20030261 Ver 1_Complete File_20030226

.?
f
y ??4
N d wAP?
? WrM?STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDo TIPPETT
GOVERNOR 03026 11ECRETARY
February 26, 2003 0
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch; a y
Post Office Box 1890 t
2 6 ' 1
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 '}
FEB
U
WETLA14DS GROUP
SECTION '
ATTENTION: Mr. IRichard Spencer WATER UALlTY SECT
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit Application 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek in Chatham County,
Division 8. Federal Project No. BRZ-1100(7), State Project No.
8.2521901, T.I.P. No. B-3633.
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the PCE form and Natural Resources Technical Report for
the above referenced project, along with a construction sequencing plan (Figure 1 and Figure 2),
a project site map, permit drawings, PCN form, and roadway design plan sheets. Bridge No. 247
will be replaced on existing location with a single 32' x 12' three-sided reinforced concrete
precast culvert. During construction traffic will be detoured along existing area roads.
PROPOSED IMPACTS
One perennial stream, Little Brush Creek (DWQ Index No. 17-23-2) Class C, will be impacted
by the proposed project. Since the PCE was approved in December 2000 the design has been
refined. Originally the hydraulics recommendation was to replace existing Bridge No. 247
(101 feet in length) with a new bridge approximately 98 feet in length and 30 feet in width.
This proposal would have necessitated the reduction to the vertical sag for achieving a reasonable
design speed. In order to accomplish this, the roadway elevation would have to be raised
approximately 12 feet and the new bridge length with a minimum of 145 feet. Since that amount
of construction was beyond the scope of this bridge replacement project, a three-sided reinforced
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH, NC

concrete precast culvert is now proposed. This structure will result in no permanent impacts, but
only temporary surface water fill associated with the installation of special stilling basins and
impervious dikes to dewater the construction site. Temporary impacts shall not exceed 112 feet
(0.0048 acres) of surface water fill. These impacts are depicted in the attached drawings.
No jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted as a result of proposed project. Bridge No. 247 is
mainly composed of timber and steel with the exception of concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge
No. 247 will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States.
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE
1) Install Special Stilling Basin as Directed by the Engineer.
2) Install Impervious Dikes.
3) Utilize Special Stilling Basin to Dewater Site.
4) Install 32' x 12' Three-Sided Precast Concrete Culvert.
5) Remove Impervious Dikes and Special Stilling Basin.
6) Complete Roadway.
Restoration Plan:
The materials used during the construction sequencing will be removed after their purpose has
been served. Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed stilling basins and
impervious dikes are available from field survey notes. The project schedule calls for a
July 15, 2003 let date. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start construction shortly
after the project is released for construction. The stilling basins and impervious dikes will only
be in place for a time sufficient to complete the construction. After the basins and dikes are no
longer needed they will be removed by the contractor. All basin and dike material will become
the property of the contractor. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for
removal of and disposal of all materials off-site.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered,
and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 07, 2002, the United States Fish and
Wildlife Service lists four federally protected species for Chatham County (Table 1).
Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" were rendered for bald eagle and red-cockaded
woodpecker due to lack of habitat. Multiple site investigations were performed concerning
harperella and Cape Fear shiner. Biological Conclusions of "No Effect" and "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" were rendered for harperella and the Cape Fear shiner, respectively. The
Biological Conclusions for each of these species remain valid. See the attached survey report
memos for harperella, dated November 01, 2002 and September 19, 2002, along with the survey
report memos for the Cape Fear shiner dated November 28, 2000 and August 30, 2002.

Table 1. Federally-Protected Species for Chatham County
Habitat Notes
Common Name Scientific Name Federal or Biological
Status Survey Date Conclusion
bald eagle Haliaeetus T No Habitat No Effect
leucoce halus
Cape Fear shiner Notropis mekistocholas E Last Surveyed Not Likely to
07/11/02 Adversely Affect
red-cockaded Picoides borealis E No Habitat No Effect
woodpecker
harperella Ptilimnium nodosum E Last Surveyed No Effect
08/14/02
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
SUMMARY
It is anticipated that the construction of the three-sided reinforced concrete precast culvert will be
authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 for these
activities. All other aspects of this project are being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number
10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002). We anticipate 401 General Certifications numbers
3361 and 3366 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are
providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP Mr. Art King, Division Environmental Officer
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Ms. Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
a?
v
C
D
a' C
a? R
? O

aU
o ?
s
oU
U M
M
? M
O
bD
W
W
U
N
CnCO `LY
z z
\ \ JC7 W .
,p V LU 'm N t? z
C6 ° W U
CIV) jug
M + o N
%-° z ZIL°
1 W
M
I v
\ Z Z°Zw
N
a gnp
N ` N ?
\ \ g 5;:? ? S
O Z uWvxW0
owe- D \ O ? LIU- N % ad
W
U) U) t-U
W ?
z Iffl,
z
?z1v
m
r vs a
o
O a
E
m ?
' H ew s
Z ? C M
y M
N
Q Q ? N
O CD O ?
Li C C4
I
t? O ?O
?- ° Q
a
U ? y
.W h ;
m
m tm o 0
.N u. v
:fl
H H ?_
u? ? O
O Z
O
ID
}
O
Z

Prior to the bridge surveys, a known population (Granville County) of harperella was
visited by NCDOT biologists on August 14, 2002 so that the vegetative and flowering
stage of this plantwould be familiar. Surveys were conducted at B-3632 (Bear Creek on
SR 1009), B-3633 (Little Brushy Creek on SR 1100), B-3634 (Dry Creek on SR 1559),
and B-3823 (Landrum Creek on NC 902). A prolonged drought in 2002 resulted in vast
stretches of dry river bed at many of the sites visited. Gravel bars, which could provide
potential habitat for harperella, were present, but constituted marginal habitat under
drought conditions, as these bars were higher and drier than normal. Ptilimnium nodosum
was not present at any of the bridge replacement sites, therefore the biological conclusion
for these four bridge replacement projects is "no effect". In addition, the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database of rare species and unique habitats was checked and
there are no known populations of harperella within any of the project vicinities.
Because this plant does not occur within the project limits and appears to be
extirpated from Chatham County (until future reintroduction of this plant), it can
therefore be concluded that replacing Bridge Numbers 200 (B-3632), 247 (B-3633),
117 (B-3634) and 40 (B-3823) will have "no effect" on harperella.
cc: Rachelle Beauregard, Environmental Specialist
Heather Montague, Environmental Specialist
B-3632 file
B-3633 file
B-3634 file
B-3823 file

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovEmoR
01 November 2000
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Dale W. Suiter
Environmental Spec ist
Attn:
Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: Biological conclusions for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum)
surveys in Chatham County.. TIP Projects B-3632, B3633, B-
3634, B-3823.
NCDOT biologists Heather Montague, Lynn Smith and Dale Suiter visited four
bridge replacement project sites in Chatham County on 20 July 2000 in order to conduct
surveys for harperella, (Ptilimnium nodosum) a federally protected species. A species
description and biological conclusion for each site follows.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
Distribution in N.C.: Chatham, Granville, Lee.
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
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
on the stem. Flowers are 5-15 compound umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre
of small lanceolate bracts 0.5 cm long.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and 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.
Bridge: B-3632 Replace Bridge No. 200 on SR 1009 over Bear Creek, Chatham County.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Surveys for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) were conducted on 20 July 2000 by
NCDOT biologists Heather Montague, Lynn Smith and Dale Suiter. Prior to conducting
surveys on the subject project, a known site for this species was visited in Granville
County to determine flowering and vegetative stages of the plant at this time. Bear Creek
contained only marginal habitat for harperella but no plants were observed at this site. In
addition,. the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked and there are no known populations of harperella in the
project vicinity. This project will not impact Ptilimnium nodosum.
Bridge: B-3633 Replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek, Chatham
County.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Surveys for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) were conducted on 20 July 2000 by
NCDOT biologists Heather Montague, Lynn Smith and Dale Suiter. Prior to conducting
surveys on the subject project, a known site for this species was visited in Granville
County to determine flowering and vegetative stages of the plant at this time. Little
Brush Creek is very wide at this point and contains no habitat in the form of sandy stream
banks, exposed rocks and sandbars in the streambed and no plants were observed. In
addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and
unique habitats was checked and there are no known populations of harperella in the
project vicinity. This project will not impact Ptilimnium nodosum.
Bridge: B-3634 Replace Bridge No. 117 on SR 1559 over Dry Creek, Chatham County.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
Surveys for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) were conducted on 20 July 2000 by
NCDOT biologists Heather Montague, Lynn Smith and Dale Suiter. Prior to conducting
surveys on the subject project, a known site for this species was visited in Granville
County to determine flowering and vegetative stages of the plant at this time. Dry Creek
does contain habitat for harperella in the form of sandy stream banks, exposed rocks and
sandbars in the streambed. However, no harperella plants were observed. In addition, the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species and unique habitats
was checked and there are no known populations of harperella in the project vicinity.
This project will not impact Ptilimnium nodosum.
Bridge: B-3823 Replace Bridge No. 40 on NC 902 over Landrum Creek, Chatham
County.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
Surveys for harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum) were conducted on 20 July 2000 by
NCDOT biologists Heather Montague, Lynn Smith and Dale Suiter. Prior to conducting
surveys on the subject project, a known site for this species was visited in Granville
County to determine flowering and vegetative stages of the plant at this time. Landrum
Creek contained only marginal habitat for harperella. No plants were observed at this
site. In addition, the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program's database of rare species
and unique habitats was checked and there are no known populations of harperella in the
project vicinity. This project will not impact Ptilimnium nodosum.
Please contact me at [phone] if you have any questions regarding these
surveys.
cc: Bruce Ellis, Natural Systems Unit Head
Logan Williams, Protected Species Coordinator
Heather Montague, Environmental Specialist
Lynn Smith, Environmental Specialist
Michael Wood, Environmental Specialist
Fi e: B-3632
rile: B-3633
File: B-3634
File: B-3823
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
November 20, 2002
Robin Young
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Young:
c El L/-ZN
1101/ 2s; 2Ci
I L 1'3
[? l31'riS f' n- ?Q
This letter is in response to your letter of October 28, 2002 providing the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) with the biological conclusion of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush
Creek in Chatham County with culverts (TIP No. B-3633) is not likely to adversely affect the
federally-endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), and will have no effect on the
federally-endangered Harperella (Ptilimnium 7iodosum). In a telephone conversation between
you and Mr. Gary Jordan on November 20, 2002, you stated that two 12 feet by 14 feet box
culverts with a length of 97 feet would be placed in the stream. These comments are provided in
accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543).
According to the information you submitted, no fisheries surveys were conducted for Cape Fear
shiners at the project site. Site inspections on November 17, 2000 and July 11, 2002 by NCDOT
and North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission biologists revealed that habitat for Cape
Fear shiners was not present at the site at those times. A November 19, 2002 site inspection by
David Rabon and Gary Jordan, of my staff, confirmed that, at best, only marginal habitat exists at
the site for Cape Fear shiners. Also, there are no known occurrences of Cape Fear shiners within
the project vicinity. The Service concurs with the "not likely to adversely affect" conclusion for
the Cape Fear shiner, provided that the environmental commitments listed in your attached
August 30, 2002 memo from Neil Medlin to Robin Young are adhered to. Please note, however,
the project commitments "Green Sheet" attached to your letter did not include all of the
environmental commitments stated in your attached August 30, 2002 memo.
Also, according to the information you submitted, a survey was conducted for Harperella on
August 14, 2002. Harperella was not found at the site, and there are no known occurrences of
Harperella in the project vicinity. The Service concurs with the "no effect" conclusion for
Harperella.

The Service is disappointed with the decision to replace the existing bridge with two culverts.
Culverts will further encroach upon the flood plain and reduce the effectiveness of the riparian
corridor to serve as .a terrestrial wildlife travel corridor. Nonetheless, as a mitigative feature to
protect the Cape Fear shiner and other species, the design of the culvert system must be such that
fish movements upstream and downstream are not impeded.
We believe that the requirements of section 7 (a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind
you that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if. (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a
manner not previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat
determined that may be affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Garland B. Pardue, Ph.D.
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Cynthia van der Wiele, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, NCWRC, Northside, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
.4

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR LYN TI
SECRETARY RY
August 30, 2002
Memorandum To: Robin Young, Project Manager
Bridge Replacement Unit
From: ,'6k
Neil Medlin, Protected Species Group
Subject: Protected Species Follow-up Survey for the Cape Fear Shiner
Associated With the Replacement of Bridge No. 247 with a
Culvert on SR 1100 Over Little Brush Creek, Chatham County,
TIP No. B-3633.
This memo addresses the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), a federally
protected species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Chatham County. An
initial survey/site visit for the Cape Fear shiner was conducted on November 17, 2000 by
NCDOT Biologists Logan Williams and Sue Brady. During the site visit, it was
determined that Little Brush Creek in the project area did not provide adequate. habitat for
the Cape Fear shiner. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was given based on
observations at the site. Details of the site visit and project are outlined in a November
28, 2000 memo from Logan Williams (PDEA) to Wayne Elliott, P.E. (Bridge
Replacement Unit). The intent and design of this project at the time of the initial site visit
and memo was to replace Bridge No. 247 over Little Brush Creek with another bridge (98
ft. total length).
As the project progressed, the following design alternatives were considered: (1)
raising the road grade approximately 12 feet to reduce vertical sag and get a reasonable
design speed and replacing the existing bridge with a longer (145 ft.) bridge; (2) replace
the existing bridge with a 71 foot culvert. The culvert alternative would maintain the
existing road grade, which would reduce the length of the project and reduce the clearing
impacts associated with raising the road grade.
A follow-up fisheries survey/site visit was conducted at the project site on July
11, 2002 by NCDOT biologists Neil Medlin, John Alderman, and Heather Montague and
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (NC WRC) biologist Brian Watson. During the July
11 site visit, the stream consisted of only intermittent pools of water so no fisheries
survey was conducted.
MAILING ADDRESS:
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone]
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: 919'733-9794 LOCATION:
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

Subsequent to the site visit, it was confirmed that Bridge No. 247 was to indeed
be replaced with a culvert. During an email communication with Brian Watson (NC
WRC), environmental commitments for the project were developed. The commitments
were as follows:
• Best Management Practices for bridge demolition and removal will be implemented
• High Quality Waters - Soil and Erosion Control Measures will be installed and
maintained throughout project construction
• Culvert design and alignment will be adequate so as not to adversely affect stream
hydrology
• Project construction will take place during the dry season
Given the results of the two site visits and by strictly adhering to the
environmental commitments listed above, it was concluded that this project is "Not
Likely to Adversely Affect" the Cape Fear shiner.
cc: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Assistant Branch Manager
Heather Montague, Permit Specialist
Brian Watson, NC Wildlife Resources Commission
Attachment
?O y-
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
November 28, 2000
Memorandum To: Wayne Elliott, P.E.
Unit Head, Bridge Replacement Unit
From: Logan Williams, Environmental Specialist
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Subject: Protected Species Survey for Cape Fear Shiner for
replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush
Creek, Federal Aid Project Number BRZ-1100(7), State Project
Number 8.2521901, Chatham County,
TIP Number B-3633.
Attention: Robin Young, Project Manager
Bridge Replacement Unit
The following memo addresses the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas), a
federally protected species listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Chatham
County. The Cape Fear Shiner has. been found downstream from the bridge site in
surveys conducted by the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. .
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 (Airport Road) over Little Brush
Creek in Chatham County. The bridge will be replaced with a new bridge approximately
98 feet (29.9 meters) in length and 30.feet (9.1 meters) in width. This width will provide
for a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway and 4 foot (1.2-meter) offsets on each side to
accommodate bicycles. Bridge rail height should be 54 inches (1372 mm) for bicycle
safety. The new approach roadway will also have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway with 4-
foot (1.2-meter) paved shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder
width will be increased at least 3 feet (1.0 meter) where guardrail is warranted. Total
project length is 750 feet (229 meters). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads
during construction.
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. 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.
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
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.
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.
Biological Conclusion: No Effect
This proposed 'construction site was visited by NCDOT biologists Logan
Williams and Sue Brady on November 17, 2000 to determine if the site provided habitat
for the Cape Fear Shiner. Brush Creek is approximately 6-8 feet wide in the vicinity of
the bridge. Water depth at the time of the site visit was .5-1.0 feet deep. The creek flows
through a mature bottomland forest and is well shaded. There is no aquatic vegetation
growing in the creek near the bridge site. The substrate consists of cobble and gravel.
The proposed bridge replacement site is approximately 12 miles upstream from the Deep
River in Randolph County. Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel,
cobble, or boulder substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting medium sized streams
and small rivers where it inhabits slow pools, riffles, and slow runs associated with water
willow beds. Brush Creek at bridge number 247 does not provide adequate habitat for
the Cape Fear Shiner. Given the. results of the survey it can be concluded that project
construction will not likely adversely affect the Cape Fear Shiner.
cc: Hal Bain, Unit Head
File: B-3633

q
i ?-
J
} ; 1147 y
1100 /

;; 1198 J 4 Brus reek Ch.,? 1132
O'\ .5 I.b
U
I 1006
'
1148
17

a do r" PROJECT B--3633 1005 \

2.1
Little
Z' 1148\ \ 1
1 49
Q ro \ 1005 J
1005 _
,
5
0 1100 -? ?
\
3 .

- Q
J \ Z
1151 J cp
* 1150
Groves Chp. f

VICINITY MAP
NOT TO SCALE
NCDOT
NO RTH CAROLINA
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2521901 (B-3633)
BRIDGE NO. 247 OVER LITTLE
BRUSH CREEK ON SR 1100
(AIRPORT ROAD)
SHEET I OF 7 AUGUST 23, 2002
i

VICINITY MAP
0 1.0 m?te
I I I
COLERIDGE, NC QUAD MAP
.1V CD® JL
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2521901 (B-36n)
BRIDGE NO. 247 OVER LITTLE
BRUSH CREEK ON SR 1100
(AIRPORT ROAD)
SHEET Z OF 7 AUGUST 23, 2002
NORTH CAROLINA
WETLAND LEGEND
i
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE

W
C-L W
ETLAND
PROPOSED
BOX CULVERT
DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48"

DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES

SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUC TURES)
54" PIPES
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(PDND)
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
* DENOTES MECHANIZED
* * CLEARING
-> FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-_ TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -"L - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -? - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2521901 (R-B-3633)
BRIDGE NO.247 OVER LITTLE
BRUSH CREEK ON SR 1100
(AIRPORT ROM))
SHEET 3 OF / AUGUS'T' 23, 202
& ABOVE
0 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
s-
RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

4 rci
J [? Z
? ?IJ
h. ' ® U o° D
Y a w .rs 0 E--4
Dal g
n
/? oG I O ® 84 w Q. Pr"
A.. 0
J O N Co
rZ E. E- d u 9
Q 40 .10
?Q 6 J
Of
A
(.D ? ° a° 4 EEC
koQO ?m I Q y ;'
4,ij o 4-jj(1)
o ?Q
w
is+00 o w
V) I ~'3 d
s
ILU
% CIO.
? V
VSJc - 7-
E
0 a
-o ff ?? N
_'o
J / ? z>
U O / I Q
O
CO co N
?y4b Y
Vfi' O 00
Q / N 1 ?-
.D? O
o
O
G? I I C
3dd
w I I oaf
O Q
b? ry t -
O a
z I W Cum` O N
Q +I Q ?I Ci' N
O
N
c?
o °

CI) A r O

6? S6i? E.

o

LU \

?
? 04
I
\ \ P
?? z F" U Z U
? ?„a W

a
f
\
V J
U "' \ A 04 ?-
LLJ > CL
a I ' w w
z? W

co
Cfl
I I w z
F- , F- Y U
U W Vj
D I
C"j OU ?O

0 Q
LLJ I
CO ("J
2 W r-
'T Ld

X C7

J(n II LL
I , = ii O?,
=g
I
I w Z
-+ W LL J
(L 12?
o LLJ O w < LL

r- = O ?
+N II w I 1 \
I r--- -??
9 J
x?w I I ??

\

II
I
LLJ
F-NY I L----
I I
cnr)V)C? I I \
Iltl
??

I I ? 14
I I

1 I p

J
f I? ?
N
3 I
O

,-
I W L L?-Y e1

' L r)
)'CO
/

V
O u
N
' / J
W

N_
O
2
I /

J
/ / z
/ z N
N

/ a

F- N
/? a
z
Z£"86t?
O O O

f6 E M

3 N (A .'C
.... W N
ll
I-I
z (n O O

°
Cl)
N N W W
'
U

?
V X U .?
NCca$ {
r O z
,
Z
a w U E Q N Q Q
U

w
co ?
NNw¢
W
Q
'
LL
` ro
C)
C) o
oOO
V
R
z
U
?
? o oE?C?w
x
l)
U C
UOw
>

a U) 'a
= 0
c
n

w
?

w --
N ?

°
S
Q UJ
Q -
? U
> m
m a
>
>
H 0. X
wG

W 0
Z
-
CL g LL
=
Z W a? m

3 N
? U

N CL
Q' r
>
H to ? U
x m
? N
fA L N U
N
H CO
n.
J
O N N
ce)

m
?F
C
,^ LL
V/
J
2 6
A Z Q

Site
No. Property Owner
Name Property Owner
Address
1 Gordon Stokes 1701 Cloncurry Road, Norfolk, VA 23505
List of Property Owners
Office Use Only' Form Version April 2001
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A" rather than
leaving the space blank.
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit
? Section 10 Permit
® 401 Water Quality Certification
? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (see section VIII - Mitigation), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NCDOT Proiect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Mailing Address: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Dev & Environmental Analysis Branch
Attention: Gregory J. Thorpe Ph.D.
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone] .
E-mail Address:
2. Agent Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter must be
attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:_
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 1 of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size, plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3633
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Chatham Nearest Town: Siler City
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): from Siler City take Airport Road
(SR 1100) south to the crossing of Little Brush Creek. Or from junction of US 64 and
Hwy 421 east of Siler City take US 421 South, make a right onto Elmer Moore Road
traveling through Bonlee, then eventually make a right onto Airport Road (SR 1100).
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°38' N Lat / 79°31' W Long
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Describe the existing land use or condition of the site at the time of this application: Existing
land uses include forested and maintained communities. The area has a mixture of
residential and undeveloped landuse. SR 1100, a Rural Local Route, runs through the project
area with Bridge No. 247 serving residential uses.
7. Property size (acres): N/A
8. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Little Brush Creek
9. River Basin: Cape Fear River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the purpose of the proposed work: To replace an inadequate bridge, Bridge No.
247 will be replaced on existing location with a three-sided reinforced concrete precast
culvert.
11. List the type of equipment to be used to construct the project: heaves duty construction
equipment
12. Describe the land use in the vicinity of this project: Existing land uses include maintained
and forested communities. The area has a mixture of residential and woodland landuse. SR
1100, a Rural Local Route runs through the project with Bridge No. 247 serving residential
uses.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and'
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any additional permit requests anticipated for this project in the future? If so, describe the
anticipated work, and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current
application: N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 3 of 8
1. Wetland Impacts
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.)
List the total acreage (estimated) of existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
2. Stream Impacts, including all intermittent and perennial streams
Stream Impact Site Type of
Length of Impact
Stream Average Width Perennial or
Number
Impact*
(linear feet)
Name** of Stream Before Intermittent?
(indicate on map) Impact (please specify)
Site 1 three-sided 112.0 lft Little Brush
15
0 ft
Perennial
Temporary fill culvert (0.0048 ac) Creek .

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** , Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 112.0 lft
3. Open Water Impacts, including Lakes, Ponds, Estuaries, Sounds, Atlantic Ocean and any
other Water of the U.S.
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.

Page 4 of 8
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands E] stream wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
NCDOT will adhere to the "Best Management Practices (BMPs) for Bridge Demolition and
Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 247.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
Page 5 of 8
I. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP) with the NCWRP's written agreement. Check the box indicating that
you would like to pay into the NCWRP. Please note that payment into the NCWRP must be
reviewed and approved before it can be used to satisfy mitigation requirements. Applicants
will be notified early in the review process by the 401/Wetlands Unit if payment into the
NCWRP is available as an option. For additional information regarding the application
process for the NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If
use of the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide
the following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (DWQ Only)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public funds or the use of public (federal/state/local)
land?
Yes ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No Fj
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (DWQ Only)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
1

Page 6 of 8
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
• applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Meuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes E] No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Gone 1 extends out 3U teet perpenaicuiar from near nanx or cnannei; cone / exUenus W1
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (DWQ Only).
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
The guidelines for the NCDOT's "Best Management Practices for the Protection of Sensitive
Watersheds" will be followed. These include minimizing the project footprint and diverting
stormwater awU from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval will also be strictly enforced.
XII. Sewage Disposal (DWQ Only)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
Page 7 of 8
XIII. Violations (DWQ Only)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes F-1 No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
N/A
Page 8 of 8

(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
r
A.
B.
C.
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal Project No
Project Description:
B-3633
8.2521901
BRZ-1100(7)
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 (Airport Road) over
Little Brush Creek in Chatham County. The bridge will be replaced with a new
bridge approximately 98 feet (29.9 meters) in length and 30 feet (9.1 meters) in
width. This width will provide for a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway and 4 foot
(1.2-meter) offsets on each side to accommodate bicycles. Bridge rail height
should be 54 inches (1372 mm) for bicycle safety. The new approach roadway
will also have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway with 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved
shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be
increased at least 3 feet (1.0 meter) where guardrail is warranted. Total project
length is 750 feet (229 meters). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads
during construction.
Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 247 has a sufficiency rating of 49.8 out of 100. The deck of
Bridge No. 247 is only 20.1 feet wide. For these reasons, Bridge No. 247 needs
to be replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merges, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Brid ge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grad e separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint) scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks, and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
2
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. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 600,000
Right of Way $ 14,000
Total $ 614,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 600 vpd
Year 2025 - 800 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The new approach roadway will have a 22-foot travelway with 4 foot
paved shoulders and a total width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be
increased at least 3 feet (1.0 meter) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 kmh)
Functional Classification:
SR 1100 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification system.
Division Office Comments:
The Division 8 Construction Engineer supports the chosen alternate. For
detouring traffic during construction, he would like to use the the southwest
routes including SR 1005, SR 1148, and SR 1100.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 247 is located on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek in
Chatham County. The bridge is mainly composed of timber and steel, with the
exception of concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge No. 247 will be removed
without dropping components into Waters of the United States.
3
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur? X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1/10) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous material sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act ?
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
X
4
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? . X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the ?
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
Environmental grounds concerning the project? X
5
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws ?
relating to the environmental 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? ?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ?
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
below. Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
Item (2)
Suitable habitat for the Cape Fear Shiner is present within the project area. A
review of the NHP database on 7 July 2000 indicated no record for the presence
of the Cape Fear Shiner within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the proposed project.
However, an in-stream investigation will need to be conducted to determine the
presence or absence of this species. Therefore, the effect of the project
construction upon the Cape Fear Shiner is unresolved.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:

NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 (Airport Road) over
Little Brush Creek in Chatham County. The bridge will be replaced with a new
bridge approximately 98 feet (29.9 meters) in length and 30 feet (9.1 meters) in
width. This width will provide for a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway and 4 foot
(1.2-meter) offsets on each side to accommodate bicycles. Bridge rail height
should be 54 inches (1372 mm) for bicycle safety. The new approach roadway
will also have a 22-foot (6.7-meter) travelway with 4-foot (1.2-meter) paved
shoulders and a total shoulder width of at least 8 feet. Shoulder width will be
increased at least 3 feet (1.0 meter) where guardrail is warranted. Total project
length is 750 feet (229 meters). Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads
during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
12-28.00
Date
,2-ZO-DO
Date
12-ZO-oo
Date
Assistant Manager, Lubin Prevatt, PE
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
W tie_ Z'7/ ;o tf -
Projec Planning Unit Head, Wayne Elliott
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
B-3633
8.2521901
BRZ-1100(7)

Project Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:
(?
Z b -C-0 ?L :i?--
12
Date Division Administrator, Nicholas
Federal Highway Administration
coung
Analysis Branch
PE
7
i B?u5
I.I
( J. O 1127
I ? ' i fU
`• i
i? 1181
j
1
1
1.3
1127
1128
i 1129
i
35° 40' 1 OD
1 ?
i
1 1 147 1. 2
1 1100
1
i
i 1198 .5
i
1 -
i I
i 114
i i
i '
1 2• ? .
Uttle
1 1148
r
Gtr;.
Siler
1100 •' 1119 2.
w 1130
7 .5
yc s 1132
>:
i'
1131 1 i
sh Creek Ch. ; 1 132
i i
i
1133
i'
i'
' 1005
Bridge No. 247
1149 ,
i .6 O \
100 5
i
i 1151 '6
j .? 1150
1
j Groves Chp. '
1 'J 1.8
i
I .4 }
1 \
1152 1145 ? 11
1100
1136
1165
`
Detour Route
MW . MW 1W
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch
o?
Chatham County
Replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100
Over Little Brush Creek
B-3633
SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1
_..i, 1006
1145
V
d?v I
`5
W `1 124
1006
1134
1136
?.• STATE North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrev J. Crow, Director
December 2, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf - . .
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100, TIP No. B-3633, Chatham County,
ER 00-7870
Dear Mr. Graf:
On November 16, 1999, April Alperin of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We
reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and
resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and
aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer
our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located within
the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for
this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction.
We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with
this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion
or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with
Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 1-7699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-'_671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4n13 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC' 27699-4613 (919) .33-6547 715-XXOI
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Ralci h N(' 461`; Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC' 27699-4618 [phone] 715-4`1111
page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
-incerely,
D
/David Brook
V. Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
cc: W: D. Gilmore
B. Church
T. Padgett
VLGLUU VI I1V1U1 VCAI WIII I"
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
January 31, 2000
40
NCDENR
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager, NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
From: John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush
Creek in Chatham County, State Project No. 8.2521901, T.I.P. B-3633.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated October 15, 1999, in which you requested scoping
comments for the referenced project. Preliminary analysis of the project reveals that the proposed bridge
will span the Little Brush Creek in the Cape Fear River Basin. The DWQ index number for the stream is
17-23-2 and the stream is classified as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is required,
it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the environmental
documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be practical, it should be noted
that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans will be required prior to issuance
of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
B. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
C. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
D. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be required by
DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of 150 linear feet.
E. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation will
be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
F. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it
should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the
crossing.
G. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work is
approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
01/28/00
Pa.-e 2
H: In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6) ), mitigation will be
required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the event that
mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace appropriate lost
functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506
(h)(3) }, the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted to
discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a properly
designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
K. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office tool,
their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland delineations prior
to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water Quality
Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality standards are met
and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require additional information,
please contact John Hennessy at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, Corps of Engineers
Mark Cantrell, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
$3633
?Mw
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coo ator
Habitat Conservation Program Z?'
DATE: December 6, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Caswell, Chatham, and Guilford
counties. TIP Nos. B-3627, B-3629, B-3630, B-3631, B-3632, B-3633,
B-3823, B-3462, B-3463, B-3646, B-3647, and B-3648.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the Water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 0, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we.can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should. also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed. '
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches. or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the. second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2.. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at. least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 6, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3627 - Caswell County - Bridge No. 24 over (North) Hyco Creek. This bridge
should be replaced with a bridge. There appears to be high quality wetlands on both
sides of the bridge. If an on-site detour is necessary, we recommend the upstream
side of the bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
2. B-3629 - Caswell County - Bridge No. 11 over Country Line Creek. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
3. B-3630 - Caswell County - Bridge No. 70 over Lynch Creek. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-3631 - Caswell County.- Bridge No. 105 over a prong of County Line Creek. No
specific comments. Standard recommendations apply.
B-3632 - Chatham County - Bridge No. 200 over Bear Creek. We would
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery exists for
sunfish and largemouth bass immediately downstream of this site. We recommend an
in-water work moratorium from April 1 to June 15 to minimize impacts to spawning
sunfish and largemouth bass. There are also records of the federally endangered Cape
Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) in the vicinity of this bridge. We recommend
that NCDOT biologist, Tim Savidge, be notified and an on-site inspection be
scheduled with NCWRC and USFWS biologists as soon as possible.
6. B-3633 - Chatham County - Bridge No. 247 over Little Brush Creek. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
7. B-3823 - Chatham County - Bridge No.- 40 over Landrum Creek. We would
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. A significant fishery exists for
sunfish and largemouth bass of this site. We recommend an in-water work
moratorium from April 1 to June 15 to minimize impacts to spawning sunfish and
largemouth bass. There are also records of the federally endangered Cape Fear shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas) in the vicinity of this bridge. We recommend that NCDOT
biologist, Tim Savidge, be notified and an on-site inspection be scheduled with
NCWRC and USFWS biologists as soon as possible.
8. B-3462 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 194 over Buffalo Creek. We recommend
replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
9. B-3463 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 171 over South Buffalo Creek. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
10. B-3646 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 185 over Haw Creek. Standard
recommendations apply.
Bridge Replacement Memo 4 December 6, 1999
11. B-3647 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 172 over North Buffalo Creek. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
12. B-3648 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 158 over North Buffalo Creek. We
recommend replacing this bridge with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain. sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 21, 2000
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your letters of November 14 and November 28, 2000, requesting comments or
concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) on the biological assessments for
the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) in the vicinity of Bridge No. 200 on SR 1009 over
Bear Creek (TIP No. B-3632), Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek (TIP No. B-
3633) and Bridge No. 117 on SR 1559 over Dry Creek (TIP No. B-3634), all in Chatham
County, North Carolina. This report is provided. in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
The Service considers the reports to be accurate representations of the surveys and results for the
Cape Fear shiner and its habitat. Based on the information provided, the Service concurs that the
projects, implemented as described, will have "No Effect" on the Cape Fear shiner.
Note, however, that this concurrence applies only to the referenced species up to the date of the
report. Should additional information become available relative to the referenced species,
additional surveys may be required.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please advise us of any.
changes in project plans. If you have any questions regarding these comments, contact Tom
McCartney at [phone], Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
I
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:12/21/00:919/856-4520 extension 32:\3brgchat.esp
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No.247
on SR 1100 over Little Brush Creek
Chatham County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ -1100(7)
State Project No. 8.2521901
TIP. No. B-3633
Commitments Developed Throug-h Project Development and Design
Division 8 Construction, Roadside Environmental Unit, Structure Design Unlit
Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be
implemented. The existing bridge is composed mainly of timber and steel, with the
exception of concrete footings. Therefore, Bridge No. 247 will be removed without
dropping any components into Waters of the United States during construction.
Green Sheet
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
December 20, 2000

e"' SAO
pS?? Y
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNMNT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
August 4, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
Wayne Elliot, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Heather W. Montague, Natural Systems Specialist #/M
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little
Brush Creek, Chatham County, TIP No. B-3633, State
Project No. 8.2521901; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1100(7).
ATTENTION: Robin Young, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of the natural resources within the proposed project area, along with analyses
of probable impacts likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction.
Pertinent information on wetlands and federally protected species is also provided, with
respect to regulatory concerns that must be considered. Please contact me if you have
any questions, or need this report copied onto disk format.
cc: Bruce Ellis, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: B-3633
MAILING ADDRESS:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH, NC
.,
PROPOSED REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 247
ON SR 1100 OVER LITTLE BRUSH CREEK
CHATHAM COUNTY
TIP NO. B-3633
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2521901
FEDERAL AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1100(7)
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
HEATHER MONTAGUE, NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
AUGUST 04, 2000
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the preparation of a
Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in western Chatham
County (Figure 1).
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100 over Little Brush
Creek on existing location with an off-site detour (Figure 2). The existing cross section has a
20.1 feet (6.1 m) wide deck with an 18.0 ft (5.5 m) approach roadway with grassed shoulders.
The proposed cross section has a 22.0 ft (6.7 m) travelway and 4.0 ft (1.2 m) paved offsets on
each side to accommodate bicycles. The proposed right-of-way (ROW) is 80.0 ft (24.4 m).
Project length is 550.0 ft (169.2 m).
1.1.1 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 247 is composed completely of timber and steel. The bridge's deck and
superstructure are over 47 years old and are in poor condition, therefore providing the need to
replace this bridge. Bridge No. 247 will be removed without dropping any component into
Waters of the United States.
1.2 PURPOSE
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural
resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and
estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated 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 preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need
to be conducted.
1.3 METHODOLOGY
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include the following: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Coleridge, NC), Geographical Information Systems (NC Center for
Geographical Information & Analysis), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS,
formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil information for Chatham County, and NCDOT
aerial photographs of project area (1:1200). Water resource information was obtained from
publications of the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (Draft Basinwide
Assessment Report for Cape Fear River Basin, 1999), and from the NC Center for Geographic
Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of Chatham County, 1995).
Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area
was gathered from the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and federal
` North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development &
Environmental Analysis Branch

Chatham County
Replace Bridge No. 247 on SR 1100
Over Little Brush Creek
B-3633
I SCALE: 1 in = 1 mi Figure 1 I
14
species concern, and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of Rare Species and
Unique Habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologists
Heather Montague, Lynn Smith, and Michael Wood on 29 June 2000. Plant communities and
their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one
or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture, visual
observations (binoculars), and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks,
and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the "Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual" (Environmental
Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance
provided by N.C. Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known as the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM)], "Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding"
(Environmental Sciences Lab, 1997).
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS
1) Investigator: Michael G. Wood, Environmental Specialist NCDOT.
Education: MS Soil Science, University of Rhode Island
BS Recreation Management, University of Vermont
Experience: NC Division of Coastal Management, March 1995 - August 1997
NC Department of Transportation, August 1997 - present
Certification: North Carolina Licensed Soil Scientist, #1219
Expertise: Soil Investigations; Wetland Delineation; Ground Water Modeling; NEPA
investigations.
2) Investigator: Heather W. Montague, Environmental Specialist NCDOT.
Education: BS Forest Management, North Carolina State University
Experience: NCSU Department of Forestry, September 1998 - September 1999
NC Department of Transportation, September 1999 - present
1.5 DEFINITIONS
Definitions for the terminology used in area descriptions contained in this report are as follows:
Project Study Area denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity
describes an area extending 0.5 mile (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project
Region is equivalent to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map i.e. [61.8 sq.
miles (163.3 sq. km)].
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils information
was obtained from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil
Conservation Service) for Chatham County. Soils and availability of water directly influence
composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
2.1 REGIONAL CHARACTERISTICS
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Chatham County is characterized by gently rolling hills, which are dissected by fairly
wide floodplains. Elevations within the project area vary slightly, and average approximately
450 ft (137 m) above mean sea level. Forested/agricultural land is the primary land use in the
project vicinity.
2.2 SOILS
Three soil phases occur within project boundaries: Georgeville Silty Loam Complex,
Georgeville-Badin Complex, and Riverview Silt Loam Complex. Table 1 lists study area soils in
the order of relative dominance.
Table 1. Soils Within the Project Study Area
Map
Unit
Soil' Percent
Slope Drainage
Class` ,, Hydric
Classification
205C Georgeville Silty Loam 6-10 well non hydric
232E Georgiville-Badin 15-30 well non hydric
13A Riverview Silt Loam 0-3 poorly hydric inclusions
Georgeville Silty Loam- These gently sloping, very deep, well drained, eroded soils are on
uplands. They formed in residum from Carolina slates and other fine grained rocks. They have
a loamy surface layer. Permeability is moderate. Shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high
water table is below six feet.
Georgeville-Badin Complex- This map unit consists of a strongly sloping Georgeville soils and
Badin soils on uplands. They formed in residum from Carolina slates and other fine grained
rocks. Georgeville-Badin soils are very deep and well drained. They have a loamy surface layer
and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low. Seasonal high
water table is below six feet.
Riverview Silt Loam- These nearly level, very deep, well drained with the exception of hydric
inclusions, are found on floodplains. They formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They have a
loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-swell potential is low.
Seasonal high water table is within a depth of three to five feet.
2.3 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 those
impacts.
2.3.9 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Little Brush Creek will be the only surface water potentially affected by the proposed project.
Waters in the project vicinity are part of the Cape Fear River Basin, Hydrologic Unit #
03030003. The Cape River Basin contains 24 subbasins. Waters within the project area are
located in sub basin 03-06-09. Project area waters drain to the east and eventually empty into the
Deep River.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
The classification of Little Brush Creek [Index no. 17-23-2] is C. The "C" classification denotes
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped
watersheds or WS-II: predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and
physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed
every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the
Division of Environmental Management) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. Many benthic
macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycles that can last from six months to a year,
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation.
Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term
changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution
sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the
population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions. There
are no BMAN stations within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project area.
The Ambient Monitoring System (AMS) is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality
monitoring stations strategically located for the collection of physical and chemical water quality
data. The waterbody's freshwater or saltwater classification and corresponding water quality
standards determine the types of water quality data that are collected. No AMS stations are
located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project area.
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. No point source dischargers are located within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the
project area.
2.3.4 Summary of Impacts to Water Resources
Replacing an existing structure in the same location without constructing a detour bridge during
construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other
natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
• Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
• Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation
removal.
• Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface and
ground water flow from construction.
• Changes in water temperature due to removal of streamside vegetation.
• Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction, toxic spills,
and increased vehicular use.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area.
NCDOT's Best management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters must be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMP's include,
but are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion of stormwater away from
surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by
toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced. Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds .0024 NCAC Title 15A provisions to preclude
contamination by toxic substances must be strictly enforced.
3.0 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 in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial
systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions
presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed,
or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968). Animal
taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and Webster, et
al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only.
Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with an asterisk (*). Spoor evidence equates to
observation of the species. Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in
estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
8
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES
Three terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Piedmont/alluvial forest,
upland hardwood forest, and maintained/disturbed roadside community. Community boundaries
within the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal
species likely to occur within the study area will exploit each community for shelter and foraging
opportunities or as movement corridors.
3.1.1 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is present along Little Brush Creek corridor. The flora that comprises the
alluvial forest includes tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), box elder (Acer negundo),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American elm (Ulmus americana), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), sweet gum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), willow oak (Quercus phellos), hackberry (Celtis laevigata), Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), Japanese honeysuckle
(Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), and poision ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest includes mammals such as Virginia opossum
(Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttali),
raccoon* (Procyon lotor), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus). Amphibians and reptiles such as slimy salamander (Plethodon
glutinosus), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog* (Pseudacris triseriata), eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), black racer (Coluber
constrictor), and rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) may utilize the forest as well. Insects, including
butterflies such as the eastern swallow tail* (Papilio polyxenes), red spotted purple* (Limenitis
arthemis), pearl crescent* (Phyciodes tharos), as well as mosquitoes* (Family Culicidae) and
various other flies are found in the forest and weedy roadside community.
Avian fauna likely to occur in this area includes year-round residents such as song sparrow
(Melospiza melodia), Rufous-sided towhee* (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), Eastern wood pewee
(Contopus vixens), red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus), Northern cardinal*
(Cardinalis cardinalis), Carolina cickadee* (Pares carolinensis), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), bluejay* (Cyanocitta cristata), tufted titmouse* (Parus bicolor), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), and American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos). In addition, migrant songbirds such as blue-gray gnatcatcher* (Polioptila
caerulea), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), ovenbird
(Seiurus aurocapillus), northern parula (Parula americana), and hooded warbler (Wilsonia
citrina) use this area during the summer breeding season.
3.1.2 Upland Hardwood Forest
Upland hardwood forest is present along the road shoulders covering the entire length of the
project. The transition from upland hardwood forest to maintained/disturbed roadside
community is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance activities. The flora that comprises the
upland forest includes white oak (Quercus alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), scarlet
oak (Quercus coccinea), post oak (Quercus stellata), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and
sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua).
The shrub layer consists of flowering dogwood (Cornus florida), red bud (Cercis canadensis),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), mulberry (Morns rubra), and eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). Vines observed within this community formed a dense cover,
especially on the outer edges of this community. Representative vine species include: green
brier, trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), muscadine grape (Vitis sp.), and poison ivy.
The upland hardwood forest offers habitat for a variety of fauna. Faunal species frequenting the
maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the alluvial forest. The gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Virginia opossum, white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus),
raccoon, eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) and woodchuck (Marmota monax) are inhabitants
of this community. The presence of stratification provides habitat for avian species such as the
blue jay* (Cyanocitta cristata), red-eyed vireo* (Vireo olivaceus), American crow* (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), red-bellied woodpecker, northern flicker (Colaptes auratus) and downy
woodpecker. Reptilian species include the eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), and black racer. The copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix) serves a
predatory role by feeding on small vertebrates.
3.1.3 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community
The maintained/disturbed roadside community includes road shoulders approximately 20.0 feet
(6.1 m) wide, along SR 1100 (Airport Road) that are present along the entire length of the
project. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes fescue (Festuca sp.),
common plantain (Plantago major), vetch (Vicia sp.), chickweed (Stellaria media), curly dock
(Rumex crispus), fleabane (Erigeron strigosus), dandelion (Taraxacum of cinale), red clover
(Trifolium pratense), lespedeza (Lespedeza repens), bluets (Houstonia caerulea), horse nettle
(Solanum carolinense), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), and wild onion (Allium sp.). Less
frequently maintained areas farther from the road support species such as tree of heaven
(Ailanthus altisma), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos),
muscadine grape, greenbrier, milkweed (Asclepias tuberosa), poison ivy, ragweed (Ambrosia
artemisiifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), queen anne's lace (Daucus
carota), Aseact day flower (Commelina communis), wild yam (Dioscorea villosa), curly dock
(Rumex crispus), virgin barrow (Clematis virginiana), and blackberry (Rubus argutus).
The maintained/distrubed habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested
areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project
vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting this community will be largely those species
inhabiting the adjacent upland forest and alluvial forest. Small mammals that commonly occur
within the maintained/disturbed community are the Norway rat (Rattus norvegicus), house
mouse (Mus musculus), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus).
The Virginia opossum and raccoon are very adaptive mammals that will frequent this habitat for
foraging opportunities. The eastern cottontail could possibly utilize this disturbed habitat to
forage on shrubs and herbaceous vegetation.
deals specifically with the impact analyses required to satisfy regulatory authority prior to project
construction.
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) promulgated the definition of "Waters of the
United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Waters of the United States include most interstate and
intrastate surface waters, tributaries, and wetlands. Areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and that under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted for life in saturated soil
conditions are considered "wetlands" under 33 CFR §328.3(b). Wetlands generally include
swamps, marshes, bogs, and similar areas. Any action that proposes to place dredged or fill
materials into Waters of the United States falls under jurisdiction of the USACE, and must
follow the statutory provisions under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C.
1344).
4.1.9 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "Corps of Engineers
Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation, and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area
to be considered a wetland. Based on the wetland determination criteria and the 29 June 2000
site investigation, wetlands are not present within the project study area.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Estimated linear impacts are derived using ROW widths of 80.0 ft (24.4 m). Anticipated surface
water impacts will be 80.0 ft (24.4 m). Usually, project construction does not require the entire
ROW; therefore, actual surface water impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed
project. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344),
a permit will be required for the USACE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States".
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23 is likely to be applicable of all impacts to "Waters of
the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by another
federal agency or department where the 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:
• 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
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404. Section 401 allows surface
waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The
purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity
of "waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been
defined by 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.
4.1.4.1 AVOIDANCE
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts
to "waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA)
between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such as measures should
be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing
technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.1.4.2 MINIMIZATION
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "waters of the United Sates." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill
slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters
of the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project;
reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into
streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious
pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 COMPENSATORY MITIGATION
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the
United States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extend practicable. It is
recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and
every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for
unavoidable adverse impacts that remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has
been performed. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of
"waters of the United States." Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site whenever practicable. Compensatory mitigation is not usually
necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely
to adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the FWS.
Other species'may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 16 June 2000, the FWS lists four
federally-protected species for Chatham County (Table 3). A brief description of each species'
characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species for Chatham County
Scienf fc Name Common Name Status
Haliaeetus leucephalus bald eagle T
Notropis mekistocholas Cape Fear shiner E
Picoides borealis red-cockaded woodpecker E
Ptilimnium nodosum harperella E
"E" denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant
portion of its range).
"T" denotes Threatened (a species that is likely to become an endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (bald eagle) Endangered
Animal Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
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. In flight bald eagles can be identified by
their flat wing soar.
Eagle nests are found in close 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. The breeding
15
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 large trees with a clear flight path to water is not present
within the project vicinity. The trees occupying the canopy of the mixed pine/hardwood forest
are uniform in height and very dense. A survey was not conducted for this species nor were any
observed during the 29 June 2000 site investigation. Additionally, a review of the NHP database
on 7 July 2000 indicated no record for the presence of the bald eagle within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of
the proposed project. Therefore, project construction will not affect the bald eagle.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner) Endangered
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: 26 September 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. 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.
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 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.
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.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat for the Cape Fear Shriner is present within the project. A review of the NHP
database on 7 July 2000 indicated no record for the presence of the Cape Fear Shiner within
1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the proposed project. However, in-stream investigation will need to be
conducted to determine the presence or absence of this species. Therefore, the effect of the
project construction upon the Cape Fear Shiner is unresolved.
Picoides borealis (red-cockaded woodpecker) Endangered
Animal Family: Picidae
Date Listed: 10/13/70
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 years old and are contiguous with pine stands at
least 30 years of age. The foraging range of the RCW is up to 500 acres (200 ha). 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 2-100 feet (3.6-30.3
m) above the ground and average 30-50 feet (9.1- 15.7 m) high. They can be identified by a large
incrustation of running sap that surrounds the tree. The RCW lays its eggs in April, May, and
June; the eggs hatch approximately 3 8 days later.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat for the red-cockaded woodpecker does not exist within the project area. The
project area is dominated by mixed pine/hardwood forest uncapable of supporting desirable
nesting habitat for the RCW. A survey was not conducted for this species nor were any observed
during the 29 June 2000 site investigation. Additionally, a review of the NC Natural Heritage
Program database on 7 July 2000 indicated no record for the presence of RCW within 1.0 mi (1.6
km) of the proposed project. Therefore, project construction will not affect the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Ptilimnium nodosum (harperella) Endangered
Plant Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: September 28, 1988
Flowers Present: late July - August
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. Flowers are
umbels, each umbel subtended by an involucre of small lanceolate bracts. North Carolina
currently has two known populations of harperella, one in Granville and one in Chatham County.
This plant can be found in two types of habitat, rocky or gravel shoals and 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 for harperella is not present within this section of Little Brush Creek. A plant by
plant survey for harperella was conducted on 20 July 2000 by NCDOT biologists Dale Suiter,
Lynn Smith, and Heather Montague. No specimens were found during the survey. Additionally, a
review of the NHP database on 7 July 2000 revealed that no known occurrences of harperella
occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore, project construction will not
affect harperella.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are seven Federal Species of Concern listed for Chatham County. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act (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 that may or
may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly 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, Threatened, or Special Concern by the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 lists Federal Candidate and State listed species, the species state status (if afforded state
protection) and the presence 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.
Table 4. Federal Species of Concern for Chatham County.
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis Bachman's sparrow SC NO
Moxostoma sp. Carolina redhorse SR YES
Alasmidonta varicosa Brook floater T/PE YES
Fusconaia masoni Atlantic pigtoe T/PE* YES
Gomphus septima Septima's clubtail dragonfly SR NO
Lampsilis cariosa Yellow lampmussel T/PE* NO
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort C NO
"E"--An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the
State's flora and fauna is determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"--A Threatened species is one which is likely to become endangered species within the
foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SC"--A Special Concern species is one which requires monitoring but may be taken or collected
and sold under regulations adopted under the provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the
General Statutes (animals) and the Plant Protection and Conservation Act (plants). Only
propagated material may be sold of Special Concern plants that are also listed as Threatened
or Endangered.
"C"--A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20
populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction,
direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct
in North Carolina from amain range in a different part of the country or the world.
"SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-
20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat
destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is generally more common
elsewhere in its range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
* -- Historic record - the species was last observed in the county more than 20 years ago.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no
records of Federal Species of Concern in or near the project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, Jame L., 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, NC.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S.
Government Printing Office, Washington D.C..
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,"
Technical Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, Miss.
Lee, D.S., J.B. Funderburg, Jr. and M.K. Clark. 1982. A Distributional Survey of North
Carolina Mammals. Raleigh, North Carolina Museum of Natural History.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall, 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina". North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
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.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DWQ. 1999. "Draft Basinwide Assessment Report Document, Cape Fear River
Basin". Raleigh, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1997. "Field location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (Environmental
Lab). Raleigh, Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
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.
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. Department of Agriculture. 1984. Soil Survey of Cumberland and Hoke Counties. Soil
Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.

[PR
0 0 0

3ml
m
o
m ?
s

(Di? 8
O Q N
O ?n
O

o
o
°o
• v v
-q b
v o o y
-< C7

If u u n n n
v oc0oco O

M
N = •

Q m m
D
r Q
Q
_
_
m
=g

m
m ;n
Q ? ? Q
m m n
FD gn y

moo

?e
0
boo
N C A
A
3?

N N N

J

CA)

z
m b

m O

z
m m
y

? .o
m

? y
?r
x
?b b

y

? ?o x

T: 8.2521901
8-3633
09/08/99
s
nI-
-1 2
N -i
zz=
O CA
M
-Sm
-1 N
S
10=a
r
v3m r-
?Zm
7
A m
g 2g
ao
iQm
-Cv
?Z-1
4O
L :_o
nm1
N S
,Q3:
H
N
1 9
AN
S
v
i
7 ?
i
S
n Q
v
v
0
C
O
Ci
m

4
y
o ?
Cl
N
b
`J
C
H
r?
b
C
O
h
y
O
C

a
n
0
z
( ?
? o
W
Sm
m

5/28/99

. -? m
O Q CA y y 0 T P
O Q M. Q 0 0
Q Q
fQ N 1 ? '? Q
CL A C Q p
?'O O Q 3
3 W O 03 a
3 3
CL to 3
0 N t
c w

p O

C
S
A 0
0
A `G

io
x C W ? ?
Qc Q o O
W
t
4

I
o i I

- Tin' :OF 91
O O O 0 3 ? 43
O
3 9 -
7 3 O T QR' ?- S Lo a
rt rt rt ? rt ? n
am"3 70 n n 3 O I1
p G
tQ IQ G? ? C -O C r Q
M 0
o ffi m
3 n
A 3 °a 3 S° S°' `Z!
y- rt 3 ?r o' o A
r r A A ,o ,o
3 3 .=y. 's O 0
A A 3 fl. ? ?
A
m m m IDnI III D
I
°< c o' 'o oo 0 0 m
UP 0 ::E m !a
A ? Q- °' '? O m 3m m 4 ° O
3 cr 'Q ' O n a = to y A
r CC
0 -_ C 2 3 `° Q A
< i 3
o
o ? A *3 -n
c
S A A
oA
v
y
I' I I
I I I I
0 ? ?? I" h I I
<> El
I
? I I I I
yCo '-'•-I? Q-Irt c TT m a o =°• _
04 < ! O 3 3 3 a to A A m s rt O .?« O A O ,-N« ? A« 'OQ O p. A Q Z
3
w ' n -c? Q S 3? S R° C S R- S L -1 -p 'O °' C 3 n a
p 0 y o ` co 3 0 I ?. r 3? n Q A rt 0 2-0 O. 3. A A p 0 0 p to Q. C
3-0 3 Ca 3 can a A 0 A S 3 0 0 -1 A Q A A C7 n A A 3i rt A A 0 s- 0 ?
" <
A
-a a
m A O A 3 7r 0 A 3g m A s S 3 a '? Q 'O S C C S s g A 7
44 a c m li p d° P 2.,o O p C 3- +o s- OCL ; O (D 3 O C x a
n r ?'
r- =c 0 a
o A C H
m p., 3 S Q 3 S A A 3 S O O S %
rt
3 A o
p -? C A= O n rt b -p b A O
O O -1 0 3 2 O_ s A Q C; S O A P-; A 0, a s x C
00 ° A A a p2
x
cp =a; 3
a
m o Q'
33 0
CL
I Y if
I s
®DO DO ®om0®oo®I? O 'o 00+®CSai per= DO 0- I ' II
`? I ? I I I
I ^ JL
?n. ?'. -moo o ?? ? o o -moo -moo v ?, -'o -moo ? n o
on
Oo d s 3 A a 'OO 'OO a a A C m
3
m m C A 3 JDm r Z? 4
CL s `? Q Q' O A cr 0 0 0-0 3 3 3 Q A A O
Q Q< Q Q A 3= 3 s A° r =
Q` 3 o- C A y= A
an. 3?Q0 'I cr b 3
0 a Q C O
3 °- 0 C- ° a
° 3 3 2
3 m Q c °"
a= a ?
-M CL
$ `o
rb
I I I I?! I ? I ?
I C I ? I I 1
m m ? 0 0 0 ? sP p? fV ? '60 ? I I ? 1 ? b
m nm m m W m C x
I ' I I
II?IIIII
W m CA 4 c O= V! y
A y 3 O S O m to m
S a D C CL 0 0 m
O Q' r S -p4
3 22
O m A
O C
M fn
Ofn A
rt
O
o ICI ?
r
O
C
A
y
y

O
0
O
S
Qp??
DQ
m ? m
O O ox
O 1
n
Q. C
to O
O O
C
3
O
Y
ON• N n Ov

LA n. j fiW n O n O n 0 D
to n m
to O Q
n 3 m
?p m
A
3 " O . O c O C O 0 3 m O ? O
.t O
--1
m 40
3 Q
3 C_ O 3 & t
3 1 3 a. 3 O. 3 ?1
Q. Q 3 Q.
Q Q A
a Q
s A
a
3 Q A
a Q
Ort aA Q
O A
a Q
A A
a Q
O A
a O
a
m a- C: a- CL CL a. C) 0. CL
-1 ° ?`
0 m O 0 w' -1 A 3. f
n r 3 p rt m
Q C ' 0 O 7 N m O 3 r 3 3 Q
`z `? r 3

3
'a
3
n
m
'C
S
4
A
3
A
O
A
y N7
A
A
O n 0 Q -1 O fl cr
to cn
C ?
A O N
c m o m A
3 v m
I

!

„

m
o , O n

CL v> a c m 3 s
V rt in O 3
in
N 7
C w+

m in

' ? ? ? N N N N •
e I
CD o I I I
T I i I
A II
A i l l ?

I

?

?

I

I i

I

I

I

I

I

I

I I
l
I
o s a..
a Y a 0 3

A
a°
c c
- O
A Q- p
yC.
D q `
rt (Q
A C
3 C
CA
Z m O S
O C
3
y O

aQ A 0
O 00

7
O y
C
o
A ?
Q

C)
O
z
m
Z
O
z
D
r
N
3?
W
0
r
t/'l
m

?.
? A
Q
0
? T
?
Q

0
? 7
m

h

, o

h
' I ? I '11J^111
J U
1 1 1 I I
I I 1 , I rl FI '(\
I I I , I° A
I I I I O m I ? 9 Fo fA0 h I I
I I I I
I I I ? I
It
N
C
in
II
N
c
N
C
m
r
z
a
m
m
X
>
I?
l7
z

?q
aC W
¦1m
m
N

a

S
ROM W
at
q
9i ?+
wp WrW
}_< O
r "p-M
m=? r
W
W 2 r?ua m r
uj F
Q ui t7
? y i9
K <
W
J
D 0
O W

0
7
V ?
VWx :eC_
p?d
t7
W
T W Wz
U_ <°yo Oc
VY ->:o
W 0
W
i ; &Nz .y mdz 3
?9 "9 rW?
6 mW
H W W?
6 ?.

V

Z z
Uy?
z m
e?y
V° K
z
Vh<
z m F r
z
? OR r
VF s-
V?? i
>
W
` V W
-r+ ::5
xOr

1
<O
W v
Em p p 6 F Z= <O
m r 0
s F
<
1i S? x W W? x W W FF

S NzZ !zS ` uA
D ^ < > O V
3
e°C.< d<°.? s< s<
F ? < r
? v v w w f- ? 3
J
F-
Z
O
v
i6
J
W
W
_Z
id
W
I--
Z
W
V
W
be
W

Z
O
F
u
W
N
J
A
V
0.
}
Pt
0
=a
o?
3°
00 cr)
00
?_ o0
? c
0
g +
O Cl)
oe
u. Q
ZN
O J
H
N .-
Z
F-
W
O
Z
W 0
'?a3:
N 3 (
11 [g W?
3
??
Ck
a
co
C9
Z
F-
_
H
X
W
r O
o
z Ozoo

Z
o o 6
_o °+
O ?O N
V + to O
M O
N O
J in
+

V o

N
U 00q LL A
1- In
N Z
W ++ 0
- 0 N N

I 1 !i1
0
Z

H
Z II ?
II
iT 3

r--
W
'n ?I
II O
z
II W
:3 Z
O
H
0 U

I
I .
W
LU N
h
I V
d
W II

? CL
N I
II o
S
W L
0
N
I
z
W'
o
02
i
z
Z J
w
1
z
O
V
W
N
J
V
L
7
0
to
N
+
O
N
O
0
0
r
J
I
N
O
z
?O
> uj
J
? V
d
?W

a
WO.
H:
?f1
f1.E tiJ:
66/Ll/8

o p o
N J N ?
J
n ii n
Dun a o
? ¢ O
v II ` z L +
co i m v
:=j J O
o n
Q' o
FJ? U ?O

O
Q Z L? F
f N
g o
m
0
T
d t`
V- O
N
OI
JJ?d'
?? ?tiOtr
z? a a tV2M
rc
J~Op xQ a
U N .000
BOO ? tttt
vr-cco
LLg +-
11
0a_-F L NI~ry 1~AN
W p m
p Z J J J J J
0
OO O
jj m
z? r
O ? U V
W ^Q? ?
Z `N.
~ W N ~ R C-3
Q o? `?{ ^~ -ZI ti
Q Id- mqg°pNti?g? ?Z
v8?Lt7?~O?• t-. W
W VW jW W¢?yp?c6?3 ?j
i obi?p
a W O m O J ?a W C
O
W o? eon ???.ZQy,?ii?r?°z o: ?v
:yz
Q ?i? x?tiv?ZrWM W
0 ? r. ti x t
2 Z
N x
? W 3 W
Z r ~
F.

„
ZIA m
W m~v
NN
S
W
•.., j WJ J
{
{yy
Q-
mIA J W

mi co

GS
o
8
Jt
N t
N
4 J
au6:? VI
wr a
t?
°C-w m

I- _
Fa mw a'N
o.
war
O ?oea
fS3xO1S NOOY"l 730YVd NO LNgNgSV3 39VNIVYG LNgNVMUgcf GMV 1N3N3SV3 NO/1OnY-LSNOO MVYOdIP31 63S(A3Y
9N(1 - (£0-8-I) - NO/Slil3Y AVY
0 l'll £OOZ ?Ntl
SI?II £OOZ-NVf -ZZ

bb/EE/B vcv L " - tdx--j\os
51°II £OOd-NV
I
JAN-2003 11:15
\I -1
ardner HI