists of improvements to US 64 in Pittsboro, Chatham County
from east of SR 1493 to east of SR 1572. The existing cross section is a 2-lane, 7.3 m
(24.0 ft) pavement roadway with a right of way of is 30.5 m (100.0 ft). The proposed
cross section is a 2-lane paved roadway with 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders. The proposed
right of way is 30.5 m (100.0 ft) with easements. The project length is 0.97 km (0.60
mi).
At the time of this document, final designs were not complete. Guardrails may
be installed pending final designs. If guardrails are installed or existing culvert is
extended, shoulders may be widened to compensate for the recommended 2:1 ratio.
This extension of shoulders may impact surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands.
Additional field investigations may be necessary.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this document is to describe and inventory the natural resources
identified within the project vicinity and estimate potential impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts.
These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing design
concepts. If preliminary design parameters change, an additional field investigation
may be necessary.
1.3 Terminology and Definitions
For the purposes of this document, the following terms are used concerning the
limits of natural resources investigated. Project study area (project area) denotes the
area bounded by the proposed right-of-way limits. Project vicinity describes an area
extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area. Project region is
equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map [163.3 sq km
(61.8 sq mi)], with the project as the center point.
1.4 Methodology
Prior to the site visit, published resource information pertaining to the project
area was gathered and reviewed. Information sources include; U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle maps (Pittsboro and Merry Oaks), NCDOT aerial photographs of
project area (1:1200), Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected species and
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of uncommon and protected
species and unique habitats.
A field survey for the project was conducted on 29 August 1997 by NCDOT
biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. Plant communities were identified
and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation techniques,
including habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of wildlife
(sounds, skat, tracks and burrows).
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
2.1 Water Resources
Water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Field surveys revealed that jurisdictional wetlands exist within the project area.
Surface waters also exist in the project area and may be impacted by the project.
Streams have been assigned a Best Usage Classification which denotes water quality
conditions and potential resource usage by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The
proposed project crosses one unnamed tributary (UT) of Robeson Creek in the Cape
Fear River basin. At time of visit, the width of UT varied from 1.5 m- 3.0 m (4.92 ft- 9.84
ft) and had a depth of 2.5 cm-7.6 cm (1 in- 3 in). Flow in the stream was slow. The
substrate consisted of silt, cobble, and rock. The best usage classification of this UT is
WS-IV NSW. Unnamed tributaries are given the same DWQ index number as the
stream to which they flow into. The DWQ index number for the UT is 16-38-(3) [8/3/92].
Classifications
WS-IV -denotes Water Supplies-IV (waters protected as water supplies which are
generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds; local programs to
control nonpoint source and stromwater discharge of pollution are required;
suitable for all Class C uses;
NSW -denotes Nutrient Sensistive Waters (waters which require limitations on nutrient
inputs)
C- denotes Class C (aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, and
secondary recreation, and agriculture).
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or
WS-II), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of project
study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DWQ
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses
long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for
selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Some
2
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. There is not a BMAN site within the project vicinity:
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted
through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any
discharger is required to register for a permit. There is no permitted point source
discharger within the project vicinity.
2.2 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action that affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although most of the disturbance caused by project construction will be temporary,
some environmental impacts caused by the proposed project may be long term or
irreversible. Installation or modification of instream structures, such as replacement or
extension of culverts, can permanently affect many physical stream parameters.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water
resources in the study area. NCDOTs Best Management Practices (BMP) for the
Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced throughout the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances should
also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships
between vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial, and aquatic ecosystems.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are
cited, along with brief descriptions of their respective "roles" within that community.
Animals observed during the site visit are denoted by (") in the text. Sightings of spoor
evidence are equated with sightings of individuals. Scientific nomenclature and
3
common names (when applicable) are used for plant and animal species described.
Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities, maintained roadside, mixed pine/ hardwood, and
residential, exist within the project area and are likely to be impacted by the subject
project. The maintained roadside community runs the length of the project and consists
of the highly maintained shoulders and some less intensively managed areas that
grade into the surrounding natural communities. Significant soil disturbance and
compaction, along with frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community
in an early successional state. As a result, the vegetation of this community is
dominated by grasses and herbs.
Dominant plants in the maintained roadside community include fescue (Festuca
sp.), clover (Trifolium spp.), Ozark tickseed-sunflower (Bidens aristosa), bush clover
(Lespedeza sp.), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), curly dock (Rumex crispus), and plantain
(P/antago sp.). In the areas which receive lower levels of maintenance, more diverse
communities can develop. This community was populated by Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), bush clover (Lespedeza sp.), muscadine (Vitus rotundifolia), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), and sensitive brier (Mimosa strigillosa).
The maintained communities extend into a mixed pine/ hardwood community.
Flora present in this community. include those species described in the maintained
communities as well as loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
Northern red oak (Quercus rubra), pignut hickory (Carya glabra), mockernut hickory (C.
tomentosa), willow oak (Q. phellos), sassafras (Sassafras albidium), red maple (Acer
rubrum), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), black cherry (Prunus serotina), tulip
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), and dogwood
(Cornus florida).
Residential communties exist along the western terminus of the proposed
project. These communties a include a variety of different plant species. Flora present
in this community include fescue, bead grass (Paspalum spp.), and Bermuda grass
(Cynodon dactylon). Trees observed in this community include black walnut (Juglans
nigra), willow oak, red maple, dogwood, black cherry, loblolly pine, pecan (Carya
illinoensis), white oak (Quercus alba), azalea (Rhododendron sp.) and wax myrtle
(Myrica cerifera).
. Wildlife found in these communities is limited and consists primarily of
wide-ranging, adaptable species which are well suited to coexistence with human
development. Mammals common to disturbed edge areas, such as eastern cottontail
rabbit (Sylvilagus floridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) may inhabit forested fringes.
4
Common reptiles found in such habitats include eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina)
and predators such as black racer (Co/uber constrictor), and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis). Birds likely to frequent such habitats include common crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus migratorius), mourning dove
(Zenaida macroura), and European starling (Sturnus vu/garis).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, exists within the
project area. Physical characteristics of the water body and condition of the water
quiality influence floral and faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Freshwater fishes likely to be found in a stream of this size could include creek
chub (Semotilus atromacu/atus), darter (Percina sp. or Etheostoma sp.), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), golden shiner (Notemigonus cryso/eucas), and green sunfish
(Lepomis cyane/lus). Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to
moderately sized piedmont perennial streams include northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fuscus), Southern leopard frog (Rana sphenocephala), green frog
(Rana c/amitans), pickeral frog (R. palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia
sipedon).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. This section quantifies and qualifies potential impacts to the
natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impacted and the
organisms affected. Temporary versus permanent impacts are considered as well,
along with recommendations to minimize or eliminate impacts.
Impacts to terrestrial communities will result from project construction due to the
clearing and paving of portions of the project area, and thus the loss of community
area. Calculated quantitative impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area (Table 1). Estimated impacts
are derived based on the project length of 0.97 km (0.60 mi) and the entire right-of-way
30.5 m (100 ft). The entire right-of-way will probably not be impacted, therefore actual
impacts to the disturbed communities may be considerably less.
Table 1. Estimated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Maintained Roadside 2.88 ha (7.11 ac)
Mixed Pine/ Hardwood 0.04 ha (0.09 ac)
Residential 0.03 ha (0.09 ac)
Total 2.95 ha (7.29 ac)
5
The projected loss of terrestrial habitat resulting from project construction will
have minimal impact on populations of native flora and fauna. The project will only
impact disturbed areas such as roadside shoulders, commercial or residential areas,
and mixed pine/ hardwood communities, and thus will not have large-scale effects on
the natural communities of the project region. The affected communities are already
highly altered from their natural state, and residual species are well adapted to such
disturbed conditions.
Aquatic communities will be affected as a result of project construction.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to construction
activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding mechanisms of benthic
organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are magnified throughout
the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher trophic levels. Strict
erosion and sedimentation controls should be maintained during the entire life of the
project.
Flora and fauna occurring in these communities are generally common
throughout North Carolina because of their adaptability to wide ranging environmental
factors. Moreover, a similar roadside shoulder community will be re-established after
construction. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities should
repopulate areas suitable for the species following project completion. As a result, it is
unlikely that existing species will be displaced significantly from the project area
following construction. However, to minimize the temporary effects of project
construction, all cleared areas along the roadways should be revegetated promptly
after project completion to minimize erosion and the loss of wildlife habitat.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides inventories and impact analyses pertinent to two
significant regulatory issues: Waters of the United States and rare and protected
species. These issues retain particular significance because of federal and state
mandates which regulate their protection. This section deals specifically with the
impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project construction.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the
United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CRF) Part
328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Surface waters include all
standing or flowing waters which have commercial or recreational value to the public.
Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing season.
6
"Waters of the United States" are present in the project area. One surface water
and three jurisdictional wetlands are located near the western terminus of the project
area. Quantitative impacts to "Waters of the United States" will depend on final project
designs (guardrail installation or culvert extension). If project right-of-way remains
30.5 m (100 ft) and the culvert over the UT is not extended, impacts will not occur or
will be less than 1 ha (1/3 acre) to wetland and less than 3.0 m (10 linear ft) to surface
waters. Jurisdictional wetlands should be delineated during a future site visit.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands
One surface water (see Section 2.1) and three jurisdictional wetlands are
located within the project area. Wetland site one is located south of US 64, wetland
sites 2 and 3 are located north of the highway. The three wetland sites are located
within the floodplain of the UT crossed by the highway. Each of the wetlands are
located in the mixed pine/ hardwood community. The Cowardin classification of these
wetlands is Palustrine Forested Decidous. Hydrological indicators observed during the
site visit include: waterstained leaves, soils saturated at the surface, water marks, and
drainage patterns.
4.1.2 Approximate Impacts to Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands
Approximate impacts for each of the wetlands and surface water are given in
Table 2. Approximate impacts were calculated by using the entire right-of-way [30.5 m
(100 ft)]. Often, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore
actual impacts are likely to be less. Actual impacts will depend on final project designs.
Table 2. Surface Waters and Jurisdictional Wetlands Within the Project Area
UT n/a 3.05 m (10.0 linear ft)
Wetland site one 0.30 ha (0.75 ac) <0.01 ha (<0.01 ac)
Wetland site two 0.30 ha (0.75 ac) <0.01 ha (<0.01 ac)
Wetland site three 0.40 ha 0.0 ac) <0.01 ha 0.02 ac
4.1.3 Permits
Current plans do not involve the removal of stream bank vegetation, stream
stabilization, or other mechanical activities that could result in the placement of fill into
"Waters of the United States". Therefore, no permits will be required. Should the
scope of the project change to include placement of fill into or the construction of new
crossings of "Waters of the United States% those activities will require a Section 404
Nationwide Permit (23). A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ is
required prior to the issuance of Section 404 Nationwide Permit (23).
7
4.2 Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as
amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as
federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS).
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 4 November 1997, the FWS lists four federally protected species for
Chatham County (Table 3). Descriptions and biological conclusions for each species
are given below.
Table 3. Federallv Protected Species for Chatham
Haliaeetus leucocephalus bald eagle T
Notropis mefi stocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
Note:
"E" - denotes Endangered (a species is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range).
,,r - denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Threatened
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: March 3, 1967
Bald eagles are found in North America from Florida to Alaska. The only major
nesting population in the southeast is in Florida, other nesting occurs in coastal areas
of Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina. Migrants and rare nesting pairs
do occur elsewhere in the southeast.
Adult bald eagles can be identified by their large white head and short white tail.
The body plumage is dark-brown to chocolate- brown in color. Immature eagles lack
the white head plumage; the body plumage has a uniform brownish to blackish color
with blotchy white on the underside of the wings, belly, and tail. In flight bald eagles
8
can be identified by their flat wing soar. Adults range is length from 69-94 cm and have
a wingspan ranging from 178-229 cm.
There are several factors that affect an eagles selection of a nest site. Eagle
nests are found in proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight path to the
water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the surrounding
land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable habitat.
Eagle nests are approximately 3 meters across.
The breeding season for the bald eagle begins in December or January. Fish
are the major food source for bald eagles. Other sources include coots, herons, and
wounded ducks. Food may be live or carrion.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable nesting habitat in the form of proximity to open water (within a half mile)
nor nests were not observed during a survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by
NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. However, the Haw River is
located approximately 2.98 km (1.85 mi) east of the project and Jordan Lake is located
approximately 3.83 km (2.38 mi) southeast of the project. Project construction is not
expected to impact foraging opportunities within the project area. In addition, a review
of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997
indicated that there is no known occurrence of the bald eagle within the project area.
Therefore the proposed project will not affect this species.
Notropis mekistocho/as (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered .
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 26, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The
strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to Rocky River and Bear Creek. Another population is
located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore counties.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow that rarely exceeds
5 cm in length. Its body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs
along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The
upperlip is black and the lower lip has a black bar along its margin. It is easily
distinguished from other similar species by having an elongated digestive tract to
accommodate its diet of plant material.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow nuns

associated with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater,
among large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools.
The Cape Fear shiner is thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other
periphytes. Captive specimens feed readily on plant and animal material. No
information is presently available on the breeding, fecundity, or longevity of the Cape
Fear shiner.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of streams with gravel or cobble substrates was
observed in the project area during a survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by
NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc Recktenwald. Though Cape Fear shiner
once existed in Robeson Creek, the population has been extirpated, possibly by water
quality degradation (Pottern and Huish 1985). In addition, a review of North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997 indicated that there is
no known occurrence of the Cape Fear shiner within the project area. Though the
proposed project is unlikely to affect this species, precautions must be taken to
minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. NCDOTs Best Management
Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly enforced
throughout the construction stage of the project.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: October 13, 1970
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) once occurred from New Jersey to
southern Florida and west to eastern Texas. It occurred inland in Kentucky,
Tennessee, Arkansas, Oklahoma, and Missouri. The RCW is now found only in coastal
states of its historic range and inland in southeastern Oklahoma and southern
Arkansas. In North Carolina moderate populations occur in the sandhills and southern
coastal plain. The few populations found in the piedmont and northern coastal plain
are believed to be relics of former populations.
The adult red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) has a plumage that is entirely black
and white except for small red streaks on the sides of the nape in the male. The back
of the RCW is black and white with horizontal stripes. The breast and underside of this
woodpecker are white with streaked flanks. The RCW has a large white cheek patch
surrounded by the black cap, nape, and throat.
The RCW uses open old growth stands of southern pines, particularly longleaf
pine (Anus palustris), for foraging and nesting habitat. A forested stand must contain
at least 50% pine, lack a thick understory, and be contiguous with other stands to be
appropriate habitat for the RCW. These birds nest exclusively in trees that are >60
10
years old and are contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age. The foraging
range of the RCW is up to 200 hectares (500 acres). This acreage must be contiguous
with suitable nesting sites.
These woodpeckers nest exclusively in living pine trees and usually in trees that
are infected with the fungus that causes red-heart disease. Cavities are located in
colonies from 3.6-30.3 m (12-100 ft) above the ground and average 9.1-15.7 m (30-50
ft) high. They can be identified by a large incrustation of running sap that surrounds
the tree. The large incrustation of sap is believed to be used as a defense by the RCW
against possible predators. A clan of woodpeckers usually consists of one breeding
pair and the offspring from previous years. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June and hatch 38 days later. Clutch size ranges in number from 3-5 eggs. All
members of the clan share in raising the young. Red-cockaded woodpeckers feed
mainly on insects but may feed on seasonal wild fruits.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Though suitable habitat in the form of trees that are >60 years old that are
contiguous with pine stands at least 30 years of age was not observed during a survey
conducted on 29 September 1997 by NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and Marc
Recktenwald. In addition, a review of North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997 indicated that there is no known occurrence of
the red-cockaded woodpecker within the project area. Therefore, this project will not
affect this species.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
The historic range of Ptilimnium nodosum included the states of Maryland, West
Virginia, Kentucky, North Carolina, Alabama, and the coastal plains of Georgia and
South Carolina. It is now known from only ten populations in its historic range and it
has been eliminated from over half of its known range. North Carolina currently has
two known populations of harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County.
Harperella is an annual herb in the carrot family, with fibrous roots and erect to
spreading stems. The stems are green and often have a purplish tinge at the base and
they may branch above mid-stem. The leaves are hollow, cylindrical, and septate, with
broadly clasping bases. Basal and lower leaves up to 30 cm long and decreasing
upwards on the stem. Flowers are 5-15 compound umbels, each umbel subtended by
an involucre of small lanceolate bracts 0.5 cm long.
11
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals in the
margins of clear, swift flowing stream sections, and the edges of intermittent pineland
ponds or low, wet savannah meadows in the coastal plain. It is always found in
saturated substrates and tolerates periodic, moderate flooding. There is a preference
for sunny areas and this species is abundant where it is sheltered from stream erosion,
usually on the downstream side of large rocks or amidst thick clones of water willow.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Suitable habitat in the form of rocky or gravel shoals was not observed during a
survey conducted on 29 September 1997 by NCDOT biologists Chris Rivenbark and
Marc Recktenwald. At time of site visit, the UT in the project area had a slow current as
opposed to the swift flowing current that harperella prefers. In addition, a review of
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database on 14 August 1997
indicated that there is no known occurrence of harperella within the project area.
Therefore, this project will not affect this species.
4.3 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are six Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Chatham County.
Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are
not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed
or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as
those species which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there
was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered
(E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North
Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of
protection given to state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities
Table 4 lists Federal Species of Concern and State listed species, the species
state status and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area.
This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species
may be upgraded in the future.
12
Table 4. Federal Candidate Species for Chatham
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow No SC
A/asmidonta varicosa Brook floater Yes T
Fusconaia mason Atlantic pigtoe Yes T
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly No SR
Lampsilis cadosa yellow lampmussel No T
Isoetes viminica Virainia ouillwort No C
Note:
"Historic record- the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
°T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become endangered within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range, or one that
is designated as a threatened species pursuant to the Endangered Species Act).
°C" denotes Candidate (a species which is very rare in North Carolina, generally
with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by
habitat destruction. If these species are relocated in the state, or if present land
use trends continue, they are likely to be listed as Endangered or Threatened).
"SC" denotes Special Concern (a species of wild animal native or once-native to
North Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to
require monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under
the provisions of this Article).
"SR" denotes Significantly Rare (a species which is very rare in North Carolina,
generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction. This species is generally more common
somewhere else in their ranges, occurring in North Carolina peripherally to their
main ranges, mostly in habitats which are unusual in North Carolina.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit. A review of
the N.C. Natural Heritage Program data base of the rare species and unique habitats
on 14 August 1997 revealed no records of.North Carolina rare and/or protected species
in or near the project study area.
13
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare plant species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program list of the rare
animal species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North
Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrates of the United States, 3rd ed. John Wiley
and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill,
The University of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of
the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North
Carolina Press, Chapel Hill and London.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina. Third. Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDEHNR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1997. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill and London.
14
Memorandum
TO: Ed Lewis
Project Planning
FROM: Jill Marie Lord
Historic Architecture Resources Section
RE: CE statement for U-3630
HISTORIC ARCHITECTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project
has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
comment.
In her survey for the US 64/Pittsboro Bypass (TIP R-2219 AB), Mary L. Reeb surveyed
the area of potential effect (APE) for U-3630. She identified one property over fifty years
of age within the APE of U-3630. The house was determined not eligible for listing in
the National Register of Historic Places in the Architectural Resource Survey Report for
US 64/Pittsboro Bypass (Reeb, 1990). On September 5, 1997, North Carolina
Department of Transportation architectural historians surveyed the project area. They
saw no additional properties over fifty years of age and no evidence to warrant
reevaluation of the aforementioned property.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106 is required.