20040900 Ver 1_Complete File_20040602

M SUT[ n4
L
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Subject: Biological Concurrence Request for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 163 on
SR 2641 over Brush Creek in Randolph County. State Project No. 8.251100 1,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2579(1), Division 8, TIP No ""W
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize federally protected species surveys to date and to request
concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.) (ESA).
The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for this project was completed in December 2000.
To support the NRTR document, field surveys were conducted in August 2000 for the Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii). A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was determined based
on no Schweinitz's sunflower found during the survey. A Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) survey was conducted in May of 2001. No species of the Cape Fear Shiner were
found during the survey, although it was determined that Brush Creek is good habitat for the shiner.
According to the USFWS January 29, 2003 list of endangered and threatened species, no new
species have been added or deleted from the list. The USFWS listing of protected species and
current Biological Conclusions are listed in the following table.
Federally Protected Species for Randolph County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis Endangered YES May Affect, Not
mekistocholas Likely to
Adversely Affect
Schweinitz's Helianthus Endangered YES May Affect, Not
sunflower schweinitzii Likely to
Adversely Affect
July 13, 2004
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
'JUL 1 5 2004
WATER IQUALITY SECTION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
'RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
Suitable habitat exists for the Schweinitz's sunflower along the roadside clearing in the project
study area. Habitat also exists for the Cape Fear Shiner in Brush Creek. The site was resurveyed in
May of 2004 by the NCDOT. No specimens of the Schweinitz's sunflower or the Cape Fear Shiner
were found during the most recent site visits. Therefore, a biological conclusion of "May Affect,
Not Likely to Adversely Affect" was determined for both the Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape
Fear Shiner.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
Schweinitz's sunflower
The project footprint is approximately 0.25 mile long and 150 feet wide. The potential habitat area
for the Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) is located along the roadside approximately
0.1 mile on either side of the bridge. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for the Schweinitz's
sunflower on May 20, 2004. Prior to the survey, the investigators visited a known population of the
sunflower to have a fresh visual of the plant that will be surveyed. The survey for the sunflower
consisted of a search for purple stemmed, tall (3-4 feet) plants with long slender dark green leaves.
The leaves were checked for the soft velvet underside and the rough upper surface. The
Schweinitz's sunflower was not observed during the site investigation in the preferred habitat within
the project study area. In fact, no specimens of the genus Helianthus were found in the project area.
A total of 1 person-hour was spent conducting the survey.
Cape Fear Shiner
Brush Creek is a large tributary of the Deep River Watershed in the Cape Fear River Basin. The
bridge replacement site is located approximately 5 miles upstream from the confluence of the Deep
River. A review of the Natural Heritage Program's database shows the Cape Fear Shiner (Notropis
mekistocholas) has been found in the Deep River. A fish survey was conducted for the Cape Fear
Shiner on May 8, 2004. (Please see the attached report.) Electrofishing and seining survey methods
were used to collect fish in Brush Creek. Fish surveys were conducted 300 meters downstream of
the project crossing and 100 meters upstream of the project crossing. No Cape Fear Shiners were
found during the survey. A total of 10 person-hours were spent conducting the survey.
PROJECT COMMITMENTS AND CONSERVATION MEASURES
1. Due to fish migration and spawning, there will be a moratorium on in-water construction work
from April 1 to June 15 of any year.
2. During construction of the new bridge, an offsite detour will be used.
3. Demolition of the existing bridge will follow Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
4. The proposed bridge will span the creek with no bents in the water. Bents will be located on the
stream banks to minimize impacts.
5. Work pads will be required to help avoid drilled pier spoil from getting into the stream.
6. Deck drains are located on spans where there will be no drainage into the water.
7. High quality erosion control methods will be utilized by adhering to NCDOT's
"Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds" regulations
8. There will be no clearing and grubbing during the non-Bowing season.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR PLANT SURVEY
Investigator: Carla Dagnino, Environmental Scientist
Education: BA, Environmental Studies, UNC-Wilmington
Experience: NCDOT - Office of Natural Environment, October 2003 to present
NCDWQ - Water Quality Modeling, April 1985 to January 1998
Expertise: Section 7 Field Surveys, Wetland Delineation, Water Quality Analysis
Investigator: Deanna Riffey
Education: B.S. Biology, University of Tennessee, 1991
M.S. Environmental Health Science, East Tennessee State University, 1996
Experience: Environmental Scientist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, October 2003 to Present.
Environmental & Safety Compliance Officer, City of Bristol, VA,
September 1996 to October 2003.
Field Tech, Ogden Environmental, Erwin, TN, June to August 1996.
Environmental Intern, Willamette Industries, Kingsport, TN, September 1995
to April 1996.
Expertise: Technical reporting writing and wetland delineation.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR CAPE FEAR SHINER
SURVEY
Investigator: Neil Medlin, Environmental Specialist
Education: M.A. Biology, Appalachian State University
B.S. Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, January 2002 - present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality June 1990 - January 2002
Environmental Biologist, FL Department of Environmental Protection
(formerly Department of Environmental Regulation), August 1986 - June 1990
Expertise: Freshwater fish and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and identification; aquatic
habitat evaluations and function; biocriteria and biotic indices evaluations;
Endangered species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys
Based on the above surveys conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2004, the project does not contain any
specimens of the federally listed species known to occur in Randolph County. The NCDOT
concludes that the proposed project will have a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" for the Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear Shiner. We believe that the
requirements of Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied and hereby request your
concurrence.
Thank you for your time. Please contact Carla Dagnino at [phone] if you have any questions
concerning this request.
Sincerely,
Philli S. H rris, III, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
Attachments
cc: Dennis Pipkin, Project Engineer, PDEA
Mr. Richard Spencer (USACE)
Ms. Beth Barnes (DWQ)
Mr. Travis Wilson (NCWRC)
B-3690 File
a SfA7E
?a yr'AO
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 11, 2004
Memorandum To: Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
Carla Dagnino, Project Manager
Natural Environmental Project Management Unit
From: Neil Medlin', Environmental Supervisor
Natural Environment Biological Survey Unit
LYNDO TIPPE'R'
SECRETARY
Subject: Follow-up survey for the Cape Fear shiner in association with the
replacement of Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641 over Brush Creek,
Randolph County, TIP No. B-3690.
Background
This memo addresses the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) which is
Federally Endangered and listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Randolph
County. An initial fisheries survey was conducted by NCDOT personnel in Brush Creek
at the project location on May 8, 2001. No Cape Fear shiners were observed during the
survey. The fish species that were collected are summarized in Table 2.
Survey Methods and Results
A follow-up fisheries survey was conducted at the project site on April 7, 2004 by
NCDOT staff members N. Medlin, Karen Lynch, Jared Gray, Anne Burroughs, and Carla
Dagnino. The fisheries survey was conducted by pulling a seine through the water in
deeper areas of slow flow and by electrofishing with a Smith-Root model LR-24
backpack unit. Electrofishing was performed along the stream banks and by shocking
downstream through riffles into a stationary seine. Electrofishing was conducted in
accordance with the nonlethal protocols/settings outlined by Holliman et. al. (2003). The
approximate stream distance covered during the fish survey extended from 100 meters
upstream of the bridge to 300 meters below the bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.DOH.DOTSTATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Brush Creek in the area surveyed had a mixed substrate that included bedrock,
boulder, gravel, and sand with boulder being the dominant substrate type. The water flow
pattern was also variable with a mix of riffles, runs, and pools. Stream width was
estimated to be 19 meters. Water willow (Justicia americana), a plant often associated
with the Cape Fear shiner, was common at the site. Physical water chemistry
measurements indicated nothing unusual for this type of stream during the spring. The
results are presented in Table 1.
Table 1. Physical Water Chemistry for Brush Creek at SR 2641, Randolph County, April
7, 2004.
Parameter Value
Temperature (°C) 15.7
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 9.9
Conductivity (umhos/cml) 99
Table 2. Fish Species and Relative Abundance for Brush Creek at SR 2641, Randolph
County. (Relative Abundance: Abundant = A, Common = C, Rare = R).
Relative Abundance
Survey Date
Species
Bluehead chub, Nocomis leptocephalus
White shiner, Luxilus albeolus
Highfin shiner, Notropis altipinnis
Swallowtail shiner, Notropis procne
Redlip shiner, Notropis chiliticus
Creek chubsucker, Erimyzon oblongus
Notch-lip redhorse, Moxostoma collapsum
Margined madtom, Noturus insignus
Snail bullhead, Ameiurus brunneus
Pirate perch, Aphredoderus sayanus
Redbreast sunfish, Lepomis auritus
Tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi
Piedmont darter, Percina crassa
5/1/01 4/7/04
A
* A
C
* R
* A
C
R
C
R
* C
C
* A
C
*Relative abundance data not available
Biological Conclusion: May Affect; Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The results of the current and prior fish surveys indicate that the Cape Fear shiner
is not present in Brush Creek in the area near Bridge No. 163. However, suitable habitat
for the species does exist in the project area. The project is located approximately 5.2
miles above Brush Creek's confluence with the Deep River in an area considered
occupied by the Cape Fear shiner. Due to the presence of suitable habitat at the project
site, every effort should be made to prevent soil erosion and runoff throughout project
construction. Given the results of the fish surveys, and that project design and
construction will comply with the latest (2003) issue of NCDOT Design Standards for
Sensitive Watersheds, the completion of this project is not likely to adversely affect the
species.
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Neil Medlin, Environmental Supervisor
Education: M.A. Biology, Appalachian State University
B.S. Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, January 2002 - present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality,
June 1990 - January 2002
Environmental Biologist, FL Department of Environmental Protection (formerly
Department of Environmental Regulation), August 1986 - June 1990
Expertise: Freshwater fish and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and identification;
aquatic habitat evaluations and function; biocriteria and biotic indices
evaluations; endangered species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys
Investigator: Jared Gray, Environmental Specialist
Education: B.S. Environmental Science, Morehead State University
Experience: Environmental Biologist, Enviro-Pro, October 1994 - May 1997
Environmental Technician, Appian Consulting Engineers, P.A., October 1997 -
May 1998
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, October 1998-present
Expertise: Endangered species (terrestriaUaquatic) surveys; benthic macroin vertebrate
collection, wetland delineation; soils, water quality analysis, and 404/401
permitting.
Investigator: Karen M. Lynch, Environmental Supervisor
Education: B.S. Wildlife Biology and Fisheries, North Carolina State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, November 1998 - present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality
November 1984 - October 1998
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations; NEPA documentation, protected species
(terrestrial/aquatic) surveys, benthic macroin vertebrate collection, water quality
analyses, aquatic plant surveys.
Investigator: Anne Burroughs, Environmental Specialist
Education: B.S. Biological Sciences minor Environmental Science,
North Carolina State University / Raleigh 1992.
Experience: Biological Control technician - NC Dept of Agriculture May 2001-April 2003.
Environmental Specialist - NC Dept. of Transportation, May 2003-August
2003, January 2004-present.
Expertise: Endangered species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys; benthic macroinvertebrate
collection.
Reference:
Holliman, F.M., J.B. Reynolds, and T.J. Kwak. 2003. A predictive risk model for
electroshock-induced mortality of the endangered Cape Fear shiner. North
American Journal of Fisheries Management. 23:905-912.
I 111 W im
(TO) (
0

a

C o?

7? jn fC

rIv-,« l
PW ?/ .

ASTATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WEUNDS / 401 GROUP
JUN 0 2 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
-
Subject: Permit Application for Nationwide 23 and 33 for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641, over Brush Creek in Randolph County. State
Project No. 8.2572901, Federal Aid Project No BRZ-2641(1), WBS Element
4ft 33230.1.1, Division 8, TIP No. B-3690
Dear Sir:
Please fmd enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, as well as
the Pre-construction Notification, permit drawings, '/z size plans and USFWS concurrence
request letter for the above referenced project. The NCDOT proposes to replace 170 foot
Bridge No. 163 over Brush Creek with a new bridge approximately 50 feet south of the
existing bridge. The new bridge will be 237 feet in length with five spans and no bents in the
water. At Site 1 a temporary causeway will be installed causing 0.03 acre of temporary fill in
the surface water (56 feet of temporary stream channel impacts). At Site 2 there will be 35
feet of permanent impacts due to a driveway relocation and pipe installation for an unnamed
tributary (UT) Brush Creek which meets the mainstem downstream from the bridge. Traffic
will be detoured offsite during construction. Due to anadromous fish migration and
spawning, there will be a moratorium on in-water construction from April 1 to June 15.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: Brush Creek is a large tributary of the Deep River Watershed in the
Cape Fear River Basin (CPF 030609), and has a Hydrologic Unit Code of 03030003. The
drainage area of Brush Creek at the proposed crossing is 42 square miles. Brush Creek flows
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
U_ t
May 28, 2004
k
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: YWWV.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604

in a southerly direction and UT Brush Creek joins the mainstem south of the bridge on the
west side of the creek. The best usage classification for Brush Creek and the UT is "C". The
project study area is located in a Proposed Critical Habitat Area, designated by the Wildlife
Resources Commission. This proposed designation has not been pursued for legitimate
Critical Habitat, although it remains on the list for future designation.
Temporary Impacts (Site 1): The temporary causeway will impose 0.03 acre of fill (56
linear feet) of impacts to the surface water. The causeway will be installed over the creek
where the water splits off and then joins the main channel a few hundred feet downstream.
This creates a small island where one bent from the new bridge will be located (see Permit
Drawing sheet 4 of 11). Temporary pipes will need to be installed in this section of the creek
to enable water passage under the causeway. The new bridge will be placed at a higher
elevation (approximately 10 feet) than the existing bridge and the bents will be placed
outside the water's edge. The new bridge will also be located 50 feet downstream from the
existing bridge which will straighten the curve in the road and provide better visibility for
traffic.
Permanent Impacts Site 2): There will be no permanent impacts to surface waters due to the
new bridge. However, on the southwest side of the bridge, there will be a driveway
relocation due to the its proximity to the new bridge (see Permit Drawing sheet 4 of 11). The
existing driveway is located on the approach way to the new bridge. A UT to Brush Creek
currently flows through a 24-inch pipe under the driveway. The pipe will be replaced with
two 36-inch pipes installed under the relocated driveway. The new driveway will be located
approximately 50 feet west of the existing driveway. There will be 35 feet of permanent
impacts to the UT Brush Creek.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 163 consists of asphalt surface on a timber floor and timber
deck with steel girders. The substructure is rubble masonry and concrete. The bridge has 5
spans. The asphalt surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping any
components into surface waters. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed to avoid any temporary fill from entering Waters of the United
States.
Utility _Impacts: There will be no sewer, water, electric or other utility impacts due to this
bridge replacement project.
Restoration Plan: The material used for installation of the temporary causeway and pipes
within the surface waters will be removed after its purpose has been served. The temporary
fill areas will be restored to their original contours. After the temporary causeway is no
longer needed, the contractor will use excavating equipment to remove all material within
jurisdictional areas. All 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 material off-
site.
2
Schedule: The project schedule calls for a September 21, 2004 LET date with a date of
availability of October 26, 2004.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA). As of January 29, 2003 the US Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species listed for Randolph County:
the Cape Fear shiner and the Schweinitz's sunflower. No species have been added to or
deleted from this list since the completion of the referenced document. Field surveys were
conducted in 2000 and 2004 for the Schweinitz's sunflower and in 2001 and 2004 for the
Cape Fear Shiner. A biological conclusion of "May affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
is proposed for both species based on habitat found although no species found. NCDOT is
currently awaiting a concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife (see attached request for
concurrence, memo dated May 24, 2004.)
Federally Protected Species for Randolph County
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status Biological
Conclusion
Notropis May Affect, Not
Cape Fear Shiner mekistocholas Endangered Likely to Adversely
Affect
May Affect, Not
Schweinitz's Helianthus Endangered Likely to Adversely
sunflower schweinitzii Affect
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION AND MITIGATION
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and
practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The impacts to Brush Creek are
minimized by replacing Bridge No. 163 with a new bridge that will span the creek with no
bents in the water. The impacts to the UT Brush creek are minimized by replacing the
existing 24 inch terra cotta pipe with two 36 inch pipes that will allow the passage of more
water during higher flow conditions. The 35 feet of permanent stream impacts are below the
mitigation threshold of 150 feet. Therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
3
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary causeway will be authorized under
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33. We are therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide
Permit 33 for the causeway. The remaining aspects of the 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).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. All general condition of these Water Quality Certifications will be met,
therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we
are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Carla Dagnino at
[phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
.-1 Gregory . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/attachment
w/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, DWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. T. Johnson, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Art King, Div. Environmental Officer
Mr. Dennis Pipkin PDEA
4
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ NO
(if any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW23, NW33.
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 (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: (199)-733-3141 Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: NA
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number:
E-mail Address:
Fax Number:
Page 5 of 12
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 Bridge No. 163 over Brush Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3690
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Randolph Nearest Town: Ramseur
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Ramseur - take 22 south to
Lambeth Mill Road, go left and the bridgeNo. 163 will be the 1 st bridge crossing.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°37.66'N / 79°34.83"W
(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. Property size (acres): 0.21 mile * 130 feet = 27.3 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Brush Creek
8. 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/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project is located in a rural area of Randolph County
surrounded by forestland and residential houses.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project will consist of replacing the old bridge over Brush Creek with a new bridge
approximately 50 feet south of the existing bridge. The new bridge will be 237 feet inlength
with five spans and no bents in the water. A temporary causeway will be installed for
construction of the bridge. There will also be a driveway relocation and new pipe installation
for an unnamed tributary to Brush Creek. Construction equipment will consist of heavy duty
trucks, earth moving equipment, cranes, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is considered structurally
deficient and obsolete. The replacement of the bridge will result in a safer and more efficient
use for traffic.
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.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. 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
Page 7 of 12
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 0.035 acre of temporary
and 56 feet of temporary stream impacts due to the temporary causeway installed for the bridge
construction. There will also be 35 feet of permanent impacts due to a driveway relocation and
new pipe installation.
1. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
NA

* 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.1ema.Qov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acre
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Im act Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
I Fill (T) 0.03 acre Brush Creek 60 feet Perennial
1 Piped (T) 56 Brush Creek 60feet Perennial
2 New pipe (P) 35 UT Brush Creek 3 feet Perennial

* 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 U"r (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
Page 8 of 12
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: 30 feet (all temporary)
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
)
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
NA

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
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 ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
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.
The new bridee will be replace on new location and will span the creek with no impacts
associated with the new construction. The new pipes installed for the UT will be 2 g 35" -
larger that the existing 24" pipe which will allow further stability of the pipe and water passage.
Page 9 of 12
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/strmmide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
NA- no mitigation needed for temporary stream impacts or 35 feet of permanent stream
impacts.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/AT/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): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes 0 No [__J
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 ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
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 ? 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 13679 3
2 8365 1.5
Total 22044
• Zone I extends out 30 teet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 1 1 of 12
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 (required by DWQ)
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.
NA
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
NA
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
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).
NA

Applicant/Agent's Signature I Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
dd AAT(°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Subject: Biological Concurrence Request for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 163 on
SR 2641 over Brush Creek in Randolph County. State Project No. 8.251100 1,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2579(1), Division 8, TIP No. B-3690
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize federally protected species surveys to date and to request
concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seg.) (ESA).
The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for this project was completed in December 2000.
To support the NRTR document, field surveys were conducted in August 2000 for the Schweinitz's
sunflower. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was determined based on no species found. A
Cape Fear Shiner survey was conducted in May of 2001. No species of the Cape Fear Shiner were
found during the survey, although it was determined that Brush Creek is good habitat for the shiner.
According to the USFWS January 29, 2003 list of endangered and threatened species, no new
species have been added or deleted from the list. The USFWS listing of protected species and
current Biological Conclusions are listed in the following table.
Federally Protected Species for Randolph County
May 24, 2004
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
Cape Fear Shiner Notropis Endangered YES May Affect, Not
mekistocholas Likely to
Adversely Affect
Schweinitz's Helianthus Endangered YES May Affect, Not
sunflower schweinitzii Likely to
Adversely Affect
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX' 919-715-1501
WEBSITE: WWW. NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
PLB SUITE 168
RALEIGH NC 27604
Suitable habitat exists for the Schweinitz's sunflower along the roadside clearing in the project
study area. Habitat also exists for the Cape Fear Shiner in Brush Creek. The site was revisited in
May of 2004 by the NCDOT to survey for the sunflower and shiner. No species were found during
the most recent site visits. Therefore, a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" was determined for both the Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear Shiner.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for the Schweinitz's sunflower on May 20, 2004. Prior to the
survey, the investigators visited a known population of the sunflower to have a fresh visual of the
plant that will be surveyed. The survey for the sunflower consisted of a search for purple stemmed,
tall (3-4 feet) plants with long slender dark green leaves. The leaves were checked for the soft velvet
underside and the rough upper surface. The Schweinitz's sunflower was not observed during the site
investigation in the preferred habitat within the project study area. A total of 1 person-hour were
spent conducting the survey.
A fish survey was conducted for the Cape Fear Shiner on May 8, 2004. (Please see attached report.)
Electrofishing and seining survey methods were used to collect fish in Brush Creek. Fish surveys
were conducted 300 meters downstream of the project crossing and 100 meters upstream of the
project crossing. No Cape Fear Shiner were found during the survey. A total of 10 person-hours
were spent conducting the survey.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR PLANT SURVEY
Investigator: Carla Dagnino, Environmental Scientist
Education: BA, Environmental Studies, UNC-Wilmington
Experience: NCDOT - Office of Natural Environment, October 2003 to present
NCDWQ - Water Quality Modeling, April 1985 to January 1998
Expertise: Section 7 Field Surveys, Wetland Delineation, Water Quality Analysis
Investigator: Deanna Riffey
Education: B.S. Biology, University of Tennessee, 1991
M.S. Environmental Health Science, East Tennessee State University, 1996
Experience: Environmental Scientist, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC, October 2003 to Present.
Environmental & Safety Compliance Officer, City of Bristol, VA,
September 1996 to October 2003.
Field Tech, Ogden Environmental, Erwin, TN, June to August 1996.
Environmental Intern, Willamette Industries, Kingsport, TN, September 1995
to April 1996.
Expertise: Technical reporting writing and wetland delineation.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR CAPE FEAR SHINER
SURVEY
Investigator: Neil Medlin, Environmental Specialist
Education: M.A. Biology, Appalachian State University
B.S. Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, January 2002 - present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality
June 1990 - January 2002
Environmental Biologist, FL Department of Environmental Protection
(formerly Department of Environmental Regulation), August 1986 - June
1990
Expertise: Freshwater fish and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and identification;
aquatic habitat evaluations and function; biocriteria and biotic indices
evaluations; Endangered species (terrestrial/aquatic) surveys
Based on the above surveys conducted in 2000, 2001 and 2004, the project area does not contain any
federally-listed species known to occur in Randolph County. The NCDOT concludes that the
proposed project will have a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect"
for the Schweinitz's sunflower and the Cape Fear Shiner. We believe that the requirements of
Section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied and hereby request your concurrence.
Thank you for your time. Please contact Carla Dagnino at [phone] if you have any questions
concerning this request.
Since el
Phillip S. Harris, III, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
Attachment
cc: Dennis Pipkin, Project Engineer, PDEA
B-3690 File
VICINITY MAP
0
z
® .? o

a a
M
s coo
z
..

v
®
o

z ? -
?
Uol Mz
-4
_

a ? H
x
't a z

z

I '

i
i
1r

E , t t ei
i
tt tt¢ Co

' I z
.I
i? ?
w

WETLAND LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
DENOTES FILL IN
® WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48`
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
® SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54` PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL
® SURFACE WATER
R
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
] DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
?

WATER --
ROOTWAD
• »
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
•
•• • • » CLEARING
FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-.-- TOP OF BANK
WE- - EDGE OF WATER
- -c - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT

O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
RIP RAP
- -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL ?
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE (PSH)
-? PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PJ- - PROPERTY LINE LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED GRASS SWALE
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -- --- - WATER SURFACE
XX zX X X LIVE STAKES
O BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
RANDOLPH COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2572901 (B-3690)
BRIDGE NO. 163 OVER
BRUSH CREEK ON SR 2641
02 % 02
SHEET 3 OF 1( 8/
h i
Q V?
U4 32

r?
VJ J
W ? ? W
a
? W
au
C)
0<
1 ?
w::)w
F.
rln
?zs
w
rJ
o J
Z4
Q

?Ty
a
U
V)
a
E-
z
o O
N
O
O x
II
?I
I?
I
a
W
tiiu \
N2T?1'IJ'M
JTO.vo Y3380 HSrkQ
0O

ell

" v
O z o

..? 00 w
®z A?

q
A~ W

O 6 _
W ,y
?3e5.08'
_ 11
t n C4
O A
1

O ? ? ? ? ? t7 pp
CO it)

C\j
®3
z?a
>?
w
q-
v 0
cr- Q3 'o
?Lu>.?

\ ?I II .-a oo W
4
®o lam G1
il?w w
Q' co
/s? I, o Ln U cG
N
w DI
o
rn
QZ
Q- Qj
co
r- w
? W

U
F .a
? f O U

O w
DI + >
wm o 0
0

o
Q- N / I

? I
i
?
N
/ I o 0

? ?. II
/ Wl
vQ I
CC Ln
vN- ? I'S'I v

II
j eJ ? J
/
u
?• tilo
d Qj w I?
?
V)NV)Q? m / In
I ? ? Z
cr-

O O p O ?,
CY) C44

c ca
0
® c\i
F" v; c o O
c? ?o CO
'? xw ?0 zw
?J a ? w
ti p ®Z pU
<
2Z z® Axcn
w
a
T w
T F-
0
M
M
Q.
_ + O Q
N v _
w ii
Q Q
:2
Q < F- _Q
w U
W _
LLJ (10 V-) LL-
p C
M O V) O
Q Cn
w U V1 Q
p M I Y N W of
V• UQ U ~
J
m 01 0 zQ ° +
O
w > J D w 0
V) w Li O
O J
a_ w:
° O w
? v? I >
zi
w
0
F? Z
"T
?d e( A CV t7
VO H® zw
wz OF
U
® zw Q
I
p p I
Q W
O QI
W,
?I
t-
N I
I
I
J
Ln M
C.
T 0
CL
1 ? v
' '- Q w
< a- _
WW U)
N In
I I p- F-- W ?
1 Q - N _ U
1 U N W
00
Z 1 Y Q LL C
W 1 M U J O N O
p
m O N
W F-
Z I I U w Q
Z
c7 O I -1 00
F- U v
p ? I
O I ?? Z Q N
m _J I i i Q 4-
Z W O
c I ui O
N 1 W J In
a_ z vi W
ZI
o ci
k?
Z

o
?\

c
G7 V)
Q'
?
I?D
c, O
?o ap
© ®a

u "00
Lli
x ?,
x
®aa
-r.,,
O? O U
O w
®

zW z u
Ca

04
Y LLJ
Olfl?
w;
0
o u z
W Q q Cs, cC E?
I
-O
?
U
CIO
o

a
w

0
M

A M() v
70 a
p
LO T
-?- Lin_ Q
W u _
F-
Q
Y ? LLLJ U
U
W

O

I
00 W a

N _

Li. (n

W rn __
Q O N
(n p
F-

O
MI U
Y V Ln Q
W v
0
m V•

?? ? UQ
J
?U

Z O V

N
O
W
>' J Q
W
D
kn w w a
d
O W: J
O

In I
> W

ZI
c c?
0
® ao C4
b ~4

?'
® o l
zl
®a F4 t")
X1a c W
QF)?
z0-4 ® Mz
4
b?

J a'
-
I a41
w
Z
w
=

QI
®z
o
°
Z Fo
CL ~
w> zw a

Q 04
m
w

PT? I W
a I-
Lj-j U

z w
a-
W U U)
r T
Vl ,d ® O I
? L @1 Z
W O
F-MU

?I
I
•I
I
I
I
I
I
I
i
M
cn
Q

Ln a
rQ
Q? Lf)
W 11
a- cy-
=

/ <
N Q-
- a a
of cn
In
I D
Q -
U N LL
In
W Fr U

~
co I
V)
U =
LL-
O (n
C
O
W
CO
I I
I J
U
W Q F-
M

f I

I
? U O
Q-
Q
rr
??
I LL-
Z O
co
??
>,
c
W
}
o
o
W W?
J O
Z
Ln
O W' J

Q.
O
? I >
> W

tz ?
d ZI

0
O M 04

Co
0) 00
.
Z? to
(D C)
d O co cla
cli

O ?- W ao
¢ C?
a
.
z?

Oo
F"x U
c
c
v
1
.
.

0
-
0
0
?
Cl) w A
0
z
v,
w -
H,

Q a
a¢

LL .
a. x
U)
Q

U
z

U
RS
(L U)
a
_ x

4

12 w

F- c M
b
C
U
ld
a

0

Y

co a
tw
?D
w
O
y
.N
Q
O
U

U
?
o
C
zclu EO ?
co ° ;

I,-
U €

6i LL

L

L Y
O

- - - - - - -
- -

E ?
m

zoo
a

Q wU E
a

Q O_(n U O
O

~
W

a

?
? o m o
v
?

7 U
C O O

_
l0
? O O

LL

Q N O?1

L ? t ? O

F-
U

? W ?

W Z
z w °'
? °
a

W

c ?

LL N
U
Z
O

n U
d

? N
In N
m
N
N d

W
H
O
?
C
N
O ? J O 3

LL. + O
Q
?

? J
to Z O
?
H
I
r ?
ca
c
®
F o
9 G a > n
s 0
?
Z
X
u 'D
®
? x ? -
F ® L z
a
m 0 0 z u A U Q
N Co co ?co

N N N
N Pi 0
N A A a C F
z U U U
W
W
Z Z z x
L
r
^ co
T
L
L
1
W `` ?

1?
F LL

r
f'

M
C7
I-
Z W W N
W
co Z
W Z
W
U
co co z
C? D
U) O O

W m
CL
OC W
Cn
Z m
0
O J
J
H
J
J
J
J
Q
cc:
Q H H
W = N
?q CC F
-
W W N
e m cc ir- N
J Q Q

A, W T co It
rn V) co LO

V ''
^
W

Y
Z
O U
H
W
Q
z U H Z m
co W m
m
W
z (1) W
Z)
Z O
d Z
° U W
z
0
F-
_ m U)
J
W
U
c
Q T N C) [}
a

A
a
e
0

r 91)
® Q x
©? ? w0 a
? ? O O
? I
h
A
P
? ?4k
g?
1
L
W
m
0
1 1
1 I
„
„
I I

' O
, a
, a

, r ..?
d ,l
I/
A
?
a
I, z
W ? I I ,
II J

?
r`Q, --_ can
USH CREEK
BR

w

0

`t
I.
d

w

m
8
?

?
r
J m

J

N

V
V
Z
F
t
Vl
0
N
Cie
W2
(K
K
z
0
?u
W
0
069£-S 13910-YJ JIJ Z960OZ ?.L

E°
i°
e
LL!
0
x .09
?0?
'cc
lz

o Ci
0 0 0
II II II
0.

a F F F
O

J J

ag olMg

II II II II II II
°
A l-l iV

O
8- 8-
C', ? Q o
h ^0
{V ?
N
LNOL.j
TI 77,

g I
C13

V)
ti
v
ww?
W
C
.?
a Cl--
i?
N .--I
W
CV

o - O

c1li z z

o? J co O

I U
H O W
W 0
V)

I b
N LIJ
N C:)
Q z
0 Q
N I C D

C)
J

F-
W
O ?

Z

M G
I
W
6. W
W
J ?

w w
cn =
• w

U.
O a

W
CL
W I- to
W <
J F
< < u 4

a
D < o

V
N IT
x
w ?
w tt w Is
LU d W >

V a
'

+ 0 O.
< < <
I
n 00
<
100 I~
O O O O
w 3 w• • L U=:
IL to to w
z FLL ILCL m 00

?? IL IL
W coa

? ?1?-

pp
O z Z W IL
W
W O W

O > > - w
S S
W ¢} <}.. OW

w t 0
w wCL
w
? •
> a
0
<
W co In a
n0x
}
W
W 0
Q ¢O. FO
. I•- W
F

0 H
0ce 0Nx 0IL z
V
m OmW r.
CL .
j
O
?
3 OW
ULL O
0
J O N 0 0)

' O 0
I < m< N
IL
CD LL LL Z
d S
CJ
m
<0 0 0 I-
f
f? !
W <WR `LL -W W
H w 0 ?- O F-
tt
= J (
N? l
-d? W HLL. ?
J
O. J H CL 0 W
9
OOM O Z
O 0
Ox F C
9
IL g <
dW McLU0 ?a
w
n. > ui
> IL
>
« << o} ao
0;
CC
:
? : Z
:
?
0
ul
0
)• a
O« a
0< cc
OW
O

d< d< 0 d d< .. d
r CM r N r
U V W W
\ W
3
00 ?:
N
U;
M
N
Q
W
x
O
?QD
o?
U
z N w0 ~
co 0 o
ca ?
w
w
J
z
7
r
•-
rh
f? Q co
0
W 3
<
fA
W
CL
O
fA
W
0
O
W
Z
W
W
<
n.
W
H
O
z
O
Q)
w
N
0
Z
Z
O

U
W
N
0 J O
v Q O
r` V O
d co

O
la
Q
O Q
~ ~
N V) O N
O 1
J
~
J
Z
O N,
x
O
F- 0
W f-

U
N
O
00

0 O
J 0
0 LL
O
Q

U +
N
Z +

C> N
? a
I- H In I
-
W N Z N
Q

?
J IYI
I- J
W
f-
O
Z
W `' O
o
C) _
V)
I
Wx
w
L'i
mo

Z n
? N
- W Q

-? Q O

LLJ
Z

z I

N J
I--? N
J z `+° O
Cf)
?, o o d w
_
o , cr-
O U z m
W o00
Z
W F w
c? U
° o
w
<[ c
n
Q QQo Lo
J
u U M
00
r,
W F- Q Q
~~~
W N N
I. _.. _.
I? Ln I I
O J J

N

O
U

W

O
C\j
1
?
o
'

N lp ?
0
Ln
cr- +
O =
f'n F"
N
0
Z
Z ?
O
f- 0
U
W
In N_
J +
Q 0
_U
FL a
I- V)
W
N X
D 0
I
W
Z
J
cn
O I`l?
f- o
-o O
Q
U Z-
1 o
U
-fl W
V 1
Q
U
ecseO?Z?a, Ld
Ld o 9l \AVW lI
• r
f

>r ? B
?m a
1
J
Ntowa
w
?, M „ II N
?QO?h?W
o?? R I W 0aoz
aa"Oe
4
LLJ
Q LOL
O
? W
1
a ?
m
2
J
v 1
g%? V
? s?p
Y<
?tyDD\.
r?
?Y
W L,
W
?8L
Q 4 Lw
? ~
? E?
?Lj
CJ) ;z LLj zie t; LLJ
LLJ Li- t;R C;
9 R
W
3a
ti
W ?

ii

g
uii r,
U; I

r

OR

d
- IQ
Z Rlti \
fie` t

1
I o I _
1 I
W x n 1 h
I ? y
?or? g
LL
rJll A'WW K .. ..
m J N J ?., ??
M.CL?Z.LLN --? 8S•u'\
,06'OL[ ,SS'lI
H338J "SMYe
1?` K
D q
[`9 ? W VI 1
00051
1
z
0
LL?.
00
Z
H t
r
i
0000/
! R
e
N
P
? u p
i?
r II
>
?? 1
?mg'? pp?1
FYi
EC
n1.-
,x

N?1
x x`
- b0 r iross __ -x- k
?k-
2 L
I

LL
?k
Q
M
[GLQ'V
ti
9
a
z
w
O
8
V? O
F?
N
?o
V
aW
m
O ?

3,90,00.SLT
_ W
9 OWX N
+ ?j C i?"?:i?-,i?tiir
r. N
N
?;r_ a? v xos nr ? ? _
1
la ?
Ig ?
? s a r$ ?4
I ' ' I
M
I? ?a L)

L" v

_ l5 EEEC
x I=$

?x x
s I
¦ •19.97 x Io I o
?Q I

O
8 ?
64 O
CV
E j-
Fz)
?V z
0
O
a?
am
za
3
I
I
J
? ?nn
I
WWI
o
1
; -Q
W
1 -- .
??77 GG fo
d
bb11111 L y? L 1516b00Z-AVW \L1
LL9C0zOdl, ld r-j
iz?s0 Hoo?C? avw
0 Pooz-AYM-10
r00z-ern-e0
n7.wv.ennA M.Y1
rlarmyrM IN •H11-
"""' R;'k002-AVM-LO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3690
State Project No. 8.2572901
Federal Project No. BRZ-2641(1)
A. Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641, over Brush Creek, in
Randolph County. Replacement will be within the same corridor with a new bridge
approximately 237 feet (72 meters) in length and 32 feet (9.8 meters) in width. The
bridge will have a 24 foot (7.3 meters) travelway. The offset for the bridge will be 2
feet (0.6 m) on the right (south) side and 6 feet (2 m) on the left (north) side.
These unequal offsets are necessary for the deck drainage to accommodate
the hydraulic spread due to two design factors which resulted in the need for
increased hydraulic storage. First, the use of weep holes was avoided. Secondly,
superelevation was used. An additional benefit of the wider offset placed on the
side with lower elevation is that the water will not encroach onto the travel lanes,
thus lessening dangers of hydroplaning.
The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 24 feet (7.3 meters)
width, with shoulders of at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) width. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet (1 meter) where guardrail is warranted. Traffic will be
detoured over existing secondary roads.
B. Purpose and Need: Replace obsolete bridge.
Bridge No. 163 is 48 years old, and has a sufficiency rating of only 19.4 out
of a possible 100. This bridge has only one lane, providing a travelway of 11 .1 feet
(3.4 m). The bridge is composed of a timber deck on steel and timber components,
with bents and abutments of rubble masonry. This bridge is considered both
structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. For these reasons, the bridge was
programmed for replacement.
C. Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following Type II improvements which apply to the
project:
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 (313 and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
C. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn
lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage
pipes, including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
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
O3 Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the
construction of grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad
crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach
slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint),
scour repair, fender systems, and minor structural
improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
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.
2
B. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas
used predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where
such construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located
on or near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus
and support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of
users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high
activity center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected
bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there
is no significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a
limited number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a
CE only where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of
alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned construction
projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Two investigation alternates were originally proposed for this project.
Alternate 1 was to replace within the same corridor and detour traffic offsite during
construction.
Alternate 2 was to replace on new alignment to the west and maintain traffic on the
existing bridge during construction.
Preliminary design work was done on both these alternates. However, it
soon became apparent that the rolling terrain elevations would cause
constructability problems with both alternates and would preclude any option of
maintaining traffic on the existing bridge with either alternate. These
constructability and geometric design issues arose from the hilly local terrain
coupled with the fact that any replacement bridge would need to be longer than
3
the existing bridge, with a wider hydraulic opening. Also, the elevation of the
proposed bridge deck would need to be higher than existing if any improvement in
design speed were to be realized.
For this reason, Alternate 2 was eliminated from further consideration.
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $1,100,000
Right-of-Way and Utilities 65.000
Total Project Cost $1,165,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 170 VPD
Year 2025 - 300 VPD
Proposed Typical Roadway Section:
The new approach roadway will have a travelway of 24 feet (7.3 meters)
width, with shoulders of at least 4 feet (1.2 meters) width. Shoulder width will be
increased by at least 3 feet (1 meter) where guardrail is warranted.
Design Speed:
The design speed will be 40 mph (65 km/hr). A design exception is
anticipated due to horizontal curvature and the statutory 55 mph speed limit on
approaches.
Functional Classification:
SR 2641 is classified as a Rural Local facility in the Statewide Functional
Classification System.
Division Office Comments:
The Division Engineer supports road closure and replacement at the existing
location.
4
• E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actio ns.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique or important natural resource? F] X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? r X1
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
4 I X1
1
1 If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-tenth (1 / 10) acre and have all practicable measures
to avoid and minimize wetland takings been evaluated? X ?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
? X

(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely

impacted by proposed construction activities? ?
X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ? X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? ? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? ? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"
"
Area of Environmental Concern
(AEC)? F] X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? ? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
? X

5
(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 ? X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X F
(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? ?
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge
be replaced at its existing location (along the existing facility) X ?
and will all construction proposed in association with the
bridge replacement project be contained on the existing facility?
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic and
environmental grounds concerning aspects of the action? X
6
(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 ? X
important to history or pre-history?
(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 ? X
of 1965, as amended?
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers? ? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
(Also see attached documentation.)
Item E (2): The project stream is a tributary to the Deep River, which has
occurrences of the federally protected aquatic species "Cape Fear shiner." A survey
for this species was conducted by NCDOT biologists in the project area. No
examples were found, and the survey's conclusion was "not likely to adversely
affect." The US Fish & Wildlife Service and the NC Wildlife Resources Commis.3ion
(WRC) were contacted with this information, and Ms. Judith Ratcliffe of the NC
WRC advised that no on-site meeting would be necessary for this project.
Item E (3): The project affects a stream where anadromous fish may occur.
The Natural resources Technical Report states "Species of anadromous fish may
utilize streams in the project study area. Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT
Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage will be adhered to for this
project. These guidelines are applicable for all projects crossing perennial or
intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic map) located below the
fall line." Due to these fishery concerns, the NC WRC requested a moratorium on
in-water work from April 1 to June 15 of any year. (See Greensheet).
7
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3690
State Project No. 8.2572901
Federal Project No. BRZ-2641(1)
Project Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641, over Brush Creek, in
Randolph County. Replacement will be within the same corridor with a new bridge
approximately 237 feet (72 meters) in length and 32 feet (9.8 meters) in width. The
bridge will have a 24 foot (7.3 meters) travelway. The offset for the bridge will be 2
feet (0.6 m) on the right (south) side and 6 feet (2 m) on the left (north) side.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved
ate Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
31-C3
Date Project Planning Unit F?Fad
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
7-3 t-0 .7
Date Project Planning Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
84tD Di
vision Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
B-3690, Randolph County
Bridge No. 163, on SR 2641
Over Brush Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2641(1)
State Project 8.2572901
Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
The existing bridge is composed of timber and steel components with rubble
masonry bents and abutments. The timber and steel components will be removed
without dropping into the water. The asphalt wearing surface will be removed prior
to demolition without dropping into the water. There is a potential for some
masonry components to enter Waters of the US. A maximum of approximately 27
cubic yards of concrete may enter surface waters during demolition.
During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
Construction Moratorium:
Due to fish migration and spawning, there will be a moratorium on in-water
construction work from April 1 to June 15 of any year.
Anadromous Fish Guidelines:
The mandates in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish
Passage will be adhered to for this project.
8-3690 Project PCE Document Greensheet, 7-30-03, Page 1 of 1

2607
_ p 26

. 7 6 1 3 2639
Holly Spring 2607 2E56 2639 CD A

2c58

9 rn 2691
ID 22
?D
2662
'
2636'.
03 \ 2655 _

: 3 c L
•
\ fir 2534
p vJ m
?
2n56 2654 r 2640
b ?

°V 2634 N
2662
o 2
.2641
1. 5
1OC5 Bridge 1Vo
163
c .

1003
J 2653 . 8 0

-42 Coleridge 1005

42 i

? - C
?'
? -?
?
Q J
1 D0J

2894 l
?
.28°3 r

r
V i

2E'? 2873
t
X645 i

263
2?95 -5 4

2892

%Cheeks'! - ' 7 2645 ;
2891
204 .
264
2.2 ?
7 2 I !
I S 2640
i
2884
1003
2887 `, 2373 ' • 4 i

10 ()2

X5'35'
1. ? ,.? ` ?• ' i
A 2648
.2BYJ 2 ?i

ied Detour Route

'North 'Camlina Dept. vff-rmupvrtation
?, Division ;gHignyays
? B'rojectDevelopment:b'
'nvimnmauurl4nalysis Branch
31and*h ;county
Replace Bridge No.163 :on SR 2641
,.Over $rush '.Creek
1-3690
SIN;
4 ?~t R
d
4
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 8, 2003
Memorandum to: Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Engineer
Project Development Unit, PDEA
From: Matt Haney, Environmental Specialist
Office of Natural Environment
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Subject: (1) Replacement of Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641 over Brush Creek, Randolph
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2641(1), State Project No. 8.2572901,
TIP No. B-3690.
(2) Replacement of Bridge No. 221 on SR 2849 over Fork Creek, Randolph
County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2849(1), State Project No. 8.2573001,
TIP No. B-3691.
The NCDOT proposes to replace the bridges listed above. The federally-
endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) is listed by the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (USFWS) as occurring in Randolph County, therefore the Cape Fear
shiner must be evaluated for this project.
The Natural Heritage Program (NHP) documented one occurrence of Cape Fear
shiner in Deep River within two miles of the project study area for project B-3690. NHP
documented one occurrence of Cape Fear shiner in Fork Creek within seven miles of the
project study area for project B-3691. Both projects are located within a proposed critical
habitat area. Maps are attached showing the location of the bridge projects and the
location of known Cape Fear shiner populations.
Aquatic surveys were conducted by Tim Savidge, Logan Williams, and other
NCDOT biologists for both projects on May 8, 2001. All fish species were identified in
the field. No Cape Fear shiners were observed during these surveys. However, the
streams do provide suitable habitat for Cape Fear shiner. Therefore, a biological
conclusion of "Not Likely to Adverse]), Affect" was given. Concurrence with the
USFWS is required for this Biological Conclusion.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1.548 MAIL SERVICE CENiEn
TELEPHONE' 919-733-3141
FAX: [phone]
WEE317 W),W,DOH.DO7.S7A'= P'?:.Ul
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
r:L LEI?u, !,I?

i
S f i
' I
I ? r
?? I 1 ? I I
ne-
occ?tience ? ? !f ?`^'v \?
, 3699?r ;
rte,' ??,
? t
Z.

E? North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Dennis Pipkin, Project Planning Engineer
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coon inato
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: March 10, 2000
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Johnston, Randolph, and Rowan
counties. TIP Nos. B-3670, B-3686, B-3687, B-3689, B-3690, B-3691
and B-3904.
Bioloaists 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 Tealignment.
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.
r
3. Live concrete should not be allo\ved 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
March 10, 2000
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 Savid°-e 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:
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
Brid,oc Replacement Memo 3 March 10, 2000
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:
-3670 - Johnston County - Bridge No. 448 over Bernal Creek. Due to recent dam
removals in the Neuse River basin it is likely that this stream will be spawning habitat
for anadrornous fish such as herring and shad. Therefore, we would prefer this bridge
be replaced with a bridge. NCDOT should adhere to recommendations contained in
the NCDOT document. "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage."
No in-water work should occur from February 15 to June 15.
2. B-3686 -Randolph County- Bridge No. 49 over Back Creek. We would prefer this
bridge be replaced with a bridge. Back Creek is a tributary of Carraway Creek that
contains species of state listed mussels. Therefore, we request that NCDOT use
sedimentation and erosion control standards for sensitive watersheds (HQ'v?? on this
project.
3. B-3687 -Randolph County - Bridge No. 285 over Muddy Creek. We would prefer
this bridge be replaced with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
4. B-3689 -Randolph County- Bridge No. 370 over Un-named Creek. We would
prefer this bridge be replaced with a bridge. Standard recommendations apply.
B-3690 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 163 over Brush Creek. Brush Creek
supports good numbers of largemouth bass. Redbreast sunfish, catfish and pickerel as
well as a good diversivy of native non-game fish. Due to the possibility that a quality
fishery exists, we would prefer this bridge be replaced with a bridge. We request an
in-water work moratorium from April 1 to June 15 to minimize impacts to spawning
sunfish and largemouth bass. This stream is a tributary of the Deep River and drains
directly into Cape Fear Shiner (Notrovis mekistocholas) habitat. We request an on-
site meeting be held to discuss specific conservation measures for this Federally listed
species.
6. B-3691 -Randolph County - Bridge No. 221 over Fork Creek. We would prefer this
bridge be replaced with a bridge. The Federally endangered Cape Fear Shiner
(Notropis mekistocholas) has been found in Fork Creek. We request an on-site
meeting be held to discuss specific conservation measures for this Federally listed
species.
7. B-3940 - Rowan County - Bridge No. 183 over Un-named Creek. 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
BridL,e Rcplaccmcnt Memo
March 10, 2000
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passaL- 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.
1 Stilt ??
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
Lisbeth C. )vans, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
March 30. 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore. P.E.. Manauer
Project Development T nvironmental alvsis Branch
From: David Brook v?VL?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641 over South Potts Creek.
TIP No. B-3690. Randolph Counm. ER 00-8444
On January 20. 2000. April Montgomen- 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 reco=end that no historic architectural survey
be conducted for this project.
In terms of archaeological resources there is a high potential for sites within the proposed
project area. When an alignment is selected please submit detailed drawings of that
alignment so that we can determine whether or not an archaeological survey is,.needed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thant: you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning
the above comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley. Environmental Review Coordinator,
at 919 733-4763.
??1ti4a1-?P?€ 1'blrr
Tolm Pa? Mann= Addrem Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION lount K. Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service C.•..•:a. Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8653
RESTORATION 5! 5 N. Blount St. Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Cenie- Raleigh NC 276994613 [phone] • 715-480 i
VIAI
M n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L S. Brook Admmiantor
Michael F Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Usbeth C. Evans. Secretarn
David J. Olson, Director
JcfireyJ. Crow, Deputy Secretary
Office of Archives and Histor.
March 13, 2002 ?tGC' ?, V J-0
MEMORANDUM
BAR ?2.?t,n?
TO: william D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analvsis Branch ti -L KVc
Division of Highwavs
Department of Transportation 1j= vc tD?s??
. 7 A L
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT- Archaeological Report, Replacement of Badge No. 163 on SR 2641 over Brush Creel
B-3690, Federal-Aid No. BRZ2641 (1), Randolph County,ER 00=8444 and ER 02-9078
Thank you for your letter of Februarc 13, 2002, transmitting the archaeological survey report, by Shane
Petersen, Caleb Smith and Jesse Zinn, for the above project.
During the course of the survey, no prehistoric or historic archaeological sites -were located4ithin the
project area. Due to the absence of cultural material, the authors have recommended that no further
archaeological investigation be conducted= connecuon'With this project.-We concur-with this
Tecommendation since the project will not involve significant archaeological-resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National HistwicPreservation Act and-the
Adcisorc Council on Historic Preservanon's Regulations for Compliance with .Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation:and consideration. If-you have questions conc==g-the above comment,
please contact Renee GledhillEarleT. environmental review coordinator,at 919/733-4763.Ina1 future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced traclting number.
DB_kgc
cc: Matt Wilkerson, NCDOT
Location •Malling •Addteas 73'alophondFax
Administration 507 N. Blount SLAaleigh. NC -4617 Mail.Setviee Centc,•Ralmgh27699-461'1 1919)'73,-;7" 27, 44-E'
RANDOLPH COUNTY EMERGENCY SERVICES
152 N. Fayetteville Street
Asheboro, North Carolina 27203-5516
Telephone: [phone]
May 1, 2001
Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Development Engineer
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center.
Raleigh NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Pipkin,
After reviewing the below bridge replacement projects the following has been
determined.
Project B-3690 = No detour posting required for emergency
services. Post Bridge Closed signs.
Brush Creek #163 on SR 2641
Project B-3686 = No detour posting required for emergency
services. Post Bridge Closed signs.
Back Creek #49 on SR 1320
Project B-3691= No detour posting required for emergency
services. Post Bridge Closed signs.
Fork Creek #221 on SR 2849
It will always be more beneficial for our Emergency Responders. f we have an accurate
start date on each project At that time we will be able.to research :which
addresses/residents will be affected and the alternative routes that our responders will
need to take
At,this time we do not see any necessary changes for the.abore projects. tyou A",e
.further inquiries, please give men call:at 336-318-6943ory?nailing.tolheaibove -
address,
Sincerely,
C rV UV o-,-_
Donovan Davis,
Project Coordinator
dldavis*ca randolph. nc us
Y M
.q aw ?•
JAMES B. HUNT 1R.
GOVERNOR
Memorandum To:
From:
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
December 22, 2000
Wayne Elliott, Unit Head
Bridge Replacement Unit
Matt Haney
Natural Systems Unit
DAVID MCCOY
SECRETARY
Subject: Proposed replacement of Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641 over Brush
Creek in Randolph County. TIP No. B-3690; Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-2641(1); State Project No. 8.2572901.
Attention: Dennis Pipkin, Project Planning Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project study area, and estimations of impacts
likely to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent
information concerning waters of the United States and protected species is also
provided.
c: File
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
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. 163
on SR 2641 over Brush Creek
Randolph County
TIP No. B-3690
State Project No. 8.2572901
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2641(1)
Natural Resources Technical Report
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
MATT HANEY
NATURAL SYSTEMS SPECIALIST
DECEMBER 22, 2000
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 Introduction .......................................................1
1.1 Project Description ...............................................1
1.2 Purpose ....................................................... .1
1.3 Methodology .................................................. .1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators ..................................... .3
2.0 Physical Characteristics ............................................. .3
2.1 Soils ......................................................... .3
2.2 Water Resources ............................................... .4
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics .................................. .4
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics ................................... .4
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification ................................. .4
2.2.4 Water Quality .......................................... .4
2.2.5 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources ..................... .5
3.0 Biotic Resources .................................................. .6
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ......................................... .7
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community .......................... .7
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest ................................. .7
3.1.3 Riparian Fringe ......................................... .8
3.2 Faunal Component .............................................. .8
3.3 Aquatic Communities ........................................... .9
3.4 Anticipated Impacts.to Biotic Resources ............................. .9
4.0 Jurisdictional Issues ................................................ 10
4.1 Waters of the United States ....................................... 11
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ............... 11
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................... 11
4.1.3 Permits ............................................... 11
4.1.4 Mitigation ............................................. 12
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ..................................... 12
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................... 12
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................... 12
4.2 Protected and Rare Species ....................................... 13
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species ............................... 13
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern ............................... 15
5.0 References ....................................................... 15
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Site Location Map ................................................2
LIST OF TABLES
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities ............................ 10
Table 2. Federally-protected Species for Randolph County .......................13
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Randolph County ....................... 15
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources 'T'echnical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion for the proposed project.
1.1 Project Description
The project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 163 on SR 2641 over Brush
Creek in Randolph County. The existing right-of-way (ROW) is 18.3 m (60 ft). The
proposed right-of-way is 18.3 m (60 ft). Two alternates are proposed for this project:
Alternate I-Replace bridge at same location, detour traffic onto other local roads during
construction.
Alternate 2-Replace bridge on new alignment to the west of existing, and maintain
traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
Bridge No. 163 consists of an asphalt surface on a timber floor and timber deck,
with steel girders. Substructure is rubble masonry and concrete. The bridge has 5 spans.
The asphalt surface will be removed prior to demolition without dropping into surface
waters. A maximum of approximately 27 yd3 of concrete may enter surface waters
during demolition.
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 are relevant only in the context of existing design concepts.
If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need to be
conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research of the project study area was conducted prior to field investigations.
Information sources used in the pre-field investigation include: U.S. Geological Survey
(USGS) quadrangle map (Coleridge, NC), NCDOT aerial photomosaics of the project
study area (1:1200), and Soil Survey of Randolph County (incomplete, USDA, 1990).
Water resource information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality
(NCDENR, 2000) and North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management (NCDEHNR, 1995). Information
concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected species in the study area was
gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) list of protected and
candidate species (June 16, 2000) and from the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT
biologists Matt Haney, Jared Gray, Shannon Simpson, and Jill Holmes on August 24,
2000. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded.
Wildlife identification involved using one or more of the following observational
techniques: active searching and capture, visual observations (binoculars), 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).
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study
Area denotes the area bound by proposed ROW limits; Project Vicinity describes an
area extending 0.8 km (0.5 mi) 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 centered on
the project.
1.4 Qualifications of Principal Investigator
Investigator: Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina State
University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: N.C. Dept. of Transportation Oct. 1999-present
N.C. Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
U.S. Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research May 1997-
August 1997
2.0 PHYSICAL CHARACTERISTICS
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed
below. Soil types and availability of water directly influence composition and
distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
Randolph County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Land in the
project study area is characterized as relatively flat. The project is located in a rural area
of Randolph County surrounded by forestland and residential houses. The project study
area is located approximately 137.2 m (450 ft) above mean sea level.
2.1 Soils
One mapped soil unit is located in the project study area, Badin-Tatum complex,
8-15% slopes.
This map unit consists of strongly sloping Badin soils and Tatum soils on uplands.
Badin and Tatum soils formed residuum from Carolina slates and other fine grained
rocks. Badin soils are moderately deep and well drained. The surface layer is loamy
with a significant amount of channels. The subsoil is clayey. Permeability is moderate.
Shrink-swell potential is moderate. Soft bedrock is within a depth of 20 to 40 inches.
Seasonal high water table is below 6 ft. Tatum soils are deep and well drained. They
have a loamy surface layer and a clayey subsoil. Permeability is moderate and shrink-
swell potential is moderate. Soft bedrock is within a depth of 40 to 60 inches. Seasonal
high water table is below 6 ft. Badin-Tatum complex, 8-15% slopes, is a non-hydric soil.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be
impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources'
relationship to major water systems, its physical aspects, Best Usage Classification, and
water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed,
as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Subbasin Characteristics
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Deep River
Watershed (Subbasin 03-06-09) of the Cape Fear River Drainage Basin (N.C. Hydrologic
Unit 03030003). The Cape Fear River Basin is the largest river basin in the state,
covering 9,149 square miles (NCDEHNR, 1995).
2.2.2 Stream Characteristics
The proposed project crosses Brush Creek. Brush Creek at the project site is
approximately 25.6 m (84 ft) wide. The depth is approximately 0.3 m (I ft). The
substrate consists of boulder, gravel, and cobble.
2.2.3 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the NCDENR (2000).
The best usage classification for Brush Creek (Index No. 17-23) is C. Class C waters are
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation,
and agriculture. The project study area is located in a Proposed Critical Habitat Area.
2.2.4 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a whole basin approach to water quality management for
the 17 river 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. Specific river basins within North Carolina are intensively sampled for benthic
macroinvertebrates. The macroinvertebrates are a good indicator of water quality
because of their sensitivity to subtle environmental changes, mobility (as compared to
fish), diversity, and relatively long life cycle. The overall species richness and presence
of indicator organisms help to assess the health of streams and rivers. River basins are
reassessed every five years to detect changes in water quality and facilitate the NPDES
permit review.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) monitors ambient
water quality by sampling at fixed sites for selected Benthic macroinvertebrate organisms
that are sensitive to water quality conditions. Criteria have been developed to assign
bioclassifications based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups
Ephemeroptera, Plecoptera, and Trichoptera (EPTs). Brush Creek received Good-Fair
bioclassifications (NCDEHNR, 1995). There were no BMAN monitoring sites in the
project vicinity.
Point sources refer to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch, or
other defined points of discharge. The term most commonly refers to discharges
associated with wastewater treatment plants. Point source dischargers located throughout
North Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. There are
no NPDES sites located within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or no defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of non-point source pollution including land development,
construction, crop production, animal feeding lots, failing septic systems, landfills, roads,
and parking lots. Sediment and nutrients are major pollution-causing substances
associated with non-point source pollution. Others include fecal colifonn bacteria, heavy
metals, oil and grease, and any other substance that may be washed off the ground or
removed from the atmosphere and carried into surface waters. Excluding road runoff,
there were no identifiable non-point sources that could be observed during the site visit.
2.2.5 Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Roadway construction in Brush Creek will result in water quality impacts. The
proposed project will bridge Brush Creek and result in both temporary and permanent
impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the creek may result in soil erosion
leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend downstream
for considerable distance with decreasing intensity. Potential impacts to water resources
in the project study area are dependent upon final construction limits.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality.
The vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in
fluctuating water temperatures. An increase in water temperature results in a decrease in
dissolved oxygen because warmer water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation also
stabilizes streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials
can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological
and chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend both upstream
and downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may include isolated changes
in flooding regime, discharge, erosion, and sedimentation patterns.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP's) for the Protection of Surface Waters
must be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in
cooperation with the DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway
projects which adopts formal BMP's for the protection of surface waters.
Species of anadromous fish may utilize streams in the project study area.
Construction guidelines outlined in NCDOT Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous
Fish Passage must be adhered to for this project. These guidelines are applicable for all
projects crossing perennial or intermittent tributaries (delineated on a USGS topographic
map) located below the fall line. The purpose of this document is to provide guidance to
NCDOT to ensure that replacement of existing and new highway stream crossing
structures will not impede the movement of anadromous fish. The project study area is
located within the piedmont and crosses a perennial stream. An in-water work
moratorium is recommended from April 1 to June 15 to minimize impacts during the
spawning season of sunfish and largemouth bass.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. 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. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are
presented in the context of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and
discussed. Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will
include the common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley, 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field observations.
Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968). Habitats used
by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions,
were determined through field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and
supportive documentation (Fish, 1960; Martof et al., 1980; Webster et al., 1985; Rohde et
al., 1994; Potter et al., 1980).
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three terrestrial communities are identifiable in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed community, mixed hardwood forest, and riparian fringe.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
This community encompasses two types of habitats that have recently been or are
currently impacted by human disturbance: roadside shoulder and abandoned field.
Roadside shoulder is a regularly maintained habitat that is kept in a low-growing,
early successional state. Herbs, grasses, and vines located here include fescue (Festuca
sp.), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), bermuda grass (Cynodon dactylon), wood
sorrel (Oxalis sp.), common plantain (Plantago sp.), clover (Trifolium sp.), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), bush
clover (Lespedeza sp.), poison ivy (Rhus radicans), bead grass (Paspalum sp.), Queen
Anne's lace (Daucus carota), ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), peppergrass (Lepidium sp.), and
white clover (Trifolium repens). One shrub species, blackberry (Rubus sp.), was
observed in this habitat.
Abandoned field is located in the northwest quadrant of the project study area.
The herbaceous canopy is comprised of goldenrod (Solidago sp.), wingstem (Actinomeris
alternifolia), broom sedge (Andropogon virginicus), dog fennel (Eupatorium
capillifolium), bush clover, milkweed (Asclepias sp.), aster (Aster sp.), and purple top
(Tridens flavus).
3.1.2 Mixed Hardwood Forest
Mixed hardwood forest is located in the southwest quadrant of the project study
area. Herbs, grasses, and vines observed here include groundnut (Apios americana),
muscadine grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy, greenbrier (Smilax sp.), wild yam
(Dioscorea villosa), Solomon's seal (Polygonatum sp.), heart leaf (Hexastylis sp.),
spotted wintergreen (Chimaphila maculata), and cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata).
Shrub and tree species observed here include red maple (Ater rubrum), black cherry
(Prunus serotina), privet (Ligustrum sp.), white oak (Quercus alba), American elm
(Ulmus americana), black gum (Nyssa sylvatica), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), sassafras (Sassafras
albidum), hazel-nut (Corylus americana), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), hickory (Carya sp.), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
beech (Fagus grandifolia), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), holly (Ilex opaca),
flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), northern red oak (Quercus rubra var. borealis),
water oak (Quercus nigra), red mulberry (Morus rubra), winged elm (Ulmus alata),
short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), witch hazel (Hamamelis virginiana), winged sumac
(Rhus copallina), and black walnut (Juglans nigra).
3.1.3 Riparian Fringe
Riparian fringe is located adjacent to Brush Creek and serves as a streamside
buffer. The herbaceous canopy is comprised of river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium),
aster, goldenrod, wingstem, strawberry (Fragaria sp.), sunflower (Helianthus sp.),
wisteria (Wisteria sp.), morning glory Qpomoea sp.), justicia (Justicia americana), and
lizard's tail (Saururus cernuus). Shrub and tree species observed here include ironwood,
river birch (Betula nigra), button bush (Cephalanthus occidentalis), blueberry
(Vaccinium sp.), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), holly, blackberry, sweetgum, box elder
(Ater negundo), privet, silky dogwood (Cornus amomum), elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), black willow (Salix nigra), honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), arrowwood
(Viburnum sp.), and white mulberry (Morus alba).
3.2 Faunal Component
Much of the wildlife in the project area likely use various communities for forage,
cover, and nesting habitat. Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of
forests and clearings. In addition, many species utilize both aquatic and terrestrial
habitats, such that both are required for survival and reproduction.
The raccoon (Procyon lotor) is a carnivore often observed along wetland habitats
to moist forests as well as urban areas. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) are
occasionally observed along broken areas of mixed young forests, old fields, and crop
lands. These two ubiquitous species are often observed as roadkill on adjacent roadways.
The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys
humulis), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting habitat. Eastern
cottontails (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefer brushy edges where they primarily feed on
woody perennials.
Mammals commonly occurring in forested habitats include southern short-tailed
shrew (Blarina carolinensis), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), and white-footed
mouse (Peromyscus leucopus). Shrews and smaller mice prefer forests with a thick layer
of leaf litter.
Eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus) and five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus) inhabit open habitats with plenty of sunlight. The slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus) inhabits woodlands where they are known to forage at night and
spend the day in burrows under logs, stones, and leaf litter. The spring peeper (Hyla
crucifer) inhabits woodlands where it may be observed under forest litter or brushy
undergrowth. Eastern box turtles (Terrapene carolina) are commonly observed
throughout forested habitats where they feed on plants and small animals.
The common crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos) is seen in a wide variety of fields
and open country habitats. Cardinals (Cardinalis cardinalis) favor woodland margins
and residential shrubbery. The mourning dove (Zenaida macroura) occurs in open
country habitats such as fields, woodland margins, and suburban neighborhoods.
Carolina wrens (Thryothorus ludovicianus) are found in remote swamps, woodlands,
farmyards, and residential sections of cities. The mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos) is
common in woodlands and residential areas. Other bird species observed in the project
study area include eastern wood pewee* (Contopus virens) and green heron* (Butorides
striatus).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, is located in the project
study area. Physical characteristics of the surface waters and condition of the water
influence the faunal composition of the aquatic communities. Perennial streams support
an assemblage of fauna that require a constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water.
Amphibians and reptiles commonly observed in and adjacent to moderately sized
perennial streams in rural areas may include northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus
fuscus), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), green frog (Rana clamitans),
pickerel frog (R. palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
One mussel species, Elliptio sp.*, was observed in Brush Creek during the site
visit.
Brush Creek supports good numbers of largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), catfish (Ameiurus sp., ktalurus sp., and Noturus
sp.), and pickerel (Esox sp.), as well as a good diversity of native non-game fish. Brush
Creek also provides habitat for warmouth (Lepomis gulosus), rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), shiners (Cyprinella sp.), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), other sunfish (Lepomis sp.), brown bullhead (Ameiurus
nebulosus), and margined madtom (Noturus insignis).
3.3 Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Resources
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have
the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts
to the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent
impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of
each community (Table 1). Project construction will result in the clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire ROW width and length presented in Section 1.1. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 1. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities.
Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2
In Place Replacement New Alignment
Maintained/Disturbed 0.05/0.13 0.17/0.42
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.09/0.22
Riparian Fringe 0.03/0.06
Total see note 0.05/0.13 0.29/0.70
Notes:
-Values are cited in hectares/acres
-Total impacts may not equal the sum impacts associated with each specific community
due to rounding of significant digits.
-Alternate 1 In Place Replacement values indicate permanent impacts associated with
the removal and replacement of Bridge No. 163 and adjacent roadway approaches.
-Alternate 2 New Alignment values indicate permanent impacts associated with the new
alignment of SR 2641 and replacement bridge and the removal of Bridge No. 163 and
adjacent roadway approaches.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of
project construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter
habitat for fauna. A majority of the project study area is located in maintained/disturbed
habitat. The maintained/disturbed areas are currently in a highly altered state and plants
and animals here are well adapted to disturbed conditions. Flora and fauna occurring in
the disturbed community are common throughout North Carolina because of their ability
to persist in disturbed habitats. Moreover, similar additional disturbed habitats will be re-
established after project construction.
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area
as well as those downstream. Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly
attributable to construction activities. The suspended particles will clog the feeding
mechanisms of benthic organisms, fish, and amphibians. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect organisms located in higher
trophic levels. Strict erosion and sedimentation controls must be maintained during the
entire life of the project.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to interruption and/or
additions to surface and groundwater flow. The change in water level may severely
impact spawning activities of mobile and sessile organisms. Construction runoff and
highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting the water resources
located in the project area.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to
two important issues--waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of
"Waters of the United States," under 33 CFR §328.3(a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR
§328.3(b), are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do support,
a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Surface
waters are waters used in interstate or foreign commerce, waters subject to the ebb and
flow of tides, all interstate waters including interstate wetlands, and all other waters such
as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any action that proposes to place fill material into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Brush Creek is considered a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act. This stream is thoroughly described in Section 2.2.2. Potential
jurisdictional wetland communities were examined pursuant to the 1987 U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. The manual is a technical guideline for
wetlands. According to the manual, an area is considered a wetland if three parameters,
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and hydrologic characteristics concurrently exist.
Based upon the results of the field investigation, the project area contains no
jurisdictional wetlands.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
The proposed project will cross jurisdictional surface waters. Brush Creek is
proposed to be bridged. Approximately 18.3 in (60 ft) of Brush Creek is located in the
ROW of the In Place Replacement associated with Alternate 1. Approximately 18.3 in
(60 ft) of Brush Creek is located in the ROW of the New Alignment associated with
Alternate 2. The amount of surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in
roadway design.
There is the potential for components of the substructure to be dropped into the
waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the
substructure associated with Bridge No. 163 is approximately 27 yd3. This project can be
classified as Case 2, which allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods
associated with fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In
accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, a permit will be
required from the COE for discharge of dredge or fill material into "Waters of the United
States." Due to surface water impacts expected at the project study area, a Nationwide 23
Permit will likely be necessary for this project. Final decision concerning applicable
permits rests with the COE.
This project will require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ.
Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or deny water certification for any
federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to waters of the
United States. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance
of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE 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 maintain and restore 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 and the COE, in
determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such
measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable
in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to
reduce the adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps
will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Impacts to surface
waters can be minimized by: (1) decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through
the reduction of ROW widths, fill slopes, and/or road shoulder widths; (2) installation of
temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during construction; (3)
strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMP's for the protection of
surface waters; and (4) reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to
water bodies.
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 extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be
achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory
mitigation is required for unavoidable, adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate
and practicable minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation, and enhancement of waters of the United States. Such actions
should be undertaken in areas to or contiguous to the discharge site.
DWQ regulations state that fill or alteration of more than 0.45 ha (1.0 ac) of
wetland will require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211
.0506(a) and (h) and fill or alteration of more than 450 linear in (150 linear ft) of streams
may require compensatory mitigation in accordance with 15A NCAC 211 .0506(a) and
(h). If these acreage and linear thresholds are exceeded from project construction,
NCDOT will follow these regulations.
4.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces of their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [ESA] 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 ESA. As of June 16, 2000, there are two federally
protected species listed for Randolph County (Table 2). A brief description of each
Endangered or Threatened species characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 2. Federally-protected Species for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status
Cape Fear shiner Notro is mekistocholas Endangered
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Endangered=a taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its
range.
Notropis mekistocholas (Cape Fear shiner)
Animal Family: Cyprinidae
Date Listed: September 25, 1987
The Cape Fear shiner is small, rarely exceeding 2 inches in length. The fish's
body is flushed with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides. The fins
are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and the lower lip bears a
thin black bar along its margin. The species is generally associated with gravel, cobble,
and boulder substrates and has been observed to inhabit slow pools, riffles, and slow
runs. In these habitats, the species is typically associated with schools of other related
species, but it is never the numerically dominant species. Potential threats to the species
and its habitat could come from such activities as road construction, stream channel
modification, changes in stream flows for hydroelectric power, impoundments, land use
changes, wastewater discharges, and other projects in the watershed. No information is
presently available on the species' breeding behavior, fecundity, or longevity. Plant
material forms the primary part of the shiner's diet.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
Brush Creek is a tributary of the Deep River and drains directly into Cape Fear
shiner habitat. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission request an on-site
meeting be held to discuss specific conservation measures for this federally listed species.
A review of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats revealed no known
populations of Cape Fear shiner within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project study area.
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: May 7, 1991
Flowers Present: September
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows from 1 to 2 meters tall from a cluster of
carrot-like tuberous roots. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to
alternate above. In shape, they are lanceolate, wider near their bases, but variable in size,
being generally larger on the lower stem, and gradually reduced upwards. Leaf margins
are entire or with a few obscure serrations and are generally also somewhat revolute.
From September to frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with comparatively small heads
of yellow flowers. The nutlets are 3.3 to 3.5 millimeters long and are glabrous with
rounded tips.
The species occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish
clays, clay-loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content and are
moderately podzolized. The underlying rock types are highly weatherable, generally
contain low amounts of resistant minerals such as quartz, and generally weather to fine-
textured soils. Schweinitz's sunflower usually grows in open habitats not typical of the
current general landscape in the piedmont of the Carolinas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A survey for Schweinitz's sunflower was conducted on October 5, 2000. No
plants were observed. A review of the NHP database for rare species and unique habitats
revealed no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the
project study area. Impacts to this species will not occur from project construction.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may
or may not be listed in the future. Six FSC are listed for Randolph County (Table 3).
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Randolph County.
Common Name Scientific Name NC Status Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis SC no
Carolina redhorse Moxostoma s p. SR no
brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa T(PE) es
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dac loc there eedeensis W3* no
Atlantic i oe Fusconaia masoni T(PE) es
Carolina creekshell Villosa vau haniana SC(PE) no
* indicates the species was last observed in the county more than 50 years ago.
Threatened (T) species are native or once-native species of wild plant or animal
which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future througout
all or a significant portion of its range. An Endangered (E) species is any native species
or once-native species of fauna or flora whose continued existence as a viable component
of the State's flora or fauna is determined to be in jeopardy. Significantly Rare (SR)
species are very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state.
Special Concern (SC) species require monitoring but may be collected and sold under
regulations adopted under provisions of Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General
Statutes; 1987. Proposed (P_) species have been formally proposed for listing as
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern, but have not yet completed the legally
mandated listing process. Watch Category 3 (W3) includes species which have been
reported from North Carolina without adequate documentation.
FSC species are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject
to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened
(T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant and Animal species are
afforded state protection under the State ESA and the North Carolina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979; however, the level of protection given to state listed species
does not apply to NCDOT activities.
A review of the NHP database of rare species and unique habitats conducted on
August 3, 2000 revealed no records of animal or plant species within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of
the project study area. Surveys for the above-mentioned species were not conducted
during the site visit, nor were these species observed during the site visit. A Significant

Natural Heritage Area, Brush Creek Slopes, is located 0.2 mi north of the project study
area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. (ed.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, NC.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station,
Vicksburg, MS.
Fish, F.F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina. North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. (eds.) 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare
Animal Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Raleigh, NC.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press.
Chapel Hill, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management. 1995. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality
Management Plan. Raleigh, NC.
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality. 2000. Stream Classifications Internet Home Page.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell, and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles, and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Rohde, F.C., R.G. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. Freshwater Fishes of the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, & Delaware. The University of North Carolina
Press. Chapel Hill, NC.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
North Carolina (3'd Approx). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press. Chapel Hill,
NC.