19990175 All Versions_Complete File_19990225

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
NCDENR
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENT AND NATURAL RESOURCES
March 8, 1999
Lincoln County
WQC 401 Project # 990175
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Bill Gilmore
NC DOT
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, for the purpose of replacing bridge 63, as you
described in your application dated February 25, 1999. After reviewing your application, we have decided that this fill is
covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit
Number 23 when the Corps of Engineers issues it. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or local permits
before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to) Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater,
Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations. Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or
CAMA permit expires unless otherwise specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you change your
project, you must notify us and send us a new application. If the property is sold, the new owner must be given a copy of
this Certification and approval letter and is thereby responsible for complying with all conditions. If total wetland fills for
this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required as described in 15A NCAC
2H .0506 (h): For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing. You must
act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to
Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh,
N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you
have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office
Mooresville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorsey
Central Files
Sincerely,
Pk ward, Jr. E.
990175.1tr
Division of Water Quality • Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd, Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer • 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
o•STA1Fo
RECEIVO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovERNOR S ECRETARY
February 2, 1999
D,
FEB 2 5 1999
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers Asheville Field Office wiff .1NDS GROUP .
LILY SECTI;.`.
151 Patton Ave., Room 143 m
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Lincoln County, Replacement of Bridge No. 63 On SR 1175 over Indian
Creek. TIP No. B-2995, State Project No. 8.2831401, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1175(7).
Attached for your information is a copy of the approved Categorical Exclusion for
the referenced project. Bridge No. 63 will be replaced with a new bridge on new
alignment 37, meters (121 feet) south of the existing structure. The new structure will be
approximately 40 meters (131 feet) long and 10.3 meters (34 feet) wide. Due to the
curvature of the alignment, a curved structure and paved curve widening is required. The
north lane will be 3.3 meters (11 ft) lane with a 1.0 meter (3 ft) offset. The south lane
will be a 4.2 meter (14 foot) lane with a 1.8 meter (6 foot) offset. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 1996, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.

2
41 TOR%We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 3107 (Categorical
?will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their review. Since this project occurs in a designated trout county, a copy of
this document is also being provided to the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission for
their review.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Logan Williams at [phone] extension 302.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmor , P.1, Manager
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
WDG/lw
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Joe Mickey, NCWRC
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. R. L. Hill, P.E., State Highway Engineer - Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. R. W. Spangler, Division 11 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E. Project Engineer

Lincoln County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1175
Over Indian Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1175(7)
State Project 8.2831401
TIP # B-2995
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date?? H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
-i?41anning and Environmental Branch
l-?
Date ,Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

Lincoln County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1175
Over Indian Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1175(7)
State Project 8.2831401
TIP # B-2-995
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1997
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
?N CARp/''?•,
SEAL Z
022552
Date J n L. Williams C???W?????.? \
Project Planning Engineer
Date Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., ssistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch

Lincoln County
Bridge No. 63 on SR 1175
Over Indian Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1175(7)
State Project 8.2831401
TIP # B-2995
Bridge No. 63 is located in Lincoln County over Indian Creek. It is programmed
in the 1998-2004 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement
project. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion".
No substantial environmental impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 63 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on a new alignment 37 meters (121 feet) south of the existing structure. The new
structure will be approximately 40 meters (131 feet) long and 10.3 meters (34 feet) wide.
Due to the curvature of the alignment, a curved structure and consequently paved curve
widening is required. The north lane will be a 3.3-meter (11-foot) lane with a 1.0-meter
(3-foot) offset. The south lane will be a 4.2-meter (14-foot) lane with a 1.8-meter (6-foot)
offset. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 155 meters (508 feet) of new approach work to the west and
125 meters (410 feet) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width will be
7.5 meters (25 feet) including a 3.3-meter (11-foot) and a 4.2-meter (14-foot) lane.
Additionally there will be 1.8-meter (6-foot) grass shoulders. Based on preliminary
design; the design speed should be approximately 80 km/h (50 mph).
.The estimated cost of the project is $683,000 including $650,000 in construction
costs and $33,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the 1998-2004 TIP
is $752,000; including $80,000 in prior year costs, $645,000 in construction costs, and
$27,000 in right of way costs.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification,will be obtained prior to issue of the Army Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.

III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions will be likely.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1175 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It is located a few miles southeast of Lincolnton, N.C. Traffic
volume is 450 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 1200 VPD for the year 2020. The
speed limit in the vicinity of the bridge is 45 mph. The road serves residential and
agricultural areas.
Bridge No. 63 is approximately 15 meters (50 feet) south of a railroad bridge.
This project will not impact the railroad bridge or associated track in any way.
The existing bridge was completed in 1962. It is 31 meters (101 feet) long. The
deck is 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide. There is approximately 7.9 meters (26 feet) of vertical
clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. There are two lanes of traffic on the
bridge.
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 46.3 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted 14 tons for single
vehicles and posted 18 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Vertical alignment is good in the project vicinity. Bridge No. 63 is on a sharp
horizontal curve. The pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is
4.9 meters (16 feet). Shoulders on both approaches of the bridge are approximately
1.2 meters (4 feet) wide.
The Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that no accidents have been reported
within the last three years in the vicinity of the project.
There are four daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge.
There are no utilities in the vicinity of the bridge.
V. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows:
Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 63 with a new curved bridge on the existing location.
Traffic would be detoured offsite during construction. The design speed
would be approximately 50 km/h (30 mph).
Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 63 with a new curved bridge on a
new alignment 37 meters (121 feet) south of the existing structure. Traffic
would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The
design speed for the approaches will be approximately 80 km/h. (50 mph).
"Do-nothing" is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as the
existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating
bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1)
Recommended
COMPONENT ALTERNATE ALTERNATE
1 2
New Bridge Structure* $ 301,000 $269,000
Bridge Removal 14,000 14,000
Roadway & Approaches 109,000 140,000
Mobilization & Miscellaneous 128,000 127,000
(30%)
Engineering & Contingencies 98,000 100,000
(15%)
Total Construction $ 650,000 $ 650,000
Right of Way $ 21,000 $ 33,000
Total Cost $ 671,000 $ 683,000
* The bridge in Alternate 2 is approximately the same length as the bridge in Alternate 1.
However, the Alternate 1 bridge is slightly wider and more sharply curved which explains
the cost differential.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 63 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new bridge
on a new alignment 37 meters (121 feet) south of the existing structure. The new
structure will be approximately 40 meters (131 feet) long and 10.3 meters (34 feet) wide.
Due to the curvature of the alignment, a curved structure and consequently paved curve
widening is required. The north lane is a 3.3-meter (11-foot) lane with a 1.0-meter
(3-foot) offset. The south lane is a 4.2-meter (14-foot) lane with a 1.8-meter (6-foot)
offset. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
There will be 155 meters (508 feet) of new approach work to the west and
125 meters (410 feet) of new approach work to the east. The pavement width will be
7.5 meters (25 feet) including a 3.3-meter (11-foot) and a 4.2-meter (14-foot) lane.
Additionally there will be 1.8-meter (6-foot) grass shoulders. Based on preliminary
design, the design speed should be approximately 80 km/h (50 mph).
Alternate 2 is recommended because it offers an improved design speed of
80 km/h (50 mph) which exceeds the posted speed limit of 45 mph at a cost of only
$12,000 more than Alternate 1. The existing alignment has a design speed of 50 km/h
(30 mph). The Division 12 Engineer concurs with this recommendation.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality
of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments
listed in Section II of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning
regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and
waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or
have any adverse effect on the existing floodplain.
Utility impacts are considered to be negligible for the proposed project.
B. AIR AND NOISE
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included
in the regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
The project is located in Lincoln County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is
not anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not
have substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA) of 1981, the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) was asked to determine whether the
project being considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The NRCS

responded that Alternate 1 would not impact prime or important farmland soils.
Alternate 2 will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but the area is wooded
and void of agricultural uses
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) has commented in the attached
letter (from NC Department of Cultural Resources, dated 12-04-97) that they "are aware
of no historic structures within the area of potential effect." They therefore recommend
no further historic architectural surveys be conducted.
In the same letter, the State Office of Archaeology (SOA) has recommended that
an archaeological survey be conducted for Alternate 2. An archaeological survey was
conducted resulting in no sites found. SOA has written a letter (attached; dated 10-9-97)
concurring that no further investigations are required.
E. NATURAL RESOURCES
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils
and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Regional Characteristics
Lincoln County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography of
Lincoln County is dominated by rolling hills with an elevation range from 198 meters
(650 feet) to 451 meters (1,480 feet) above sea level. Over three-fourths of the project
area is maintained/disturbed (e.g. roadside, and agricultural fields) with the remaining
portion being piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest.
Soils
The soils in the project area belong to the Pacolet-Madison-Rion Association and the
Chewacla-Riverview Association. The Pacolet-Madison-Rion Association is comprised
of gently sloping to steep, well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a clayey
or loamy subsoil; formed in material weathered from felsic, igneous and metamorphic
rock, on uplands. The Chewacla-Riverview Association is comprised of nearly level,
somewhat poorly drained to well drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and a
loamy subsoil; formed in recent alluvium; on flood plains.
The project area contains four soil types, none of which are classified as hydric, one
as containing inclusions of hydric soils or have wet spots, and three as non-hydric. Soils
classified as hydric possess characteristics that are associated with reducing conditions.
The classification of hydric is a significant part of the criteria for jurisdictional wetlands.
Table 2 provides a listing of the specific soil types found in the project area.
Table 2. Soils located in the Project Area.
iviar uivt 1 birECIFIC PERCENT HYDRIC
SYMBOL MAPPING UNIT SLOPE CLASSIFICATION
ChA Chewacla loam 0-2 HI
MdC2 Madison sandy clay loam - 8-15 NH
RvA Riverview loam 0-2 NH
RnC Rion sandy loam 8-15 NH
Note: "HI" denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils or which have wet spots.
"NH" denotes soils that are not classified as hydric.
Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the
resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality
of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means
to minimize impacts.
Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie within the Catawba River
Drainage Basin. The proposed bridge replacement crosses Indian Creek which flows into
the South Fork Catawba River approximately 4.8 kilometers (2.97 miles) downstream of
the project site. Indian Creek at the project site is approximately 7.6 meters (25.0 feet)
wide, and 0.6- 0.9 (2-3 feet) deep. The flow rate was moderate during the site visit. The
substrate is comprised of boulder, cobble, sand, clay and silt.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Indian Creek [DEM Index No. 11-.129-8-(5)] and
the South Fork Catawba River [DEM Index No. 11-129-(3.7)] have been assigned the
best usage classification of WS-IV by DWQ. Water supplies IV refers to those waters
protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly developed
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted; local programs
to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution are required; suitable
for all Class C uses. Class C refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and
survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Neither High Quality
Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters
(ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers(1.0 mile) of project study area. The study is located
in a water supply watershed protected area.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
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.
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.
6
The most recent BMAN sample taken in proximity to the project area was
conducted in July of 1990 in Indian Creek 2.9 kilometers (1.8 miles) downstream of the
proposed project site. The sample received a BMAN rating of Good.
A review of point source dischargers that are located within the project area was
also conducted. Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are no point source
dischargers in the project area.
Non-point source runoff from agricultural areas are likely to be the primary source
of water quality degradation in the project vicinity. Water quality in North Carolina is
significantly influenced by nutrient loading and sedimentation from residential,
commercial and agricultural runoff. Soluble nutrients leaching from, herbicides, and
pesticides applied on agricultural fields, are a primary source of water pollution.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Roadway construction in and adjacent to Indian Creek will result in water quality
impacts. However, they are expected to be minor. The primary impacts to water
resources will be the result of clearing and grubbing activities during the construction
phase of the project.
The removal of streamside vegetation increases storm water runoff and soil
erosion. -Inereased-storm water run-off results in increased stream flow and discharge of
toxins (e.g. oil, gas, transmission fluid, etc.) into surface waters. Increased soil erosion
increases sedimentation which reduces water quality and dissolved oxygen content, in
addition to directly clogging the stream channel.
Additionally, clearing and grubbing activities will decrease canopy cover of the
water resource which will increase water temperature fluctuations. Warmer water holds
less dissolved oxygen then cooler water. Dissolved oxygen is essential for the survival of
aquatic organisms. During hot summer months canopies associated with streams help to
keep the water temperature low. The removal of this canopy will result in increased
water temperatures and a decrease in the amount of dissolved oxygen within the water
column.
Construction activities will also increase the potential for toxic compounds (oil,
gas and other compounds associated with highway spills) to be carried into nearby water
resources via precipitation, sheet flow and subsurface drainage. Toxic chemicals can
adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting the biological and
chemical functions of the water resource.
There are also indirect impacts to surface waters associated with bridge
construction projects. These impacts may include changes in flooding, discharge, erosion
and sedimentation regimes.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced during the actual construction
of the project when vegetation removal will expose soil. After project completion,
prompt revegetation will decrease erosion. Sedimentation guidelines must be
implemented throughout the construction period to reduce the potential for excessive soil
erosion. Without the erosion control measures, sediment from the project site could reach
the existing water resources through overland flow. In order to minimize potential
impacts, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters must
be enforced during the construction phase of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation
with the DEM, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects
which adopts formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as,
the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and
distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of
topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses within the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community
classifications. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each
community are described and discussed.
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area. The
identified communities are referred to as maintained/disturbed and Piedmont/low
mountain alluvial forest.
Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community consists of roadside shoulder, and
agriculture fields that are maintained in early successional stages.
The vegetative community along the roadside shoulders is kept in a low growing,
early successional stage, and is dominated by grasses and herbs. The agricultural
community consists of a pasture dominated by fescue.
Wildlife resources in maintained/disturbed communities are generally limited by
the high degree of maintenance that occurs to residential developments, roadside
shoulders and agricultural fields. Species found in these areas generally use the area for
foraging and are highly adaptive species that adjust well to human development.
Examples of wildlife species that are common to such areas include raccoon, Virginia
opossum, and gray squirrel.
Piedmont/ Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
The canopy within this community consists of a mixture of bottomland and
mesophytic species such as river birch, American sycamore, sweetgum, and yellow
popular. The understory usually consists of species such as boxelder, red maple, and paw
paw.
Wildlife resources in this community are limited by the fragmentation caused by
the agriculture production within the area. Animal diversity is expected to be fairly low
in this community. Most fauna within this community can be associated with the
adjacent maintained/disturbed community. Mammalian species include raccoon, Virginia
opossum, gray squirreland white tailed deer. Examples of birds include northern
cardinal, Carolina chickadee, and American robin. Reptiles include eastern box turtle,
and black racer.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, is located in the project
study area. Perennial streams support an assemblage of fauna that require a constant
source of flowing water, as compared to intermittent or standing water. Physical
characteristics of the water body and condition of the water quality influence floral and
faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a
water resource also greatly affect aquatic communities.
Some amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to moderately
sized piedmont perennial streams include northern dusky salamander, spring salamander,
and green frog. The stream provides habitat for several species of fish such as
mosquitofish, creek chub, and green sunfish. Aquatic invertebrates found in this habitat
include mayflies (Family Ephemeroptera), stonefies (Family Plecoptera) and caddisflies
(Family Trichoptera). Macroinvertebrates such as crayfish are typically found in these
types of piedmont streams.
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary
and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 3 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated
impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 meters (80 feet).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
Table 3. Anticipated impacts to biotic communities.
COMMUNITY Alt. 1
Maintained/Disturbed 0.37 (0.91)
Piedmont/low mountain alluvial 0.11 (0.27)
TOTAL IMPACTS 0.48(l.1
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Alt. 2
0.46(l.14)
0.19 (0.47)
0.65(l.61
The biotic communities located within the project area will be impacted as a result
of project construction.
Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna.
However, the habitat within the project study area is highly fragmented and remains in a
altered state. Flora and fauna found within this community are well adapted to disturbed
conditions and although they will be temporarily displaced during project construction,
they are likely to repopulate the area once project construction is completed.
9
Water resources will be impacted by construction activities. Increases in
sedimentation and siltation may impact benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians by
interfering with their feeding mechanisms and reproduction patterns. Additionally, toxic
runoff from the construction site and highway spills may result in the mortality of aquatic
species inhabiting Indian Creek in the project area. Alternate 2 will have more of an
impact than Alternate 1 due to the fact that Alternate 2 will impact Indian Creek in two
locations, one where the proposed bridge will be constructed and the other where the
existing will be removed. Therefore, biologically, Alternate 1 would be the better
alternative. Strict erosion controls should be maintained during the entire life of the
project.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues-- "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
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 (CFR) Part
328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated
by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under
normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in
saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and evidence of prescribed hydrologic characteristics during the
growing season. There are no wetlands located in the project study area. Indian Creek is
considered a jurisdictional surface water.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Approximately 24 linear meters (80 linear feet) of Indian Creek will be impacted
by the construction of Alternate 1. Approximately 48 linear meters (160 linear feet) of
Indian Creek will be impacted by Alternate 2 (this includes impacts associated with the
construction of the proposed bridge and removal of the existing bridge).
Permits
Impacts to surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands are anticipated from project
construction. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States." A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 will
likely apply for this project.
A section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) may be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States found in the project study area. This permit
authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in
whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where:
10
(1) that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the council on
environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act;
(2) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither
individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(3) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
Water Quality Certification
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification form the DEM prior to
the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state
issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge to issuance of a Section 404 permit. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DEM is prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
Mitigation
The COE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological
and physical integrity of Waters of he United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of
wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to
wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and
compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and. compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of
averting impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of
Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE,
in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts,
such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and
practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project
purposes. .
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to Waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization
typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction to median widths, right-of-way widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
Compensatory mitigation in not normally considered until anticipated impacts to
Waters of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of Water of the United States, specifically
wetlands. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the
discharge site.
Il
Compensatory mitigation is required for those projects authorized under
Nationwide Permits that result in the fill or alteration of:
• More than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation;
• And/or more than 45.7 meters (150.0 linear feet) of streams will require compensatory
mitigation.
Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from the DWQ prior to
the issuance of a 401 Certification. Final permit/mitigation decisions rest with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that
any action, likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject
to review by the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
4 November 1997, the FWS lists two federally-protected species for Lincoln County. A
brief description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of rare species revealed no
recorded occurrence of federally-protected species in or near the project study area
Hexastylis naniflora (dwarf-flowered heartleaf) Threatened
The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is found in several piedmont counties within North
Carolina and the adjacent portions of South Carolina.
This plant has heart-shaped leaves, supported by long thin petioles that grow from
a subsurface rhizome. It rarely exceeds 15 centimeters (6 inches) in height. The leaves
are dark green in color, evergreen, and leathery. Flowers are small, inconspicuous,
jugshaped, and dark brown in color. They are found near the base of the petioles. Fruits
mature from mid-May to early July.
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf populations are found along bluffs and their adjacent
slopes, in boggy areas next to streams and creekheads, and along the slopes of nearby
hillsides and ravines. It grows in acidic soils in regions with a cool moist climate.
Regional vegetation is described as upper piedmont oak-pine forest and as part of the
southeastern mixed forest.
Although very small areas of habitat for this species do exist, the species is not
present on the site. A plant-by-plant survey for the species conducted on 20 March 1996
by NCDOT biologist Dale Suiter and Jim Hauser revealed no dwarf-flowered heartleaf
present. Additionally, The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was
checked prior to the field visit and there were no records of existing populations of dwarf-
12
flowered heartleaf in the project area. Thus, dwarf-flowered heartleaf will not be
impacted by project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
Rhus michauxii (Michaux's sumac) Endangered
Michaux's sumac is a densely pubescent rhizomatous shrub. The bases of the
leaves are rounded and their edges are simply or doubly serrate. The flowers of
Michaux's sumac are greenish to white in color. Fruits, which develop from August to
September on female plants, are a red densely short-pubescent drupe.
This plant occurs in rocky or sandy open woods. Michaux's sumac is dependent
on some sort of disturbance to maintain the openness of its habitat. It usually grows in
association with basic soils and occurs on sand or sandy loams. Michaux's sumac grows
only in open habitat where it can get full sunlight. Michaux's sumac does not compete
well with other species, such as Japanese honeysuckle, with which it is often associated.
Although very small areas of habitat for this species do exist, the species is not
present on the site. A plant-by-plant survey for the species conducted on 5 Aug. 1997 by
NCDOT biologist Marc Recktenwald and Logan Williams revealed no Michaux's sumac
present. Additionally, The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was
checked prior to the field visit and there were no records of existing populations of
Michaux's sumac in the project area. Thus, Michaux's sumac will not be impacted by
project construction.
Biological Conclusion: No effect
13
FIGURES
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE -i---?--?-
i
Y
4
G

U
U L
h
O ? ,..,^?
C o
o
I N

C z tr

o
o
mo
,
z r- ??N
N
C
? L
U y

BRIDGE NO 63
LINCOLN COUNTY
B - 2995
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
i? G U R E 3
ATTACHMENTS
?, nivr d

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor - Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
October 9, 1997
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Archaeological report, Bridge 63 over Indian
Creek, Lincoln County, BRZ-1 175(11), B-2995,
State Project 8.2831401, ER 96-7348, ER 98-
7500
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of September 4, 1997, transmitting the archaeological
survey report by Kenneth Robinson, North Carolina Department of Transportation,
concerning the above project.
During the course of the survey no archaeological sites were located within the
project area. Mr. Robinson has recommended that no further archaeological
investigation be conducted in connection with this project. We concur with this
recommendation since this project will not involve significant archaeological
resources. The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of
the Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:sIw?
cc: VH. F. Vick
T. Padgett
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??3
?1 2?d
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary _ William S. Price, Jr., Director
December 4, 1995 , F

Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator

on
t
Federal
hwa
Administra
y
t

,?995
n
ra sportat o
D partme
nt of T J
z
310 New Bern Avenue x
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge 63 on SR 1175 over Indian
Creek, Lincoln County, B-2995, Federal Aid EV?r1h???
Project BRZ-1 175(7), State Project 8.2831401,
ER 96-7348
Dear Mr. Graf:
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
September 28, 1995. However, Debbie Bevin met with John Williams, project
planning engineer, on November 7, 1995, to view aerials and photographs and to
discuss the project.
Based upon these materials, we recommend that the North Carolina Department of
Transportation determine whether the railroad bridge to the north of Bridge No. 63
is within the project's area of potential effect. If so, we recommend that the
railroad bridge be evaluated for National Register eligibility. Otherwise, we
recommend that no architectural survey be conducted for this project.
If, alternative two, improvement of the alignment to the south using the old bridge
as. a detour, is chosen we recommend that an archaeological survey be conducted
to determine the presence and significance of any sites that may be located in the
area of potential effect. We recommend no survey if alternative one, replacement
in. place, is selected.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
OD
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 (f3p
..p
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
Zl avi Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett