20040983 Ver 1_Complete File_20040617

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 17, 2004
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
040983
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/ 401 GROUP
JUN 1 7 2004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 for the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501 (Garrett Road) over Matrimony
Creek, Rockingham County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1501(4), State
Project No. 8.2511401, Division 7, TIP No.
B-3901.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge No. 181
over Matrimony Creek. The current bridge is 76 feet long, and was constructed in 1950. Due to
its age and the timber substructure, it is in need of maintenance, and rehabilitation is not
practicable. Furthermore, the existing bridge does not conform to modern highway standards.
For your review, please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document,
Pre-construction Notification (PCN), %2 size plans, permit drawings, Natural.Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) and a U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurrence request letter for the
above referenced project.
As proposed, the replacement structure will be a new bridge constructed on the existing location.
The new bridge will be 145 feet long (which is longer than the CE document indicates) and 28
feet wide. The cross section of the travel way across the new structure includes two 11-foot
lanes and 3-foot offsets. The west approach will be approximately 820 feet long and the east
approach will be approximately 720 feet long. The approach cross section includes 11-foot lanes
and 6-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
During a recent storm event in mid June 2004, the bridge was washed out. The NCDOT asks the
U.S. Corps of Engineers and N.C. Division of Water Quality issue the necessary permits to
construct the new bridge as soon as possible.
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 WEBS/TE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: One surface water, Matrimony Creek, will be directly impacted by the
proposed replacement of Bridge No. 181. Matrimony Creek (DWQ Index 22-38) is a Division of
Water Quality (DWQ) Class "WS-IV" Waters of the State. The channel of Matrimony Creek at
the crossing is approximately 20.0 feet wide with an average bank height from 7 to 12 feet tall.
The substrate consists of sand, gravel and wood debris. There are no jurisdictional wetlands in
the project area.
Temporary Impacts: According to the proposed plan, the bridge will span the creek and no
permanent impact to surface waters is expected. However, during construction temporary fill is
required causing temporary stream diversion. As proposed, 0.01 acres of temporary fill within
the Matrimony Creek channel will be required. The temporary fill will consist of suitable
materials in accordance with applicable Nationwide Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification
conditions. After construction, the temporary fill will be removed and disposed of in accordance
with applicable regulations.
• Schedule: The project schedule calls for a Let date of November 16, 2004. It is
anticipated that the contractor will begin construction around December 21, 2004.
NCDOT will request the contractor to complete construction in a timely manner in order
to minimize impacts to Matrimony Creek.
• Restoration Plan: The material used for fill to control erosion within the banks of
Matrimony Creek will be removed after the purpose has been served. The contractor
will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and disposal of all material
off-site.
Utility Impacts: There will be no sewer, water, electric or other utility impacts due to this bridge
replacement project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 181, constructed in 1950, consists of a timber deck on steel I-
beams supported by timber piles and caps. The interior pile has an exposed concrete footing.
The overall length of the structure is 76 feet and is approximately 17 feet above the creek bed.
Due to the minimal amount of concrete used for the structure, it is anticipated that the bridge can
be removed without resulting fill. In addition, NCDOT and its contractors will adhere to Best
Management Practices for "Bridge Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No.
181.
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003 USFWS lists two
federally protected species for Rockingham County, James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
Suitable habitat for the James spinymussel consisting of shallow, normally compacted pebble
substrate was identified within Matrimony Creek near the bridge site. Unsuitable habitat was
also identified consisting of large stretches of unconsolidated, shifting sand. In order to
determine if the endangered mussel existed within the project site NCDOT environmental
specialists Karen Lynch, Mary Frazer and Sharon Snider conducted a freshwater mussel survey
2
of the Creek at the bridge crossing on March 27, 2003. Mussel surveys were conducted from
approximately 400 meters downstream to 100 meters upstream of the existing bridge. No
mussels were found during the survey, therefore a biological conclusion of "may affect, not
likely to adversely affect" was issued for the James spinymussel. NCDOT has requested a
concurrence from USFWS, a copy of the request letter is attached.
Suitable habitat for smooth coneflower, consisting of roadsides and utility right-of-way was
present within the study area. To determine if smooth coneflower existed within the study area,
NCDOT biologists Lynn Smith, Elizabeth Lusk and Michael Turchy surveyed the project area on
July 18, 2002. Survey results concurred that suitable habitat existed however no specimens were
found within the study area. Therefore it was determined that the proposed bridge replacement
will not affect smooth coneflower. However, FWS typically provides concurrence with a two
year limit. Therefore, NCDOT agreed to re-survey the project area for smooth coneflower since
two years will have passed before construction has commenced. NCDOT has committed to
survey the project area prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities. The results of the
survey will be forwarded immediately to the NCDOT and the resource agencies should smooth
coneflower be found. If no individuals are found, a concurrence request will be submitted to the
USFWS.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
As part of the efforts to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, NCDOT is proposing to
replace the existing bridge with a new bridge rather than a box culvert, thus minimizing impacts
to jurisdictional areas. Likewise, NCDOT has decided to replace the bridge on the existing site
and detour traffic offsite, thereby eliminating additional temporary impacts required to install a
temporary crossing structure. Additionally, the proposed design spans the stream with no bents
in the water and utilizes a longer span further minimizing impacts.
Construction impacts will be minimize or avoided through implementation with applicable Best
Management Practices. For instance, during demolition NCDOT will adhere to Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal which will reduce or eliminate
temporary fill materials from entering Matrimony Creek. Additionally, adherence to NCDOT's
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will minimize construction impacts
since these practices require the use of appropriate sediment and erosion control measures.
Since the proposed project qualifies as a Categorical Exclusion and will have only a temporary
impact on jurisdictional waters, no compensatory mitigation has been proposed.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary stream diversion will be authorized
under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33. We are therefore requesting the issuance of a
Nationwide Permit 33 for this diversion. All other aspects of this project are being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR §
771.115(b). 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 conditions of the 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 Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please contact Eric Adrignola at [phone] or at [e-mail].
Sincerely,
Greg orpe, vironmental Manager
Proj D elopment a d Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. John Domey, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennet, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PDEA
4
Office Use Only' Form Version May 2002
'on ID No. DWN-4 0 9 8 3
USACE Action Q o.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1.
II.
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:
NWP 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (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: ?
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name:
Mailing Address: NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: gthorpe(adot.state.nc.us
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: Bridge No. 181 Replacement
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3901
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): NA
4. Location
County: Rockingham Nearest Town: Eden
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Bridge No. 181 crossing of Matrimony Creek on SR 1501 (Garrett Road)
(please refer to attached maps)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Please refer to attached
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Matrimony Creek
8. River Basin: Roanoke River
(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: Existing roadway, utility right-of-way, residential near by
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replace
Bridge No. 181 over Matrimony Creek with a new bridge. The new bridge will be 130 feet
(39.6 meters) long and 28 feet (8.6 meters) wide. The cross section includes two 11-foot
(3.3 meter) lanes and 3-foot (1.0 meter) offsets. The west approach will be approximately
820 feet long and the east approach will be approximately 720 feet long. The approach
includes 11-foot lanes and 6-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridge crossing over Matrimony Creek.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Page 7 of 12
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The replacement of the bridge
will result in 0.01 acres of temporary fill within the stream channel of Matrimony Creek.
There will be no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fin,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) 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: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
1 Diversion (T) 60 Matrimony Creek 20 feet Perennial
1 Fill (T) 0.01 acre Matrimony Creek 20 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 UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapquest.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: Approximately 60 feet
Page 8 of 12
4. 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 map) Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
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.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site. constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability tthe 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 niinimijed once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The preferred alternative was selected since it proposed an offsite detour and therefore does
not require additional impacts of a temporary onsite structure. Additionally, NCDOT is
proposing to replace the old bridge with a new bridge rather than a box culvert which would
incur additional impacts. During demolition, adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Bridge Demolition and Removal will reduce temporary fill materials from entering
Matrimony Creek. Additionally, adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters will minimize construction impacts since these BMPs require use
of erosion and sediment control measures.
VIII. Mitigation
Page 9 of 12
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical. Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.-htrnl.
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.
Due to the minor, temporary impacts to surfaces waters resulting from this project, no
compensatory mitigation is proposed.
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/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 10 of 12
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
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 ® No
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
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 activity is exempt )?
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* (squImpct are feet) Multiplier
Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Properly, 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.
N/A
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).
e?5_2Z_
is void only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
A <
{ e

VIRGINIA
----- ---------------- ---
T ROCKINGHAM COUNTY 1799
_ 87 1700
1552 O
155 17 02
1592 l
1708
1555 1605
1546
1535 1557
15 -
PROJECT 1535,
ITE ?r 1561
1523
1533
516
EDEN
1522 1530 ?
770 1604
1593
- - - DEKOTES OFFSITE DETOUR
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT-33337.L1 (B-3901)
MAPS REPLACE BRIDGE 0181 OVER
MATRIMONY CREEK ON SR 1501
SHEET OF 10/22/03
NORTH CAROLINA
I&
A
LEGEND
WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND
C-L> PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
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 IN
SURFACE WATER
®
(POND) SINGLE TREE
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE

WATER
DENOTES MECHANIZED
CLEARING ROOTWAD
-? FLOW DIRECTION

W
TOP OF BANK RIP RAP
E
--- WE EDGE OF WATER
_ - g- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
---A
AM 'PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG - - NATURAL GROUND
- -PJ- - PROPERTY LINE
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -? - - - WATER SURFACE
X xXx x X LIVE STAKES
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33339.1.1 8490D
REPLACE BRIDGE X181 OVER
MATRIMONY CREEK ON SR 1501
Z
SHEET OF 10/22/03

MAIFDS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33337.1.1 <B-3901)
REPLACE BRIDGE 0181 OVER
MATRIMONY CREEK . ON SR 1501
SHEET 3 OF 1Q 0 22

J
H
W
u
N
a0
UJ
W O ? Z
V
V
Y
u
W
0
W
0
M
m

0

H w
o
ez ; z
o

® ?

o ?
zz W z
?
5
as
a c
a
E
c

a

V

N
a
q
W N
3 p u
LY
Ma N
W LL.
o

O
R
ci
N
0
IL
LL.
O

O
t r
f
1
COR
1 /
c 1 '
1
1 '
ca
1? z
1 W
Z ? ? °o ao c?
+ o: Z
?N h
C4 1 1
. II
u 1
a W > 1
r I ? 1 1
a
Cep
4
FI t 1
? N I +,o ?p .o
co) N ?V I I w I
0
0
+
N
a
<2
p
0
+
N
Pr
g
? I
I

? I
/ f
I /

i
cc

? 7 O~C

/ /
' Z
it

N
Cl)

II

a W
'
O
i
a Z
/ I? 0 0
1
I NO
°o
N
O
+
N
N
°
O
N
rl
a -?

?
?. w
o
?

z -4 z

o .4
a
®
W
C U
z z
? ?+
z
v, aa ti U
? o
? a a
c ?
a ?

???• O W
N
bt
? N
9
o ?
W
Ul K
N N
IV
J
J_
LL
a
3
w
N
D
a
V
W
w
0
Z
w
O
\
N
9V
O
w
Ltl
l I
i
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
2 JUDIE I. WEESE 1233 GARRETT RD.
EDEN, N.C. 27288
3 H.C. & VIOLA RUTLEDGE 1183 GARRETT RD.
EDEN, N.C. 27288
4 H.C. & VIOLA RUTLEDGE 1183 GARRETT RD.
EDEN, N.C. 27288
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT. 35557.1.1 (B-590D
REPLACE BRIDGE 8181 OVER
MATRIMONY CREEK ON SR 1501
SHEET (0 OF 10/22/03
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 TROY FRANKLIN WARF,JR. 1220 GARRETT RD.
EDEN, N.C. 27288
a J,

M
a
N
O

Z
Cu U E O -
rn

m
v
O? Z
0- 0
Z- U
Q Z r
LL <
O = M

00 Z
w
Y

C
O) U)

? o ?
U
LL,
OO O
ci a 0
z

I-
W
W
U

IL =?
5

CO

E
J
N
2

A I
-
PO
-

O O
l0 ? ?
3 y ? ?
ZfAO

0 0

H W N
d ?

U
Q
a

?
W =
LL O
O o
Q CU ?
? c
3 F-
W
Q p O
v
7
=a

0 0
m

a ?Z

C p O
G -p
C ? O U

d
N
o ? o O
y
F- a ? d N

o. V
x
W C
W D o 0
Q lL C
?

Z
w U
?i3 ?

C

W O
O
N
C C
_ ? lU0
LL j
` d
7 F-
? d Q

W

Q
U
0
o t T

M
N

O
lA Z

LL Z O M
Y-20 ?4 10:40
d,.. acs\Codd\B3901_HYD-DRN.DGN
?I I P'
I

s m
s
>t m a

8 8
?
? ? $ ggO

+ +
omvo
b bb7u

N ??
T T T T
. Y y y

IV
O >=pppN
O
V? O
I
N
gs ?
s 4
N
tr N
++ I D
gg r
} } ? ? gZA
Q
•-I
i
0
J?? p'Z`
g?
? rO
I
O
1 ?
R
O
1
N
N
N
C
S
e
e
p
H
? a
Is.'
m o °sD
err
?m
R o on m m
=mao m^ s
u n n A
N ? x
T T T 1?
rt y + O
I'
?N I
a e
M r r r r
? 5p .?ti0
r 11 11 11 11 r $
R
?ti?op
II U 11 11 r co
yo
a??op
rrrrr?
0
1

r1
I ? s g
30
I a a a
?. . PCCS?a.30+20AS
f
?rO
a
PICSYo. *Of85J
-1
a a

/5
8 y
i ?
+ + ° 'rn
} } s
15320 ? ?
?T m
N
+ + 6 O ?gypQ?'?
ci's
O'oy, ? ,Ra1
\ y
O
20
M

H / Sy SJS 1!1611
r /
pTSta 22+7374
y Yp P
N
a 4 +
I o25
N
? oNo
W
}
f ?
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
Project Development &
The purpose of this project is to replace Rockingham County Bridge No. 181 on
SR 1501 over Matrimony Creek. The replacement structure will be a Bridge 130
feet (39.6 meters) long and 28 feet (8.6 meters) wide. The cross section will
include two 11-foot (3.3-meter) lanes and 3-foot (1.0 meter) offsets. The west
approach will be approximately 820 feet long and the east approach will be
approximately 720 feet long. The approach cross section will include 11-foot
lanes and 6-foot shoulders. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction
(see Figure 1). The roadway will be designed with a 60 mph (90 km/h) design
speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
Date
Date
9, Z---O 2,
Date
B-3901
8.2511401
BRZ-1501(4)
1W
Development &
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date id( Division A strator
Federal Highway Administration
Analysis Branch
Analysis Branch
7
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch

PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3901, Rockingham Countv
Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501
Over Matrimony Creek .
Federal Project BRZ-1501(4)
State Project 8.2511401
PDEA Office of Natural Environment
• Additional surveys for smooth coneflower and James spinymussel maybe required if the
project'is not let to construction prior to June 2004.
Division Construction Engineer
• The bridge is to be removed such that there is no resulting fill.
• Please alert both EMS and the County School Bus Coordinator as to the period of anticipated
road closure.
Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1.
Green Sheet
September 2002

Bridge No. 181 ;'
i 1b1
, 1 1]•12 <'i j
l 1.
'.\ .4 .o IT6l
19_°1 \
T' IT 3co.
\ .5" •1 343 ??+6
I'm
! 1. / 71 '?? ? 1
r 1
I =?
1y97 ?IS91T 1
1
Y. ¢ 1
190 1
1
T16
i 15.3 ? 1-
i 1!d? _
•?. I 3 _ 1
ISM ?. 1 /.
e
-wo
3 13" 1
Ate„ d
me
1116 -mg
' 15V f
`O T ' :1s
1 51-
•/0
s .
1342
i
.,l -Ism
7 ! 1
9 I
IN 1w-
` 3
''Al
-..?
33 1 '°
'
• ••=7 1 ..ffi 34E 957) MIN
1 \
•30 320 my \ STUDIEDDETOURROVrE
lam
-°' 3? ?' S
119!6
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
q 7'..
•'• DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 181 ON SR 1501
OVER MATRIMONY CREEK
B-3901
Scale 1 in. = 1 /2 mi. Figure 0
ne
E•
?yy ?swr,
q?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ?.
Deputy State Histo Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501 over Matrimony Creek,
TIP No. B-3901, Rockingham County, ER 01-7938
[ Ut t. t aw M -Ifw
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On November 28, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff m'et with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the area
of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore,
recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to the receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have any questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
DB:kgc
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh. North Carolina 27601-2gn7

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY 1501 MAIL SERVICE CENTER, RALEIGH, N.C. 27699-1501 LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 14, 2002
MEMORANDUM TO: John Williams; Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
FROM: A. Lynn Smith, Natural Systems Specialist iz
Natural Systems Unit
SUBJECT: Natural Resources Technical Report for the Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 181, Rockingham County, TIP
No. B-3901; State Project No. 8.2511401; Federal Aid No.
BRZ-1501(4)
The attached Natural Resources Technical Report provides inventories and
descriptions of natural resources within the project area, and estimations of impacts likely
to occur to these resources as a result of project construction. Pertinent information on
Waters of the United States and federally-protected species is also provided.
I would appreciate the opportunity to review the draft Categorical Exclusion for
this project. Please contact me if you have any questions, or need this report copied onto
disk format (ext. 286).
cc: Randy Turner, Natural Systems Unit Head
File: B-3901

Replacement of Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501 over Matrimony Creek,
Rockingham County
TIP No. B-3901
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1501(4)
State Project No. 8.2511401
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-3901
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT & ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
NATURAL SYSTEMS UNIT
Harold M. Brady, A. Lynn Smith
March 14, 2002

TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 2
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................................... 2
1.2 Bridge Demolition ............................................................................................................2
1.3 Environmental Commitments ...........................................................................................2
1.4 Purpose .............................................................................................................................2
1.5 Methodology .....................................................................................................................2
1.6 Qualifications of Investigators ........................................................................................ .3
1.7 Definitions ....................................................................................................................... .3
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................................... .3
2.1 Soils ................................................................................................................................. .4
2.2 Water Resources .............................................................................................................. .4
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ....................................................................... .4
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification ......................................................................................... .5
2.2.3 Water Quality ........................................................................................................... .5
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ............................................................................ .8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................................. .9
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ...................................................................................................9
3.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community ...........................................................................9
3.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest ........................................................................................ 10
3.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest ................................................................................. 10
3.1.4 Virginia Pine Forest ................................................................................................ 11
3.2 Wildlife ........................................................................................................................... 11
3.3 Aquatic Communities ..................................................................................................... 12
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................................... 12
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................................. 14
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................................ 14
4. 1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................................... 14
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................... 14
4.1.3 Permits ..................................................................................................................... 14
4.1.4 Mitigation ....................................................................:........................................... 15
4.1.4.1 Avoidance ........................................................................................................ 15
4.1.4.2 Minimization .................................................................................................... 15
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ................................................................................ 16
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................................ 16
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species .................................................................................... 16
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ............................................. 18
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................ 18
LIST OF TABLES
.......................................................
Table 1. Soils within the Project Study Area .........................................:
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities .................................................................................. 14
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Rockingham County .................................................................... 18
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 1. Vicinity Map ................................................................................................................................... 6
Figure 2. Bridge No. 181 Project Area Map ................................................................................................... 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in the
preparation of a Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in
northern Rockingham County (Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501 (Garrett
Road) over Matrimony Creek (Figure 2). The existing right-of-way (ROW) is 60.0 ft (18.3 m),
and the proposed ROW is 100.0 ft (30.5 m). The existing and proposed cross sections are two-
lane shoulder sections. Project length is approximately 1617.0 ft (492.9 m) for Alternate 1, and
1994.0 ft (607.8 m) for Alternate 2. The following is a description of the alternates proposed:
Alternate 1: Replace the existing structure with a new bridge on existing location with an
on-site temporary detour structure located to the south.
Alternate 2: Replace the existing bridge with a new bridge on new alignment to the south and
maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
1.2 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 181 was constructed in 1950 and is composed entirely out of timber and steel,
except for a concrete footing. Due to the minimal use of concrete in the existing construction of
the bridge, it is likely that the bridge can be removed without any resulting fill in Matrimony
creek. Best Management Practices (BMP's) for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be
followed.
1.3 Environmental Commitments
There are not any site specific environmental commitments at this time. All standard
guidelines and recommendations apply.
1.4 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various
natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to
identify and estimate the probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources.
Recommendations are made for measures which will minimize resource impacts. These
descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of existing preliminary design
concepts. If design parameters and criteria change, additional field investigations will need
to be conducted.
1.5 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this
pre-field investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle
map for Rockingham County (Northwest Eden, NC, 1978), Geographical Information Systems
(NC Center for Geographical Information & Analysis), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetland Inventory Map (Northwest Eden, NC), Natural Resources Conservation
Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation Service) soil information for Rockingham
County, and NCDOT aerial photographs of the project area (1:1200). Water resource
-2-

information was obtained from publications of the North Carolina Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources (NCDEHNR, 1996, 2001), DENR Internet Page 2002, and from
the NC Center for Geographic Information and Analysis (Environmental Sensitivity Base Map of
Rockingham County, 1995). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state
protected species in the study area was gathered from the USFWS list of protected species and
species of concern and the NC Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) database of rare species and
unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by NCDOT biologist
Matthew Haney and NCDOT contract biologist Harold Brady on 15 February 2002. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and
capture, visual observations (binoculars) and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds,
scat, tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing
delineation criteria prescribed in the "US Army Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation
Manual" (Environmental Laboratory, 1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were
performed using guidance provided by NC Division of Water Quality [(DWQ), formerly known
as the Division of Environmental Management (DEM)],"Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and
Ponding" (Environmental Sciences Lab, 1997).
1.6 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Harold M. Brady, biologist, ARCADIS
Education: B.S. Natural Resources, NC State University, 1998
Experience: ARCADIS G&M, January 2000-present
2) Investigator: Matthew M. Haney
Education: B.S. Natural Resources-Ecosystem Assessment, North Carolina
State University, Raleigh, North Carolina
Experience: NC Dept. of Transportation Oct. 1999-present
NC Forest Service May 1998-August 1998
US Forest Service, Center for Forested Wetlands Research
May 1997-August 1997
1.7 Definitions
Definitions for areal descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area
denotes the area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area
extending 0.5 mi (0.8 km) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent
to an area represented by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the
central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. Soils and
availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any
biotic community.
-3-

The project study area lies within the Piedmont physiographic region in the northern part
of North Carolina. The topography in this section of Rockingham County is rolling with
significant relief in places. Project elevation is approximately 610.0 ft (185.9 m) to 680.0 ft
(207.3 m) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Three soil mapping units occur within the project vicinity: Madison sandy loam (MaE),
Madison sandy clay loam (MbB2) and Chewacla loam (Ck). Table 1 lists the soil mapping units
within the study area and gives their general characteristics.
Table 1. Descriptions of soil mapping units within the project study area.
MW
Madison sandy loam 15-35% erosion Well-drained soil with moderate permeability,
found along narrow side slopes.
Madison sandy clay loam 2-8% erosion Well-drained eroded soil with moderate
permeability, found along narrow ridges.
Chewacla loam 0-2% hydric Somewhat poorly drained soil with moderate
inclusions permeability, found within floodplains of major
streams. The seasonal high water table is 0.5 to
1.5 feet below the surface.
Soil core samples taken throughout the project area revealed soils with a sandy loam and
sandy clay loam texture. The soils did not exhibit hydric conditions, such as low chroma colors
and oxidized rhizospheres. Therefore, hydric'soil indicators, as defined in the 1987 "US Army
Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual", were not observed within the project study
area.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its
relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources.
Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to minimize impacts.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
Two surface waters, Matrimony Creek and an unnamed tributary (Ut) to Matrimony
Creek, will be directly impacted by the proposed project (Figure 2). Matrimony Creek is located
in sub-basin 03-02-03 of the Roanoke River Basin.
At Bridge No. 181, the channel of Matrimony Creek is approximately 20.0 ft (6.1 m)
wide, with an average bank height from 7 to 12 ft (2.1 to 3.7 m) tall, and a substrate consisting of
sand, gravel, and woody debris. During the site visit on 15 February 2002 the water depth was
observed to be 3 to 9 inches (7.6 to 22.9 cm) deep with a fast flow. Matrimony Creek had good
sinuosity with well established sandbars; however, scoured banks were observed through the
stream near bridge 181. Ut to Matrimony Creek maintains a width of approximately 5 ft (1.5 m),
-4-
with a bank height from 2 to 4 ft (0.6 to 1.2 m) tall, and a substrate consisting of sand, gravel,
and cobble. During the site visit the stream had a water depth of 2 to 5 inches (5.0 to 12.7 cm)
deep, and a moderate flow. It should be noted, that the project region had received heavy rains
approximately three to four days prior to the site visit. Therefore, the water levels and flow were
somewhat higher than usual.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams are assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of
Matrimony Creek [Index no. 22-38] is WS-IV. Class WS-IV includes waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in moderate to highly developed watersheds. Point source
discharges of treated waste-water are permitted, and these waters are suitable for all Class C uses.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Nutrient Sensitive Waters (NSW), Water
Supplies (WS) I and 2, nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.0 mi (1.6
km) of project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six
months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next
generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby,
long term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from
pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present,
the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long term water quality conditions.
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. All basins are reassessed
every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality
management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (managed by the DEM) assessed
water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites
throughout the state. There are not any biological sampling sites located along Matrimony
Creek, either upstream or downstream of the study area. The nearest sampling station is
approximately 6.0 miles (9.7 km) east of Bridge No. 181 on the Smith River. This station
received a Good-Fair bioclassification.
The North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The
NCIBI scores are used to determine the ecological integrity class of the stream from which the
sample was collected. However, the scores may not necessarily directly correlate to water
quality (DWQ, 1998). There are no fish community assessment sites along Matrimony
Creek. The nearest site is located approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 km) southwest of Bridge No.
181 on Buffalo Creek. This site received a NCIBI score of 50, which gives the stream a Good
bioclassification.
-5-
' f
X001 7 ,? -
( ] 16W
Bridge No. 181 N
1 •,., t?3z / tv1 /???
I.?. U
1501 •\
i +` 1603
\ 1
\ 1?n .I 1SS3 1i : 1702
t X92 1
\ 1' 1390. ?` V00, '<'{:•
.70
_ I
\ ¢ I
?- 170 I>t] .01
I1
Y -
I6O3
'4 I
i `IM3
,,, 116 I _ t139 Ia6 ' •• t)y ?; ?
ts]s I -
.° ,1J9
t336 ? ? k r. i
.. . ff7 1513 ' 1353 '500 7
Isa n]9 ?
•\.-` .fists t369 R tsw 1x6 !` e?
'1367 t .b \\ t'-61aP t0
? ? ' S IS ) F
I 160 ? a
,? ? IS]3
15Q IS37
19 IS)> 1%9
1576 -5w , r3 'All
n
•'? ? ' ? ?? !.372 t :I
M9 W3
I \
t361 1301
1393
.30 .15n-
1?•\ t5]J 1391 . ? ?. / ..
.11506 _ ® 1fG '1 ? ,I ?i

of RTH c?9o NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
4 17,
ti? TRANSPORTATION
(y? DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
;9? PhO1FCT DEVELOPMENT &
oFMENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
RoCKINGIIANI COUNT-l'
REPLACE BRIDGE 181 ON SR 1501
OVER MA FRIINIONI' CREEK
B-3901
Scale 1 in. = 1!2 mi. Fi(eure One
•'kd

/;65! t. ?

? /t

?T

? e. ? / ?/? y ,?t i• ? F?1'• ,gyp,. _i / / i'? .,
'kl`1 a• f 1 o-B ? .c `.?
/ 1
r ,
Rfi; it
• ` p $?7.
a /W -i

Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. There are not any
permitted dischargers located along Matrimony Creek. The nearest downstream discharger
is the Eden/Mebane Bridge Wastewater Treatment Plant, located on the Dan River
approximately 7.0 miles (11.3 km) southeast of the study area.
Nonpoint source discharge refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
or snowmelt. Agricultural activities may serve as a source for various forms of nonpoint source
pollutants. Land clearing and plowing disturb soils to a degree where they are susceptible to
erosion, which can lead to sedimentation in streams. Sediment is the most widespread cause of
nonpoint source pollution in North Carolina. Pesticides, chemical fertilizers and land application
of animal wastes can be transported via runoff to receiving streams and potentially elevate
concentrations of toxic compounds and nutrients. Animal wastes can also be a source of
bacterial contamination and elevate biochemical oxygen demand (BOD). Drainage ditches on
poorly drained soils enhances the transportation of stormwater into surface waters (DEM, 1993).
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location without constructing a detour bridge
during construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Alternate 1 includes a detour bridge (ROW= 100 ft (30.5 m)) which
increases ROW needs and potential impacts. The ROW limits extend 50 feet on each side of the
existing and proposed roadways. The widest portion of the study area occurs at the crossing of
Matrimony Creek and becomes smaller as the proposed roadway (be it temporary or permanent)
merges with the existing SR 1501. Therefore, the combined ROW width at the Matrimony
Creek crossing is 180.0 ft (54.9 m) for the replacement bridge and the detour bridge. Alternate 2
(on new location) has a proposed ROW width of 100.0 ft (30.5 m). Potential impacts to
Matrimony Creek will be 180.0 ft (54.9 m) for Alternate 1 and 100.0 ft (30.5 m) for Alternate 2.
Potential impacts to the unnamed tributary of Matrimony Creek will be 150.0 ft (45.7 m) for
Alternate 1 and 100 ft (30.5 m) for Alternate 2. Usually, project construction does not require
the entire ROW; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion.
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal.
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/or additions to surface
and ground water flow from construction.
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal.
Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas.
-8-
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and
toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs
include, but are not limited to: minimizing built upon area and diversion of stormwater
away from surface waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by
toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
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 in
the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant
community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990)
where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are
described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each
animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford, et al. (1968).
Animal taxonomy follows Martof, et al. (1980), Menhinick (1991), Potter, et al. (1980), and
Webster, et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common
name only. Fauna observed or evidence of their presence observed (i.e. skat, tracks, etc.) during
the site visit are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis
are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Four distinct terrestrial communities are present in the project study area:
maintained/disturbed, Piedmont alluvial forest, mixed pine/hardwood forest, and Virginia pine
forest. Community boundaries. within the study area are generally well defined without a
significant transition zone between them. Many faunal species likely to occur within the study
area may exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities, or as movement
corridors.
3.1.1 Maintained/Disturbed Community
The maintained/disturbed community includes highly maintained road shoulders,
agricultural land, powerline easements, and maintained residential properties. The road
shoulders and associated ditches are present along the entire length of the project, except at the
bridge. Road shoulders act as buffers between the roadway and surrounding communities by
filtering stormwater runoff and reducing runoff velocities. The width of the road shoulder is
approximately 15.0 ft (4.6 m). Two areas of agricultural land are present within the project area,
at the far-eastern end on the southern side of SR 1501 and in the central portion of the project
-9-
approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) west of Matrimony Creek on the southern side of the existing road.
Both fields have been recently left fallow for the winter. A maintained powerline easement is
present at the eastern side of the project area on the southern side of the road. The powerline
easement is approximately 30 feet (9.1 m) wide off the maintained road shoulder and appeared to
have been recently mowed.
Three separate residential properties are present within the project area. The first
property is located at the far-eastern end of the project area on the southern side of SR 1501.
Another residential property is located near the central portion of the project area approximately
200 feet (61.0 m) east of Matrimony Creek on the northern side of the existing road. The third
maintained residential area is approximately 50 feet (15.2 m) west of Matrimony Creek on the
northern side of the existing road. Significant soil disturbance and compaction, along with
frequent mowing or herbicide application, keep this community in an early successional state.
Vegetation occurring within these maintained/disturbed communities include low
growing species such as: fescue grass (Festuca sp.), vetch (Vicia spp.), chickweed (Stellaria
spp.), Carolina geranium (Geranium carolinianum), blackberry (Rubus argutus), beggar ticks
(Bidens spp), wild onion (Allium canadense), common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), wild
lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), foxtail grass (Setaria spp.), panic grass (Panicum spp.), and woolly
mullein (Verbascum thapsus). Smooth sumac (Rhus glabra), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia), cross vine (Anisostichus capreolata), and Chinese
privet (Ligustrum sinense) occur along the perimeter. Several trees are located within the
maintained yards along the project area, including flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), black
cherry (Prunus serotina), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), and red maple (Ater rubrum).
3.1.2 Piedmont Alluvial Forest
This community is located along the corridor of Matrimony Creek and the Ut to
Matrimony Creek. Due to its location along floodplains, this community maintains a flatter
topography and generally a denser understory. The rich soils and readily available water help
make for an abundance of species diversity and richness. The Piedmont alluvial forest naturally
transitions into the mixed pine/hardwood community as topography increases.
Musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana) dominates this community in the area surrounding
Bridge No. 181. Other canopy species within the floodplain along the two streams include
include red maple, flowering dogwood, slippery elm (Umus rubra), river birch (Betula nigra),
black cherry, yellow poplar, black walnut (Juglans nigra), and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis).
The understory is primarily composed of Chinese privet, Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), and muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia).
3.1.3 Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest
The Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest community occupies two areas within the project study
area. The largest area is on the far-western side of the study area on the southern side of the road.
This stand is a mature forest approximately 45 to 60 years old. The other area is on the far-
-10-
eastern side of the project area on the northern side of the road. This stand contains an area
which has recently (within 5 years) been logged for timber, and is currently dominated by kudzu
(Pueraria lobata), with blackberry and Japanese honeysuckle also present. The mixed pine/
hardwood community includes areas that are steeper and rockier than the other communities, and
range in age from 5 to 60 plus years. The forest understory is relatively open which wildlife can
use as corridors between streams within the alluvial forest communities and the grasses and
herbaceous plants within the maintained/disturbed communities. The mixed pine/hardwood
forest communities naturally transition into the Virginia pine forest community as topography
flattens near the top of the ridge.
The forest canopy primarily includes yellow poplar, American beech (Fagus grandifolia),
white pine (Pinus strobus), Virginia pine (P. virginiana), southern red oak (Quercus falcata),
northern red oak (Q. rubra), black oak (Q. velutina), rock chestnut oak (Q. prinus), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), eastern red cedar, and sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum). The
understory is primarily composed of running cedar (Lycopodium clavatum), mountain laurel
(Kalmia latifolia), Chinese privet, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), and Japanese honeysuckle.
3.1.4 Virginia Pine Forest
The Virginia Pine Forest community is found at one location within the study area,
approximately 300 feet (91.4 m) east of Matrimony Creek on the southern side of the SR 1501.
This community is typically found near or at the top of ridges in the Piedmont. Due to this
communities relatively flat topography most Virginia pine stands have had historical agricultural
activities. Eventually this community transitions into a mixed pine/hardwood forest as the forest
matures and hardwoods become more prevalent. The understory can be dense with small
hardwood saplings and epicormic branching commonly observed with Virginia pine. The
Virginia pine forest community found within the study area is approximately 15 to 20 years old.
Virginia pine dominates the canopy with small trees and shrubs occupying the
understory. The understory typically includes eastern red cedar, post oak (Quercus stellata), red
maple, musclewood, black cherry, American beech, flowering magnolia (Magnolia grandiora),
persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), Yucca (Yucca spp.), and American holly (Ilex opaca).
3.2 Wildlife
Wildlife includes all living things, especially animals, which are undomesticated. For the
purposes of this report wildlife concerns only undomesticated and feral animals including
mammals, reptiles and amphibians, and birds.
Mammals associated with the communities present within the project vicinity that were
observed or are likely to occur include, red bat (Lasiurus borealis), white-tailed deer*
(Odocoileus virginianus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), gray
squirrel* (Sciurus carolinensis), eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis), red fox
(Vulpes vulpes), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
-11-

The wetter areas along Matrimony Creek and the Ut to Matrimony Creek may be
inhabited by reptiles and amphibians such as eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), bullfrog
(Rana catesbeiana), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink (Eumeces
fasciatus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene c. carolina), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern garter
snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), spotted salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), and spring peeper
(Hyla crucifer).
Avian species utilizing the project vicinity include canada goose* (Branta canadensis),
turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), turkey (Meleagris
gallopavo), downy woodpecker (Piciodes pubescens), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern
cardinal* (Cardinalis cardinalis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), common grackle (Quiscalus
quiscula), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), and Northern mockingbird* (Mimus polyglottos).
The maintained/disturbed communities within the project area are surrounded by
extensive forested areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure
within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will
be largely those species inhabiting the adjacent communities.
3.3 Aquatic Communities
Two aquatic communities, Matrimony Creek and an unnamed tributary to Matrimony
Creek, will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water body and
condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial
communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and
vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur in Matrimony Creek include rosyside dace
(Clinostomus funduloides), white shiner (Luxilus albeolus), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), red breast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides),
margined madtom (Noturus insignis), and fantail darter (Etheostoma flabellare). Invertebrates
which were observed or are likely to occur include, caddisflies* (Order: Trichoptera), mayflies*
(Order: Ephemeroptera), stoneflies (Order: Plecoptera), crayfish (Order: Decapoda), water
striders (Aquarius sp.), whirligig beetles (Family: Gyrinidae) and dragonflies and damselflies
(Order: Odonata). In addition, the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), pickerel frog (Rana
palustris), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), muskrat (Ondatra aibethicus), and beaver
(Castor canadensis) are common permanent residents in this community. There were no
mollusks found in this portion of Matrimony Creek; however, a detailed mollusk survey was not
conducted at the time of the site visit.
3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to
impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural
resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
-12-
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each
community present within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses
to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts for Alternate
1 are derived using the combined proposed ROW width of 180.0 ft (33.5 m) which consists of
the replacement and detour bridges. Impacts for Alternate 2 are based on a combined ROW
width of 180.0 ft (30.5 m), as well. The paved roadway width of 24.0 ft (7.3 m) has been
excluded from the impact calculations for the biological communities. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities

Maintained/Disturbed 2.19 (0.89) 2.19 (0.89)
Mixed Pine/Hardwood Forest 1.31 (0.53) 1.31 (0.53)
Alluvial Forest 0.28 (0.11) 0.24 (0.10)
irginia Pine Forest 0.48 (0.19) 0.47 (0.18)
Total Community Impacts: 4.26(l.72) 4.21(l.70)
Note: values citea are m acres ?nectares).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering
habitat for various wildlife. Replacing Bridge No. 181 and its associated improvements will
reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size
and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal, and will quickly
recover.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early
successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while
attracting other wildlife by the creation of more early successional habitat. Animals temporarily
displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream
channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work
will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary,
environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible
effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization
and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may
remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation,
which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and
deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by
excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
-13-
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction
site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhances the likelihood of erosion and
sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes.
Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic
communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the
formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of
vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations
of water temperatures which may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands,
defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground
water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal circumstances do
support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated conditions. Any action
that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 "US Army Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". The three-parameter approach is used where hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an
area to be considered a wetland. No wetlands are present within the project study area.
Matrimony Creek and the Ut to Matrimony Creek are jurisdictional surface waters under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and
water quality aspects of Matrimony Creek and the Ut to Matrimony Creek are presented in
Section 2.2.1.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Potential impacts to Matrimony Creek have been determined to be 180.0 ft (54.9 m) for
Alternate 1 and 100.0 ft (30.5 m) for Alternate 2. Potential impacts to the Ut to Matrimony
Creek have been determined to be 150.0 ft (45.7 m) for Alternate 1 and 100.0 ft (30.5 m) for
Alternate 2. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW; therefore, actual
surface water impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated. In accordance with provisions of
section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the USACE
for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
-14-
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable for all
impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project. This permit authorizes
activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by
another Federal agency or department where that agency or department has determined that
pursuant to the council on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(1) that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment, and;
(2) that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
A North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) Section 401 Water Quality General
Certification is required prior to the issuance of the Section 404 Nationwide Permit No. 23.
Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the
construction or other land manipulations.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The USACE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a
wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and
sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological and
physical integrity of Waters of the United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland
impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing
impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR
1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation)
must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting
impacts to Waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the USACE, in determining
"appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such 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. Minimization typically focuses on
decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW
widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts
to Waters of the United States crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of
sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the
-15-
project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge
into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas,
judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris
control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to Waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum 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 reviewed. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of
Waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous
to the discharge site. Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide
Permit No. 23, however the final decision lies with the USACE.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended requires that any action, likely to
adversely affect a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the USFWS.
Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973. As of February 26, 2001, the USFWS lists two federally
endangered species for Rockingham County; James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and
smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Animal Family: Unionidae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 22 August 1988
The James spinymussel is one of only a few freshwater mussels where prominent spines
can be found on juvenile shells. Adults have a dark brown shell and the spines are typically
absent or reduced. It is a short-term brooder that releases glochidia in summer (late May through
early August). The fish hosts for this mussel are thought to include, rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), mountain redbelly dace (Phoxinus oreas),
blacknose dace (rhinichthys atratulus), central stoneroller (Campostoma anomalum), rosefin
shiner (Notropis ardens), satinfm shiner (N. analostanus), and swallowtail shiner (N procne).
The James spinymussel are found in waters with slow to moderate current, a moderate
gradient, and relatively hard water on sand and mixed sand and gravel substrates. Based on
-16-
collection records, the James spinymussel was endemic to the upper James River drainage north
of Richmond, Virginia. It currently is restricted to a few small headwater tributaries in Virginia,
West Virginia, and North Carolina. This mussel is suspected to have experienced an
approximately 90% reduction in range.
Threats to the current populations of the James spinymussel are primarily related to
industrial and agricultural development within sensitive watersheds. Results of increasing
development within these watersheds are the increasing populations of Asian clam (Corbicula
fluminea), which can out compete most of the native mussel species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat consisting of waters with slow to moderate current, a moderate gradient,
and sand and mixed sand and gravel substrates are present within the study area. A review of the
NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 26 February 2002 revealed no record for
the presence of the James spinymussel within the project vicinity. NCDOT environmental
specialist, Tim Savidge conducted a survey for freshwater mussels, especially looking for the
James spinymussel within the proposed Bridge No. 181 study area. No populations of the James
spinymussel were observed.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federal Status: Endangered
Date Listed: 08 September 1992
The smooth coneflower has stems that are simple or branched and averages a height of
approximately 3.0 ft (1.0 m). The leaves are glabrous, slender, drooping, ovate-shaped, and
white to deep magenta. The smooth coneflower is a perennial plant, requires full or partially full
sunlight, and flowers in June.
Originally the plant was known to occur in open prairie-like habitats or in oak-savannas
maintained by fire. With the suppression of fire throughout the southern forests, especially
during the early 1900's, the populations of smooth coneflower have dwindled significantly.
Currently the plant is found in natural openings in forests, on dry limestone bluffs, within clear-
cutting logging operations, along roadsides, and in utility line right-of-ways. It has been
determined that the locations in which smooth coneflower occur commonly contain soils with
higher than normal levels of magnesium and calcium.
A majority of the historically known populations of the plant have been replaced by
development or significant disturbance to the forest. Most of the populations that are remaining
exist on marginal sites where they are vulnerable to urbanization, the use of herbicides, repeated
mowing, and collection for supposed medicinal purposes.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION UNRESOLVED
Suitable habitat consisting of recently logged areas, roadsides, and utility line right-of-
ways are present within the project study area. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species
-17-
and unique habitats on 26 February 2002 revealed no record for the presence of smooth
coneflower within the project vicinity. However, a plant-by-plant survey should be conducted
during the flowering season to determine the presence or absence of smooth coneflower within
the study area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
According to USFWS list of federally protected species dated February 26, 2001, there is
one Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Rockingham County. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or
Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species which may or may not be
listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or species under
consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of
Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are
listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant
Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern, their state status and the existence of suitable
habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for information purposes
as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Rockingham County
a.v?.xl
0.L
`bit
Y

Lotus helleri Carolina birdfoot-trefoil SR-T Yes Open woods over clay soils
and roadsides.
"E"------An Endangered species is one whose continued existence as a viable component of the State's flora is
determined to be in jeopardy.
"T"=---- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"SR"---- A Significantly Rare species is one which has not been listed by the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission
as an Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in small numbers and has
been determined by the N.C. Natural Heritage Program to need monitoring.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these
species observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 26
February 2002 revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the
project study area.
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, Jame L. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina".
Raleigh: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
-18-
4, e
Cowardin, Lewis M., Virginia Carter, Francis C. Golet, and Edward T. LaRoe. 1979. "Classification of
Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department
of the Interior.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. "Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual," Technical
Report Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
Godfrey, Michael A., 1997. Field Guide to the Piedmont. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina
Press.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E., and S. P. Hall. 1999. "Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina". Raleigh: North Carolina Natural Heritage Program.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. N.C. WRC., Raleigh.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1993. "Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River
Basins." Raleigh, N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDEHNR-DEM. 1996. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Raleigh, N.C.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources.
NCDENR-DWQ. 1997. "Field location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding" (Environmental Lab).
Raleigh, N.C. Department of Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2001. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. Raleigh, N.C. Department of
Environment and Natural Resources.
NCDENR-DWQ. 2002. Internet Web Page: http://esb.ehnr.state.nc.usBAUwww/benthosdata.pdf
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University of
North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas. Chapel
Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of The Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
NCDEHNR.
U.S. Department of Agriculture, 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, Soil Conservation Service.
North Carolina Agriculture Experiment Station.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and Maryland.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
-19-
i I
tsh.DGN
09/08/99
CONTRACT: C20I072 TIP PROJECT: 8-3901
0 o a
r .o
m =
S n
_ N y
O"
s ?
o S S
C . > >
gig n o v b
Z a+ u u u n u u
s
14 '?', C C O w 0 0 CO P
A A
?.? ? ? ? 3 aR ? 2R a
6T
0 m m
Cf Cf
m =
i ?o
>
op
ff
{
00o t?
n y
A p
V CO
N H N
o?
m m
_ 4
th M to &n
o ?
•o
7o W b
fll O
? Z • g
a
a N
rnC O
? rn
m
n
? b
?°a o
x
b
ox
cB c? `c?
+ S ?_j Ilk
IA ?cu >.
0
y
o
h O CIl?
C)
t
0
b
N4., 0 It
/ ? rn n b O ? ?
SO
o n
o y
?O
D
I
as
Q
b
w 10
gr y
?z
°z
z
s
y
w w y ?

N
i

I
k PAY., 6081-,dy_typ.DGN 6/2/99
RWR,-n?n AT
z
0
? m
M g ? mia -1 a a mma a ?v ?v 1v a °-1° _ >z>? -m>ii ° m a °-o m - a D -+a
?° xa
R D
M
r
00 M2
F-
M o j i av ?m<? 6>a a?mD ro•DO m<D <?
M m•a -i0• a 'o vma m9
cl) D
M > a T ww> pp DO1 O/ o - 00 wDo D
N O p 1, r
P P r y I ?, a v
M m?a- v 1 + ar-i -1 ? N pa-I a-?
A N H O Cp
m m I ?+
+ x0 9 O% 00D9 ? OD M
N N 7 D 2D 0
O S ??vv I ?p y O r 2 mw
-4 ?? r +r -I r ax -1?r x C
i m
?4 Q , m
Q I Z o Do Or
7o O C N i
d
1 m w z -1 m z m m mA m m aoo
W C
1-.q 7l1 O -i a M-0-1 a
W N C Z 1d r
th+ d m ?? N
M {A { A { r= r m w{ A T 0
°o O r?r ago s cn
C Y O
iE.p xo?maa# m 1010-1 9 m >.1 ia? c
r z
to a MW
DWI
' C
2
m
N
M
m
Ic y 1x
O? Oo
s
a a+
-y{ A O
C O q ° e
FP
a, O
M Q
7o v
M
0 O g
°
(7 ?
° ? III
a m ? ?
H M M II
o O Q_ } o II
? 0 ? 0 c
Z
z z ?is a
z z z
U - 0
w p c
I
s s
c P i R
O
O
P
P?
r a N k
IJ ? ?
O• ?O Cpp C ?' ?'
y
G m pO m m
N
O 0 ZO N
140
v ++
N N vN #A 00 M
00
O .? 00 z>
?r?f1 O NN r m: .::
P
W N ? N ? ? #!Q
VZ O+
4
+ °
z
$
N i N v N 1
< m -101>v » Dv o>
'u
v •o
?
o

'O M. a9 x O• Oa M. as
O
7v v
O < w zzov ox zm- x zo o
x
N
-1
?x m
a p
r mm
v m• m
+vDv D mm
r v m• Z
>
o ? x
>
1m 3p
a x
> ? m1x ?
?
a
e
o y -
-
i D
7om m
> wc
im>z D >
z y
Z
a
am D +

m a r
D 0
71x Tx <= D
C
O 0
Z TS T O
> D vzmD m?
o D
V
D
v
v
-1
a?
xrs-i
DD
-1

wD
?D r+ -io .1r m
D
< m A O <mA m-1 O A 1
N ?
r? W m Z 9 a 2 m2

m
A m

Z
oZ -?• °?? - °is p1a x i
•0°n
c m OZ

•
m -
_ mm mm mom om vmm m
?
w a a T T-i
m a 01
O W0D fo > miz N ?D9 a
0
_
_ Am Pa MOA
m m
2 Os m
= 7
0 -1
- D
m °O O° zvm
-
1 C
°m c mo
D ??
.? ?v aaa _
z D o m•oo om m

a
? ? X00 m
¢
v z° p =?
7
ovm m y 0 v-1
0 7
D7m
11N 0
N 11
O{1
mp- {9
OGO 9
-im -1
<
mxtn
a • in ?•
-1 m
- x
t0 -o
m
0
m o x
v T
C 7009 Oa O
D
z 01
D
m ?
I;
TT 8 n IA
*rL'oL ; a ?m
11 v N?a
s?
TT ON
++ n v
Y1 L A o?1
?i
m o p 9
? °, 43 fmi
p ry S
$ $-?1rn
A-4
} m o a
y err
O ea
n . =Iw
T a o ? o,? m
a
?mao m
1 b G L. yyy???
Em
95?i0a Z
m
X.r°n
YP ? ~?
++ °ma
a o r
ign
?a £ Q A
r n
y
5 m
8rr m ?Ac
?++
0o B; ?so
+?vmno
$S y v
1 1 ° b L. i?.
Hti ?}
r
1 .b
°
S
In ? G6
n

s?
0
a ?
't{p-
?? ? 1 ? t a
?$a ma
y Opta
q!4

xis 0 ° +ar
y

I
rIR
W
W
a
Q w
e
go
R
O
SJo. /8tS3.2p y
3r.O 1?
x
P7"SJO. /9t52/??`" y
20
l
M;R
?..
a <erN
?. O
A
qz $ O ?J

•.

a?

D25
F
a 0 m Mb
FS
$ I

? 4aw P..? .. QO

a a

fv5 9? " ? SJS 90+Zw
N ? A ? N
? 110
r
V
? 1j 11 11 11 ?
V?
?al?i?yo
ti
O
Y
r
1

Z

b
j
o-rr ? IN

?r

. p

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 14, 2004
U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Ecological Services
Raleigh Field Office
P.O. Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27606
ATTENTION: Mr. Gary Jordan
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Request for Section 7 concurrence for the proposed replacement of
Bridge No. 181 on SR 1501 (Garrett Road) over Matrimony Creek,
Rockingham County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1501(4), State
Project No. 8.251140 1, Division 7, TIP No. B-3901.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 181 over Matrimony Creek. The current bridge is in need of maintenance and due to
its age and the timber substructure, rehabilitation is not practicable. The old bridge will
be replaced with a new bridge spanning the creek with no bents located in the stream.
Temporary fill will be required to construct the bridge. An application for Nationwide
Permit coverage has been submitted to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
According to your species list dated January 29, 2003 two federally protected species are
listed for Rockingham County, James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) and smooth
coneflower (Echinacea laevigata). During initial site visits suitable habitat for the James
spinymussel consisting of shallow, normally compacted pebble substrate was identified
within Matrimony Creek near the bridge site. Unsuitable habitat was also identified
consisting of large stretches of unconsolidated, shifting sand.
In order to determine if the endangered mussel existed within the project site NCDOT
environmental specialists Karen Lynch, Mary Frazer and Sharon Snider conducted a
freshwater mussel survey of the Creek at the bridge crossing on March 27, 2003. Mussel
surveys were conducted from approximately 400 meters downstream to 100 meters
upstream of the existing bridge. No mussels were found during the survey, therefore a
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 WESSITE. WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
biological conclusion of "may affect, not likely to adversely affect" was issued for the
James spinymussel. Therefore NCDOT is requesting that your agency provide a letter
concurring with the "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" determination.
Likewise, suitable habitat for smooth coneflower, consisting of roadsides and utility
right-of-way was present within the study area. To determine if smooth coneflower
existed within the study area, NCDOT biologists Lynn Smith, Elizabeth Lusk and
Michael Turchy surveyed the project area on July 18, 2002. Survey results concurred that
suitable habitat existed however no specimens were found within the study area.
Therefore it was determined that the proposed bridge replacement will not affect smooth
coneflower.
However, construction is not slated to start until December of 2004. Therefore, NCDOT
agreed to re-survey the project area for smooth coneflower since two years will have
passed before construction has commenced. NCDOT has committed to survey the
project area prior to initiation of ground disturbing activities. The results of the survey
will be forwarded to your agency should smooth coneflower be found. If no individuals
are found, an additional concurrence request will be submitted to the USFWS.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Eric Adrignola at [phone] or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely, 11 G egory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. John Thomas, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Michael Wood, The Catena Group
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
2