20041114 Ver 1_Complete File_20040708

dN STAT[p
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
May 26, 2004
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
'ANDS 1401 GROUP
JUL 0 8 2004
WATER QUAU i Y bt;004
Attention: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Application for Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 84 over Jones Creek on SR 2579 in Rockingham County,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2579(1), State Project No8.2511001, WBS
Element: 33236.1.1, Division 7, TIP B-3696
p4111
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document as well as the
Pre-construction Notification, %2 size plans, permit drawings Natural Resources Technical
Report (NRTR) and a United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) concurrence
request for the above referenced project. The NCDOT proposes to replace the 53-foot Bridge
No. 84 on SR 2579 over Jones Creek with a new 95-foot single-span reinforced concrete
box-beam bridge in the same location. In addition, the NCDOT plans to replace the 60-inch
corrugated metal cross pipe which carries an unnamed tributary (UT) to Jones Creek under
SR 2579 and is approximately 400 feet fast of the bridge. This cross pipe will be replaced
with a 96-inch corrugated steel pipe. There will be 0.008 acre of temporary fill and 30 ft of
temporary stream impact due to the stream diversion and replacement of the pipe. The bridge
replacement will have no impacts to jurisdictional waters. Traffic will be detoured off-site
during construction at both locations.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: The project is located in the Roanoke River Basin (ROA03 Subbasin)
with a Hydrological Unit Code of 03010104. The proposed bridge (Site 1) and pipe (Site 2)
replacements are located over Jones Creek and UT Jones Creek, respectively. Jones Creek
flows from the southwest and meets with UT Jones Creek on the northeast side of the bridge.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLB SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE. WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
. I
Both creeks have been assigned a Division of Water Quality best usage classification of
"C". Class "C" refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,
wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. There are no wetlands in the project area.
Temporary Impacts: Temporary impacts for this project are associated with the pipe
replacement. The pipe replacement at Site 2 will be the same length as the existing pipe
culvert. The new pipe will be buried one foot below the streambed. Approximately 15 feet
upstream and 15 feet downstream of the structure there will be temporary impacts from
stream diversion while installing the culvert. There will also be 0.008 acre of temporary fill
in the surface water. Traffic will be detoured off-site during pipe installation. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices, dated August 2003, for pipe and flow diversion will be followed
during replacement of the pipe on UT Jones Creek.
• Schedule: All steps will be taken to minimize stream impacts for UT Jones
Creek. NCDOT will request the contractor to complete construction in a timely
manner. The project schedule calls for a Let date of October 19, 2004 with a date
of availability of November 17, 2004.
• Restoration Plan: The material used for fill to control erosion within the banks of
UT Jones 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. 84 has three spans totaling 53 feet in length. The entire
bridge is composed of timber. Therefore, bridge No. 84 will be removed without dropping
any of its components in the surface waters. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
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 the
US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists two federally protected species for .
Rockingham County: smooth coneflower and the James spinymussel. No species have been
added to or deleted from this list since the completion of the referenced document. Field
surveys were conducted in 2001 and 2003 for mussels and 2002 for the plants. A biological
conclusion of "May affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect" is proposed for both species
based on habitat found although no species found. NCDOT is currently awaiting a
concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife (see attached request for concurrence, letter
dated May 13, 2004).
2
The USFWS listing of protected species and current Biological Conclusions are listed in the
following table.
Federallv Protected Species for RockinLyham Countv
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
James Pleurobema Endangered YES May Affect, Not
spinymussel collina Likely to
Adversely Affect
Smooth Echinacea Endangered YES May Affect, Not
coneflower laevigata Likely to
Adversely Affect
Endangered denotes a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
Avoidance examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"Waters of the United States". The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and
practicable design features to avoid and minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full
compensatory mitigation of all remaining, unavoidable jurisdictional stages; minimization
measures were incorporated as part of the project design. The impacts to Jones Creek are
minimized by replacing Bridge No. 84 with a new bridge that will span the creek at
approximately the same location and roadway elevation. Impacts are further minimized to
the Jones Creek UT by burying the invert of the new pipe one foot beneath the streambed.
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. The remaining aspects of the project are*being
processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in
accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will
apply to this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, in accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B.0200
we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their notification.
Thank you for your time and assistance with this project. Please contact Carla Dagnino at
[phone] if you have any questions or need any additional information.
Sincerely,
Gregory J. horpe, Ph.D.
?`. Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 DEO
Ms. Karen Capps, PDEA Project Planning Engineer
4
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. o
DWQ No.
(it any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ® Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NW23, NW33.
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name: NC Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: (199)-733-3141 Fax Number: (919)-715-1501
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: NA
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 84 over Jones Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3696
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Rockingham Nearest Town: Reidsville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From Reidsville - take 87 east to
US158. Take US158 and get off at the Brooks Road intersection (SR2579)and bridge No. 84
will be the fist bridge crossing.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 36 21.20'N/ 79 36.56'W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): 0.4 mile * 80 feet = 32 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Jones Creek
8. River Basin: Roanoke River Basin
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area lies in the Peidmont Physiogrraphic
Province and is mainly forested with the exception of the maintained roadside.
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
project will consist of replacing the old bridge over Jones Creek with a new single=span
reinforced concrete box-beam bridge in the same location. In addition, the NCDOT plans to
replace the corrugated metal cross pipe culvert located east of the bridge with a new
corrugated steel pipe culvert. Construction equipment will consist of heavy duty trucks, earth
moving equipment, cranes, etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The existing bridge is considered structurally
deficient and obsolete. The replacement of the bridge will result in a safer and more efficient
use for traffic.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
NA
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.
NA
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
Page 7 of 12
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 0.0079 acre of temporary
fill and 30 feet of stream impacts due to the stream diversion and the replacement of the culvert. 1. Individually list wetland impacts below:

Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
NA

List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at hftp://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: 0 acre
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acre
2. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
lease specify)
2 Diversion (T) 30 UT Jones Creek 7 feet Perennial
2 Fill (T) 0.0079 UT Jones Creek 7 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.us¢s.sov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tonozone.com,
www.manquest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 30 feet (all temporary)
3. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Watle) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
NA

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
4. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ' ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): NA
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): NA
Size of watershed draining to pond: NA Expected pond surface area: NA
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The new bridge will be replace on same location and will span the creek with no impacts
associated with the new construction. The new pipe culvert at 96 inches will replace the old 60
inch pipe and be buried one foot below the streambed to insure further stability of the pipe and
water passage.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
Page 9 of 12
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.htmi.
Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
NA- no mitigation needed for50 ft of temporary stream impacts
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/mM/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): NA
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): NA
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): NA
Page 10 of 12
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 )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 13679 3
2 8365 1.5
Total 22044
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 1 I of 12
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
NA
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIIl. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
NA
s/ZCIO
Applicant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
. ?rnrt„
STATE OI' NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICIIAm, F. E,\sLEY
GOVERNOR
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Subject: Biological Concurrence Request for the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 84 on
SR 2579 over Jones Creek in Rockingham County. State Project No. 8.251100 1,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2579(1), TIP No. B-3 )696, Division 7
Dear Mr. Jordan:
The purpose of this letter is to summarize federally protected species surveys to date and to request
concurrence from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) pursuant to Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 153 I et seq.) (ESA).
The Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR) for this project was completed in August 2002. To
support the NRTR document, field surveys were conducted in 2001 for mussels and 2002 for the
plants. Biological conclusions of "No Effect" were determined for each species listed at the time of
the NRTR. (This conclusion was based on no species found.) According to the USFWS January 29,
2003 list of endangered and threatened species, no new species have been added or deleted from the
list. The USFWS listing of protected species and current Biological Conclusions are listed in the
following table.
Federal) Protected Species for Rockingham County
May 13, 2004
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
Common Name Scientific Name Status Habitat Biological
Conclusion
James Pleurohema Endangered YES May Affect, Not
spinymussel- collina Likely to
Adverse) Affect
Smooth Echinucea Endangered YES May Affect, Not
coneflower luevigutu Likely to
Adverse) Affect
MAILING ADDRESS:
NO Dr3•ArcrmerrrOv TvArr;w,r•rr•nr,ri
Pr<nrr.:;rDr.'•;:ir,c'mrrrrAm)Erriu•r,werruAi Arai rx;
15f?%f tAr n. ;;r ;• nr.r C; n n r•
RAI r rr,ri N(; 2/(;Y) 1 `,9%f
I"F .VHrIrli. 919-i15-1500
FAX 919-/151;01
Wr (; ;(n WWWN(Jo or.r1N
LOCATION:
272%1 CAr•irA.i. L'i iri
I'I-L ':Our 1 r,
Fta?: ?r.rr NC '2/r.6A
Suitable habitat exists for smooth coneflower in the open woodlands, roadsides and clearcuts in the
project study area. Habitat may also exist for mussels in Jones Creek. The site was revisited in
September 2003 by The Catena Group to conduct a freshwater mussel survey. No species were
found during the most recent site visits therefore a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely
to Adversely Affect" was determined for both the smooth coneflower and the James Spiny Mussel.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for the smooth coneflower on July 11, 2002 during the
optimal survey window. Prior to the survey, the investigators visited a known population of the
smooth coneflower to have a fresh visual of the plant that will be surveyed. The survey for the
coneflower consisted of a search for single flowers with drooping pink/purple petals on a long stem.
The smooth coneflower was not observed during the site investigation in the preferred habitat within
the project study area. A total of 5 person-hours were spent conducting the survey.
The Catena Group conducted a freshwater mussel survey in September 2003. (Please see attached
report.) Visual and tactical survey methods were used. Mussel surveys were conducted 400 meters
downstream of the project crossing and 100 meters upstream of the project crossing. No mussels
were observed in the entire surveyed area. A total of 3 person-hours were spent conducting the
survey.
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR PLANT SURVEY
Corri Faquin, Environmental Scientist
LandMark Design Group, Inc., April 2001 to August 2002
B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment
Minor in Environmental Science, N.C. State University 2000
B.S. Biological Science, N.C. State University, 2001
Associated Scientist, Biolex, Inc.., Pittsboro, NC, January 2000 to March 2001
Laboratory Technician, Department of Forestry, N.C. State University, January 1999
to May 2000
QUALIFICATIONS OF PRINCIPAL INVESTIGATOR FOR MUSSEL SURVEY
Tim Savidge, Environmental Supervisor
The Catena Group, October 2002 -present
Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, 1992-2002
BS Biology (Guilford College), MS Marine Biology/Biological Oceanography
(UNC Wilmington)
Expertise: NEPA Documentation, Terrestrial and Aquatic Ecology, Freshwater mussel
biology, Protected species surveys, freshwater mussel surveys (NC-2003ES-58), Section ?
coordination, wetland delineation
Based on the above surveys conducted in 2002 and 2003, the project area does not contain any
federally-listed species known to occur in Rockingham County. The NCDOT concludes that the
proposed project will have a biological conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely Affect'
Ior the smooth coneflower and the James Spiny Mussel. We beliere that the requirements of Section
7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied and hereby request your concurrence.
Thank you for your time. Please contact Carla Dagnino at [phone] if you have any questions
concerning this request.
S' c rei ,
. c4a
Phillip S. Harris, III, PE.
Manager, Office of Natural Environment
Attachment
cc: Karen Capps, Project Engineer, PDEA
The
Catena
roup
Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 2579 over Jones Creek
TIP B-3696
Rockingham County
North Carolina
Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PDEA - Office of Natural Environment
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1598
Prepared By:
The Catena Group
Hillsborough, North Carolina
February 18, 2004
Timothy W. Savidge
410-13 Millstone Drive
Hillsborough, NC 27278
[phone]
INTRODUCTION
The North Carolina Department of Transportation proposes to replace bridge # 84
over Jones Creek on SR 2579 in eastern Rockingham County, North Carolina, TIP No.
B-3696 (Figure 1). Jones Creek occurs within the Dan River Subbasin of the Roanoke
River Basin. The federally endangered James spinymussel (Pleurobema collina) is
known to occur in the Dan River Subbasin. Other rare freshwater mussel species known
to occur in the Dan River Subbasin in Rockingham County include the green floater
(Lasmigona subviridis), and the notched rainbow (Villosa constricta). The green floater
is a Federal Species of Concern and is considered Endangered in North Carolina. The
notched rainbow is considered Special Concern.
WATERS IMPACTED: Jones.Creek
The proposed project will impact Jones Creek, which arises approximately 2.5
miles west of the project crossing and flows northeast into Hogans Creek 5 miles
downstream of the crossing. Hogan Creek flows another 18 miles to the northeast
before entering the Dan River in northern Caswell County.
The stream channel in the surveyed area is very incised with a stream width of
approximately 5 meters (16.4 feet) and banks approximately 3.5 meter (11.5) high. The
streambanks are-unstable and severely eroded in places. The substrate within the stream
is predominately shifting sand and gravel with clay banks.
SPECIES DESCRIPTION
Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel)
Status: Endangered
Listed: 7/22/88
Characteristics
The James spinymussel (JSM) was discovered in the Calfpasture River (of the
James River Basin) by T. A. Conrad and originally described as Unio collinus (Conrad
1837). Various workers (See USFWS 1990 for synonyms) have subsequently placed this
species in a number of different genera. Turgeon et al. (1988) placed the James
spinymussel in the genus Pleurobema. The taxonomic history of this species is described
fully in Clarke and Neves (1984).
The JSM is a small mussel that is reported to reach a maximum size of 70 mm. A
specimen collected in the Dan River was measured at 74 mm in length. The shells of
small individuals (<40 mm) are subrhomboid in shape with an obliquely subtruncated
posterior with widely spaced concentric striations. The periostracum (outside layer of
shell) is shiny and straw yellow with prominent growth rings. Faint brownish rays are
rarely present. One to three short, but prominent spines are occasionally present on each
valve. With age, the shell becomes more ovate, or even arcuate, the periostracum
becomes brownish to black and any spines that were once present are lost. Their beaks
'I'(:(i-freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 2579 over Jancs Creek, Rockingham ('aunty, N(:

_ .r 1 :.• ?t 1 s 1,-; r ; -?,' •`? _ ?i _ ? fir "
• _ i?^•• 1`?' ' -•U?P,'• ^`i-' .tit` S.
i; Sfy .l

rt ? 1 F aA?TI x O .: .r? 1 /' LX

Z :4-
tii?,;?,,a-,. ? ?'• may,,:. _;? ? r ,1?+•
.9_? .fir"_ LF/- ? ?,.. - - ._?. • ? ? i-. y
?•• }V L'am'. ? - .. } `b`.1 i_ -
1 1 %
- The
Catena
_ Group
Project Location (*)
SR 2579 (Brooks Road) over
Jones Creek, B-3696
Rockingham County, North Carolina

W'r` w•' ` Y'S.
Date: Figure
February 2004
Scale:
As Shown
Job No.:
3012
-Fresh water Mussel Survey 2
SR 2579 over .loner Creek, Rockingham Comity, NC
are typically eroded and only slightly elevated above the hinge line, if elevated at all.
The nacre (inner shell) is white with occasional bluish suffusions. The foot and mantle of
live specimens are light orange in color. (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves 1984,
Johnson 1970). Internal anatomy is detailed in Clarke and Neves (1984).
The JSM and the Tar spinymussel (TSM) share many morphological wits, but
are clearly distinct species. The TSM has been described as having intermediate
characteristics between the small, short-spined JSM and the large, long-spined Altamaha
spinymussel (USFWS 1992x, USFWS 1990). Internal anatomical differences between
the two species are described in Clarke and Neves (1984). Tar spinymussels can have up
to 12 spines (USFWS 1992) and tend to have spines more often than JSMs. Clarke and
Neves (1984) state that most specimens of JSM "never develop spines". The JSM
observed from the Dan River and Mayo River (>250 individuals, Tim Savidge Personal
Observations) more often than not have spines present and as many as 8 spines have been
observed on one individual. Spine length in these specimens observed is also greater
than has been reported in specimens from the James River system. These differences
between the Dan/Mayo River and James River populations suggest that spine number and
length may be more related to environmental factors than genetic traits.
Knowledge of the reproductive biology is limited to thesis research at Virginia
Polytechnic Institute and State University (Hove 1990, Hove and Neves 1989). Like
nearly all freshwater mussel species the reproductive strategy of the JSM involves a
larval stage (glochidium), that becomes a temporary obligatory parasite on a fish. Many
mussel species have specific fish hosts that must be present to complete their life cycle.
Based upon laboratory infestation experiments, Hove (1990) identified seven fish species
all in the family Cyprinidae (minnows) as potential fish hosts for the JSM. McMahon and
Bogan (2001) and Penmak (1989) can be consulted for a general overview of freshwater
mussel reproductive biology.
Distribution and Habitat Requirements
Previously this mussel was believed to be endemic to the James River system,
with a widespread distribution within the basin (USFWS 1990, Clarke and Neves 1984).
When the Recovery Plan for this species was adopted, it was believed to have been
extirpated from 90% of its historic distribution. Since the discovery in the Dan River in
the fall of 2000, extensive surveys for mussel fauna have been conducted in the Dan
River drainage in Stokes, Rockingham and Caswell Counties North Carolina.
. The apparent range (- 36 river-miles) of the spinymussel in the Dan River.
extends from the North Carolina/Virginia border near the first bridge crossing in North
Carolina (Flippin Rd, SR 1416) in northwest Stokes County downstream to at least SR
1695 (Dodgetown Road), below the town of Danbury in central Stokes County. The JSM
has not been found in the Dan River in Rockingham and Caswell Counties. The species
has also been found in the South Fork Mayo River in Patrick County Virginia
downstream into the Mayo River in Rockingham County North Carolina (an
approximately 16-mile reach). Because it was discovered only recently in the Dan River
'1'(Y;-freshwater Mussel Survcy
Sk 2579 over loncs Creek, Rockingham County, NC
drainage, further research is needed to determine the historic distribution of the JSNI in
the Dan River drainage.
A description of chemical and physical conditions at sites currently and
historically supporting the JSM is given in Clarke and Neves (1984) and Boss and Clench
(1967). The habitat is generally described as runs with moderate current, with sand,
gravel and cobble substrata. Individuals from the Dan/Mayo population have been found
in a variety of substrates from silt/sand, to sand, gravel, cobble, bedrock crevices and
sand surrounded by boulders, with a variety of flow patterns from slack pools, to runs
with moderate to swift currents (personal observations). The hardness of the water is
believed to be a significant requirement for this species, with a minimum hardness value
of (>50 ppm CaC03) (Clarke and Neves 1984).
Threats to Species
The cumulative effects of several factors, including sedimentation, point and non-
point discharge, stream modification (impoundment's, channelization etc.), coupled with
the apparent restricted range, are believed to have contributed to the decline of this
species throughout its range (USFWS 1990).
When mussel populations are reduced to a small number of individuals and are
restricted to short reaches of isolated streams, they are extremely vulnerable to
extirpation from a single catastrophic event or activity (Strayer et al. 1996). Catastrophic
events may consist of natural events such as flooding, or drought as well as human
influenced events such as toxic spills associated with highways or railroads.
Siltation resulting from improper erosion control of various land usage, including
agricultural, forestry and development activities has been recognized as a major
contributing factor to degradation of mussel populations (USFWS 1996). Siltation has
been documented to be extremely detrimental to mussel population's by degrading
substrate and water quality, increasing potential exposure to other pollutants and by direct
smothering of mussels (Ellis 1936, Marking-and Bills 1979). Sediment accumulations of
less than 1 inch have been shown to cause high mortality in most mussel species (Ellis
1936). In Massachusetts, a bridge construction project decimated a population of the
endangered dwarf-wedge mussel (Alasmidonta heterodon), because of accelerated
sedimentation and erosion (Smith 1981).
Sewage treatment effluent has been documented to significantly affect the
diversity and abundance of mussel fauna (Goudreau et al. 1988). Goudreau et al. (1988)
found that recovery of mussel populations might not occur for up to two miles below
points of chlorinated sewage effluent. Clarke and Neves (1984) suggested that sewage
and industrial pollution might have contributed to the extirpation of the JSM from the
North River in Virginia. Based on field observations the municipal wastewater treatment
plants located in Danbury on the Dan River and in Stoneville on the Mayo River appear
to contribute to a reduction of mussels, including the JSM in the respective waterbodies
(personal observations).
TC(i-Fresh water Mussel Survey 4
SR 2579 over.lancs Creek, Rockingham County, Iv(;
The impact of impoundments on freshwater mussels has been well-documented
(USFWS 1992a, Neves 1993). Construction of dams transforms lotic habitats into lentic
habitats, which results in changes with aquatic community composition. These changes
associated with inundation adversely affect both adult and juvenile mussels as well as
fish community structure, which could eliminate possible fish hosts for glochidia (Fuller
1974). Two impoundments, Avalon Dam and Mayo Dam are located on the Mayo River.
These two facilities, created for hydroelectric purposes, have effected distribution of
mussels including the JSM in the Mayo River (personal observations).
The introduction of exotic species such as the Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea)
and zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha) has also been shown to pose significant threats
to native freshwater mussels. The Asiatic clam is now established in most of the major
river systems in the United States (Fuller and Powell 1973), including those streams still
supporting surviving populations of the JSM. Concern has been raised over pompetitive
interactions for space, food and oxygen with this species and native mussels, possibly at
the juvenile stages (Neves and Widlak 1987, Alderman 1997). The Asian clam was
observed to be abundant within the Dan and Mayo Rivers (personal observations).
The zebra mussel, native to the drainage basins of the Black, Caspian and Aral
Seas, is an exotic freshwater mussel that was introduced into the Great Lakes in the 1980s
and has rapidly expanded its range into the surrounding river basins, including those of
the South Atlantic slope (O'Neill and MacNeill 1991). This species competes for food
resources and space with native mussels, and is expected to contribute to the extinction of
at least 20 freshwater mussel species if it becomes established throughout most of the
eastern United States (USFWS 1992b). This species has not been reported from any
waterbody that supports the JSM.
SURVEY EFFORTS
Jones Creek is a perennial stream that could potentially provide habitat for the
James spinymussel and thus surveys for this and other mussel species were conducted for
NCDOT.
Pre Survey Investigation
Prior to conducting in-stream surveys, a review of any survey work that had taken
place in Jones Creek was performed. Sources consulted include the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program (NHP) systematic inventory (database) of rare plant and
animal species, and the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. The pre-survey
searches did not reveal any records of rare freshwater mussel species from Jones Creek.
Mussel Surveys for this Project
Tim Savidge, Tom Dickinson and Shannon Simpson of The Catena Group, Inc.,
visited Jones Creek on September 26, 2003. Mussel surveys were conducted from a
TC(J-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 2579 over Jon,,;.,; Creek, Rockingham County, NC
point approximately 400 meters downstream of the project crossing to a point
approximately 100 meters upstream.
illtethodolow and Results
Visual surveys were conducted using visual (batiscopes) and tactile methods. The
water was turbid during the site visit, but not to the level to preclude visual surveys.
Water level ranged from <6 inches to 3.0 feet, averaging 2 foot. No mussels were
observed in the entire surveyed reach,.in 3 person-hours of survey time. The introduced
Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) is present but not abundant in the creek.
Discussion
No mussel species were found in Jones Creek during the survey efforts. It is very
unlikely that any tpussel species will be impacted by the proposed action. It can be
concluded that project construction is "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the James
spinymussel. It is recommended that NCDOT receive concurrence from the U. S. Fish
and Wildlife Service with these findings.
LITERATURE CITED
Alderman, J.M. 1997. Monitoring the Swift Creek freshwater mussel community. Pages
98-107 in K.S. Cummings, A.C. Buchanan, C.A. Mayer, and T.J. Naimo, eds. 1997.
Conservation and Management of Freshwater Mussels II Initiatives for the future.
Proceedings of a UMRCC symposium, 16-18 October 1995, St. Louis, Missouri. Upper
Mississippi River Conservation Committee, Rock Island Ilinois. 293 pp.
Boss, K. J. and W. J. Clench. 1967. Notes on Pleurobema collina (Conrad) from the
James River, Virginia. Occas. Pap. Mollusks (Mus. Comp. Zool., Harvard) 3 (7):45-2.
Clarke, A.H. 1983. Status survey of the Tar spiny mussel. Final report to U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service with supplement. 63 pp.
Clarke, A. H. and R. J. Neves. 1984. Status survey of the James River spinymussel
Cathyria collina, in the James River, Virginia. A report for Region 5 of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service. 32pp.
Conrad, T. A. 1837. Monography of the family Unionidae. No. 8:65.
Ellis, M.M. 1936. Erosion silt as a factor in aquatic environments. Ecology. 17:29-42.
Fuller, S.L.H., and C.E. Powell. 1973. Range extensions of Corbicula manilensis
(Philippi) in the Atlantic drainage of the United States. Natilus. 87(2):59.
Fuller, S.L.H., 1974. Clams and mussels (Mollusca: Bivalva). Pages 215-273 in: C.W.
Hart, Jr. and S.L.H. Fuller (eds.) Pollution ecology of frchwater invertebrates. Academic
Press, N. Y.
T('U-Fresh water Mussel Survey 6
SR 2579 over Janes Creek, Rockingham County, C
Goudreau, S.E., R.J. Neves, and R.J. Sheehan. 1988. Effects of sewage treatment
effluents on mollusks and fish of the Clinch River in Tazewell County, Virginia. Final
Rep., U.S. Fish and Wildl. Serv. 128 pp.
Hove, M. 1990. Distribution and life history of the endangered James spinymussel,
Pleurobema collina (Bivalvia: Unionidae). M.S. Thesis. Virginia Polytech. Inst. And
State Univ., Blacksburg, Virginia. 113pp.
Hove, M. and R. J. Neves. 1989. Life history of the James spinymussel. In: North
Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. 1989. Population status, distribution, and
biology of the Tar River spinymussel (Elliptio (Canthyria steinstansana Johnson and
Clarke), in North Carolina. Final Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
Johnson, R. I. 1970. The systematics and zoogeography of the Unionidae
(Mollusca:Bivalvia) of the southern Atlantic Slope region. Bull. Mus. Comp. Zool.
1.40(6):263-449.
Marking, L.L., and T.D. Bills. 1979. Acute effects of silt and sand sedimentation on
freshwater mussels. Pp. 204-211 in J.L. Rasmussen, ed. Proc. of the UMRCC
symposium on the Upper Mississippi River bivalve mollusks. UMRCC. Rock Island
IL. 270 pp.
McMahon, R.F. and A.E. Bogan. 2001. Mollusca: Bivalva. Pp: 331-429. In: J.H.
Thorpe and A.P. Covich. Ecology and Classification of North American freshwater
invertabrates. 2nd edition. Academic Press.
Neves, R.J. 1993. A state of the Unionids address. Pp. 1-10 in K.S. Cummings, A.C.
Buchanan, and L.M. Kooch, eds. Proc. of the UMRCC symposium on the Conservation
and Management of Freshwater Mussels. UMRCC. Rock Island EL. 189 pp.
Neves, R.J., and J.C. Widlak. 1987. Habitat ecology of juvenile freshwater mussels
(Bivalvia: Unionidae) in a headwater stream in Virginia. Amer. Malacol. Bull. 1(5):1-7.
O'Neill, C.R., Jr., and D.B. MacNeill. 1991. The zebra mussel (Dreissena polymorpha):
an unwelcome North American invader. Sea Grant, Coastal Resources Fact Sheet. New
York Sea Grant Extension. 12 pp.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water invertebrates of the United States, protozoa to Mollusca
Third Edition, John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, 628 pp.
Smith, D. 1981. Selected freshwater invertbrates proposed for special concern status in
Massachussetts (Mollusca, Annelida, Arthropoda). MA Dept. of Env. Qual. Engineering,
Div. of Water Pollution Control. 26 pp.
T (I-Freshwater Mussel Survey
SR 2579 over hjnes (:reek, Rockingham County, ti('
Strayer, D.L., S.J. Sprague and S. Claypool, 1996. A range-wide: assessment of
populations ofAlasmidonta heterodon, an endangered freshwater mussel
(Bivalva:Unionidae). J.N. Am. Benthol. Soc., 1(3):308-317.
Turgeon, D. D., A. E. Bogan, E. V. Coan, W. K. Emerson, W. G. Lyons, W. L. Pratt, C.
F. E. Roper, A. Scheltema, F. G. Thompson, and J. J. Williams. 1988. Common and
scientific names of aquatic invertebrates of the United States and Canada: Mollusks.
Am. Fisheries Soc. Spec. Publ.16. Bethesda, Md. 227 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1996. Revised Technical/Agency Draft Carolina
Heelsplitter Recovery Plan. Atlanta GA. 47 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992a. Tar spinymussel (Elliptio (Cathyria)
steinstansana) Recovery Plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 34 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992b. Endangered and Threatened species of the
southeast United States (The red book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Div. of
Endangered Species, Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Wash. D.C. 1,070
PP-
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1990. James Spinymussel (Pleurobema collina)
Recovery Plan. Newton Corner, Massachusetts, 38 pp.
'1'(:1;-1:reshwater Mussel Survey
S'R 2579 over Jones (:reek, ltockingliarn County, NC
z?
Ile
2577
i
267 158 158 PROJECT
` SITE
REIDS LLE `ts 2632 "
,-.7
2687 \ ?\ 2579. , J
2581
29
2686 1 2588, 2579
it Lam- Jr/ ?_
VICINITY
MAID
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 83511001 (B-36%)
BRIDGE OVER JONES CREEK
ON SR2579 BETWEEN US 158
AND SR 2588
SHEET I OF I
6/18/04
NORTH CAROLINA
,r

.1

SCALE 1:24000
1 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
] .5 p
1 KILOMETER
i CONTOUR INTERVAL 20 FEET
6ATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL
VICINITY
MAP
NCI®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2511001 (B-36%)
BRIDGE OVER JONES CREEK
ON SR2679 BETWEEN US 158
AND SR 2588
SHEET A OF 9 S/18/04;
n
5o
7
® co /
-tip /
° ---
(D
? 1
® o c m
m 2218
(D /p? m
cn ?O`D
nZ
Ocau
/ T
vz +
0
z= / I? o
ruo s3
+ o
0 to
'"m
to M OD
b,tvz0
za+°cm?
C.. 4 >
.4 04
~ tg
W
r
Co
0
Ul t-1
o
00 ? o
O o O
0
Cl) -v
m0
X:- (n
0m
m0
N
I.
rtl
ow i 1
® orn
l
rz)
?' tV 1 1
1 I
1
__1 1
? i
rr,
N 'O ? y
W \ Q
\n 1
l0 1 m
\ { V)
1 ?
ra C to t C)
z :0
O A C
% z `o C z Z ?-4 -c
CIO to
?+ r
z a? ?x
I-tzi
(3? Ln
oo Q O
O
O 0 0
U? 'Y' 6>
00 (-D 0
O O O
m
x

O

O
o?
mm
?
• ~ ?
o I
I o
)

O
I

I C
0
X0

®
I
I a (n
°
- 0

tsD
0111 O

T
? I m
® - { I
U
1
O I I

? I o
?
O a {

a
{
{
W

? t v

z
O(D .4 tv
7d C g 2
Z
z
r O r)
bo

N.
?D p?1
oro

O

z
m
3 S
m m

v?
n o
N m
=r t
m
v
M
0
m
0 3
m
C»
m
d
= 0

'0

CA

m
Q

SNS IM
co
' C,
Q 5.
0
m
3
m
N pmj
m
d
m m

O
7
O1 N
a
m
CD
m 3 m
N x, ?
S
T
Z
n
OR o
m

0 (A
m
N

ID M

05 CO)

w
m z
m

n
Cl) - -0
N0 0 00
DC-0
9 -4 CD
n ?
m
?
m m n ?
Z
p <
D
-
I
zz
O 0 -n
0G ?W m2D
my g p
'
ia
co Z
m D
0
?
w
m z 0 aiD
cn m
+ T. A O
-
0 z 3
z

O
N -' z
O m
r

N ?
+
0)
p
p
o O
r r
,

7
fQ
? C
? m ? m
m

n Q m
N
Z
v
? C

v a

? m
x 3
? m

m
m
? n

Z ' c

a

to
a

T
n

O ?
a
c ? m

3
?

m
a
S
x, n

nmm
vwz
.d c
? ?
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3696
State Project No. 8.2511001
Federal Project No. BRZ-2579 (1)
A. Project Description:
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 84 on SR 2579 over Jones
Creek in Rockingham County. The bridge will be replaced with a 70-foot (21.3-
m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tieing into the existing alignment for approximately 500 feet
(152.4 m) on either side of the new bridge. Guardrail will be installed where
warranted. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 84 has a sufficiency rating of 19.0 out of a possible 100. The
deck and substructure of this 50-year old bridge are in poor condition. Therefore,
the bridge needs to be replaced. Rehabilitation is not practical due to the age of
the structure and a timber substructure.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
dO Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity.for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
2
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 575,000
Right of Way $ 27,000
Total $ 602,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1300 vpd
Year 2025 - 2000 vpd
TTST - 1%
Dual - 2%
Proposed Typical Cross Section:
The approach roadway cross section will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes and 6-foot (1.8-m) grassed shoulders. The shoulder width will be
increased to 9 feet (2.7-m) where guardrail is installed.
Design Speed:
60 mph (100 km/h) (Design exception for vertical alignment may be
required.)
Functional Classification:
Rural Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
The Division Seven Construction Office concurs in the recommendation
to replace Bridge No. 84 in approximately the same location as the existing
bridge while detouring traffic along surrounding roads.
Bridge Demolition:
Bridge No. 84 contains three spans totaling 53 feet (16.2 m) in length.
The entire bridge is composed of timber. Therefore, Bridge No. 84 will be
removed without dropping any of its components into Waters of the United
States.
3
I
E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource? ? X
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
X

(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated? ?
X
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely ?
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)? ?
X
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? X
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any ?
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? X
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? X
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
X
4
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel ?
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned

growth or land use for the area? ?
X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or

business? ?
X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority

or low-income population? a
X
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the

amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? ?
X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land

use of adjacent property? ?
X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local

traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ?
X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing

roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? ?
X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws

relating to the environmental aspects of the project? ?
X
5
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/pro -:erties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of 1- oric Places?
X
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ?
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and ?
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
lion regaraing all untavorable responses in Part E should be- povided
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
(2) The smooth coneflower grows in meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar
barrens, roadsides, power line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs.
Plants usually grow in soil derived from calcareous parent material. Optimal sites
occur in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition from other
herbaceous plants. Natural fires and large herbivores are important to the
maintenance of the smooth coneflower habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
The open woodlands, roadsides, and clearcuts required by the smooth coneflower
are present in the project study area. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted for
the smooth coneflower on July 11, 2002 during the optimal survey window. The
smooth coneflower was not observed during the site investigations in its prefered
habitat within the project study area. Additionally, a review of the NHP database
on March 6, 2002 revealed no records of existing populations of the smooth
coneflower within 1.0 mi (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore, project
construction will not affect the smooth coneflower.
6
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No
Project Description:
B-3696
8.2511001
BRZ-2579 (1)
This project proposes to replace Bridge No. 84 on SR 2579 over Jones
Creek in Rockingham County. The bridge will be replaced with a 70-foot (21.3-
m) long bridge in approximately the same location and roadway elevation as the
existing bridge. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot
(3.6-m) lanes with 4-foot (1.2-m) offsets. Approach work will consist of
resurfacing and tieing into the existing alignment for approximately 500 feet
(152.4 m) on either side of the new bridge. Guardrail will be installed where
warranted. Traffic will be detoured along surrounding roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
TYPE II (A)
X TYPE II (B)
Approved:
ae
$d
to
/d 802
Date
Assistant Branch Manager .
Project Development & Envi
Analysis Branch
ect Development Engineer
ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II (B) projects only:
l4 /f7/02
Date

kp< Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
7
tsnage tcepiacement rrogram
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 84
on SR 2579 over Jones Creek
Rockingham County
Federal-Aid No. BRZ-2579(1)
State Project No. 8.2511001
T.I.P. No. B-3696
Roadway Design Unit, Roadside Environmental Unit, Division 7 Construction
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for `Bridge Demolition
and Removal' during the removal of Bridge No. 84.
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT performed a threatened and endangered species survey for the Smooth
coneflower on July 11, 2002. Habitat for the Smooth coneflower is present in the project
study area although no species were present. Therefore, the survey must be updated by
July 11, 2004 before the project islet August 17, 2004.
PDEA Page 1 of 1
May 16, 2002

t

Z I '
3 r?
LLE
).
t
• ?y
? ' .. -H
w?

oo?
J
{mil
r
r 29 _
JV
ti
r
r

r"
1
26'61 /..,
?y!
S, p
?7a
.2
_
?o NowrN? NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
'
?.;. TRANSPORTATION
?
II' DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
lm =`
•a ?,?
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Bt
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 84 ON SR 2572
OVER JONES CREEK
B-3696
Figure I
25? f"
2
247
2587 ?? ?'

STATE,
5W ?.?NF
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 12, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analys)s Branch
From: David Brook LL .',%V?;?,) ?/ 1
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 84 on SR 2579 over Jones Creek.
TIP No. B-3696, Rockingham County, ER 00-8456
On March 7, 2000, April Montgomery of our staff met with North Carolina Department of Transportation
(NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. We reported our available
information on historic architectural and archaeological surveys and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discuss at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures located within the area
of potential effect. We recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources. which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction. We,
therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical Exclusion or
Environmental Assessment, which indicates how NCDOT addressed our comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address "telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NU 27699-4617 i919) 733-4763 733-8(6i3
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC .4619 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 27699-4619 1919) 733-73,42 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NU 4613 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NiC 27699-.1613 (919) 733-bi47 71i-4?0 1
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NU 27699-4(i11 0919) 733-654i - -15-4801
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 84 ON SR 2579
OVER JONES CREEK
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3696
State Project No, 8.2511001
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Issued: March 2002
?p4 U%
P
Table of Contents
1.0 INTRODUCTION .....................................................................................................................................
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION .........................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY .....................................................................................................................................................1
1.4 QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS ..................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ..........................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES .......................................................................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS ......................................................................................................................................................................2
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ..............................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Surface Water Characteristics ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .................................................................................................................................. 3
2.2.3 Water Quality .................................................................................................................................................... 3
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts ............................................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES .............................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed ........................................................................................................................................6
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES .......................................................................................................................................6
3.3 HABITAT SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................................. 6
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS .................................................................................................................................. 7
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES ......................................................................................................................... 7
4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters ............................................................................................................................ 8
4.1.2 Permits ...............................................................................................................................................................8
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition ............................................................................................................................................. 8
4.1.4 Mitigation ..........................................................................................................................................................9
4.1.4.1 Avoidance .................................................................................................................................................................9
4.1.4.2 Minimization .............................................................................................................................................................9
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ......................................................................................................................................... 9
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES .........................................................................................................................10
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ............................................................................................................................10
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species .....................................................................................11
5.0 REFERENCES ........................................................................................................................................................13
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Habitat Within Project Area
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. HABITAT WITHIN PROJECT AREA ............................................................................................................6
TABLE 2. FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES FOR ROCKINGHAM COUNTY ...................................................10
TABLE 3. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR ROCKINGHAM COUNTY ......................................................12
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page ii
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is located in southeastern Rockingham County
(Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 84 on State Road 2579 over Jones Creek.
The project length is approximately 1,000.00 ft (304.80 m).
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog, and describe the various natural resources
that may be impacted by the proposed action. Recommendations are made for measures that will
minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only in the context of
the recommended project area. If the project area changes, additional field investigations may
need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted before field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the project area include: Williamsburg (1972) U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map, Williamsburg (1997) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetlands
Inventory Map, Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS) soil maps, and North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) aerial photographs of the project area (1:1,200). Water
resource information was obtained from the Department of Environment, Health, and Natural
Resources publications (DEHNR, 1996). Federal and State protected species information was gathered
from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected species and species of concern, and the
N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species and unique habitats.
LandMark Design Group, Inc. (LandMark) environmental scientists Corn Faquin and Linda Diebolt
conducted field surveys along the proposed alignment on March 11, 2002. Plant communities and their
associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification involved using one or more of
the following observation techniques: active search and capture, visual observations, and identification
of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat, tracks, and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland
delineations were performed utilizing the criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 1
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Corri Faquin, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., April 2001 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 2000
B.S. Biological Science, North Carolina State University, 2001
Experience: Associate Scientist, Biolex, Inc. Pittsboro, NC, January 2000 to March 2001
Laboratory Technician, Department of Forestry, North Carolina State
Universitt. , January 1999 to May 2000
2) Investigator: Linda Diebolt, Senior Environmental Scientist
LandMark Design Group, Inc., February 2002 to Present
Education: B.S. Biological Science, Marine Biology with Concentration in
Botany, University of North Carolina at Wilmington, 1986
Experience: Fifteen years experience as a Wetland Scientist and an
Environmental Scientist
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Area denotes the area
bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area within a 0.50 mi (0.81
km) radius of the project 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 that occur in the project area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this section of
Rockingham County is characterized by nearly level areas, ridgetops, side slopes, and stream
floodplains. Project elevation is approximately 600.00 ft (182.88 m) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Three soil series occur within the project area: Chewacla loam, Pacolet sandy clay loam, and Madison
sandy clay loam. Soil phase description information was obtained from the Soil Survey of
Rockingham County, North Carolina (1992). They are as follows:
Chewacla loam (non-hydric) is a poorly drained soil found in nearly level or slightly concave areas
parallel to major streams on floodplains. Permeability is moderate and the seasonal high water
table occurs 0.50 to 1.50 ft (0.15 to 0.46 m) below the surface. Wetness and flooding are the major
limitations for this soil type.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 2
• Pacolet sandy clay loam (non-hydric) with 8.00 to 15.00 percent slopes is a well-drained soil found
on long, narrow, convex side slopes. Permeability is moderate. Slope and the clayey subsoil are
the main limitations for this soil type.
• Madison sandy clay loam (non-hydric) with 8.00 to 15.00 percent slopes is a well-drained soil
found in lower areas on narrow, convex side slopes. Permeability is moderate. The high content of
clay in the surface layer is the major limitation for this soil type.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources within the project area. Water
resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water
systems, Best Usage Standards, and water quality of the resources. Surface water resources and
minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Surface Water Characteristics
Jones Creek and an unnamed tributary to Jones Creek are surface water resources within the project
area. These water resources are located in sub-basin 03-02-03 of the Roanoke River Basin.
The average baseflow width of Jones Creek is approximately 15.00 ft (4.57 m). Average depth is
approximately 1.50 ft (0.46 m). The substrate of Jones Creek was observed to be composed of silt.
LandMark observed the flow within Jones Creek to be moderate and the clarity to be fair.
The average baseflow width of the unnamed tributary to Jones Creek is 7.00 ft (2.13 m), with an
average depth of 1.00 ft (0.30 m). The substrate of the unnamed tributary was observed to be
composed of silt and pebbles. LandMark observed the flow within the tributary to be moderate and the
clarity to be fair. Several storm water drainage ditches flow into the unnamed tributary to Jones Creek
and are located within the project area; however, no water was present in the ditches at the time of
LandMark's site reconnaissance.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
All streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the N.C. Division of Water Quality
(DWQ). The classification of Jones Creek in the project area is C (DEHNR, 1996). Class C refers to
waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 3
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Before implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic
macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There is a BMAN station
(DEM No. 22-50-3) located on Jones Creek at State Road 2632 in Rockingham County within
1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area. The station received a bioclassification rating of "good" in
January 1992.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have life cycle stages that can last from six months to one year.
Therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill may not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution; therefore, 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.
In North Carolina, point source dischargers are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Permits are required for all point source discharges. There is
no point source discharger on Jones Creek within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
2.2.4 Ecological Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is usually
preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacement
at a new location usually results in greater impacts. Usually, project construction does not disturb the
entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts will be less than reported in Table 1 of Section 3.3. '
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from demolition debris and/or erosion resulting from
vegetation removal and soil disturbance during construction,
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 increased sun and wind exposure resulting from
streamside vegetation removal,
5. Increased nutrient loading from the stormwater runoff of areas disturbed during construction,
and/or
6. Increased input of toxic compounds from demolition, construction, toxic spills, and highway
runoff.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 4
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the project area. The
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 diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to prevent water resource contamination by
toxic substances during the demolition and construction phases must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the project area, as well as, the relationships between flora and fauna 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 project 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 plant and animal
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980), and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
. 3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project area (Figure 2): Dry Oak-Hickory
Forest and maintained/disturbed. Community boundaries within the project area are well defined as
shown in Figure 2. Faunal species likely to occur within the project area will exploit all community
types for shelter, foraging opportunities, and/or as wildlife corridors.
3.1.1 Dry Oak-Hickory Forest
The Dry Oak-Hickory Forest occurs throughout the entire project area with the exception of the
maintained/disturbed community adjacent to the existing roadway (see Figure 2). The Dry Oak-
Hickory Forest consists of mature hardwood areas, immature hardwood areas, and a scrub/shrub area.
The canopy is dominated by sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and white oak (Quercus alba) with
river birch (Betula nigra) adjacent to Jones Creek and the unnamed tributary to Jones Creek. Dominant
sapling species include sycamore, yellow poplar, red maple (Acer rubrum), and beech (Fagus
grandifolia). The shrub layer consists of flowering dogwood (Cornus jlorida) and privet (Ligustrum
sp.), with strawberry bush (Euonymus americanus) adjacent to Jones Creek and the unnamed tributary
to Jones Creek. The herbaceous and vine layers are sparse and consist of several species of greenbrier
(Smilax sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), and
blackberry (Rubus argutus).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #.• B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 5
Avian species associated with the Dry Oak-Hickory Forest include field sparrow (Spizella pusilla),
Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), chestnut-sided warbler (Dendroica pensylvanica), common
crow* (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and several species of songbirds*.
Wildlife species associated with this community type include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), eastern
cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus), and raccoon (Procyon lotor).
3.1.2 Maintained/Disturbed
The maintained/disturbed community occurs along the roadside shoulders of State Road 2579 for the
entire length of the project area. The maintained/disturbed community is predominantly vegetated by
grass (Festuca sp.). Faunal species frequenting the maintained/disturbed community will include those
inhabiting the Dry Oak-Hickory Forest.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Jones Creek and an unnamed tributary to Jones Creek are aquatic communities located within the
project area. Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence
faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities. Vegetation along the banks of Jones Creek and the tributary to
Jones Creek includes those species present in the Dry Oak-Hickory Forest.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities include various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Aquatic species likely to occur in Jones Creek include gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum), silver
redhorse (Moxostoma anisurum), grass carp (Ctenopharyngodon idella), creek chub (Semotilus
atromaculatus), eastern ribbon snake (Thamnophis sauritus), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and two-
lined salamander'(Eurycea bislineata). Invertebrates that would be present include various species of
caddisfly (Trichoptera), mayfly (Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonfly (Odonata), and
damselfly (Odonata).
3.3 Habitat Summary
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. Table 1 quantifies the habitat communities within the project area.
Table 1. Habitat Within Protect Area.
Community Wetland` Upland Totals
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest - 0.77 ac (0.31 ha) 0.77 ac (0.31 ha)
Maintained/Disturbed - - 0.45 ac (0.18 ha) 0.45 ac (0.18 ha)
Tributary to Jones Creek - - 0.01 ac (0.004 ha)
Jones Creek - - 0.03 ac (0.01 ha)
Total 0.00 ac (0.00 ha) 1.22 ac (0.49 ha) 1.26 ac (0.50 ha)
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 196002=1-M50.99 Page 6
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 84 and its associated improvements may reduce habitat
for some faunal species. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that
impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early succession
habitat. Reduced habitat may displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other
wildlife by the creation of early successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction
activities may 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 project-related work may 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 in excessive amounts
can clog the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-
feeders), fish, and amphibian species. Benthic organisms may also be covered by excessive amounts of
sediment. Some of these organisms may be slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the stream bank enhance 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 increase turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside clearing also leads to more direct
sunlight penetration causing elevations in water temperatures, which may affect some species. Based
on the potential for increased sedimentation, it is recommended that silt curtains be used during
construction.
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 jurisdictional 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, as
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 within the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 7

4.1.1 Wetlands and Surface Waters
Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands
Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach was used. Hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation,
and certain specific hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a
wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project area.
Jones Creek and an unnamed tributary to Jones Creek are surface waters under Section 404 of the
Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Jones Creek covers 0.03 ac (0.01 ha) and 80.00 if (24.38 lm) of the
project area. The unnamed tributary to Jones Creek covers 0.01 ac (0.004 ha) and 20.00 if (6.10 lm) of
the project area. Discussion of the biological, physical, and water quality aspects of all surface waters
in the project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result,
construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies in charge
of protecting the water quality of public water resources.
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "Waters of
the United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where 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:
• 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
• The office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's
application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ before the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "Waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ
is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.3 Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 84 has three spans totaling 53.00 ft (16.15 m) in length. The entire bridge is composed of
timber. Therefore, Bridge No. 84 will be removed without dropping any of its components into
"Waters of the United States".
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 8
T 7
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy that 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 COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology, and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "Waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, right-of-way 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 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 practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in every permit action. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation may be required for unavoidable, adverse impacts that remain
after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory actions often
include restoration, creation, and enhancement of "Waters of the United States." Such actions should
be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever practicable.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23. Impact
thresholds for mitigation are as follows:
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 9
• 0.10 to 1.00 ac (0.04 to 0.40 ha) of wetland impacts may require mitigation;
• 1.00 ac (0.40 ha) or more of wetland impacts will require mitigation;
• 150.00 if (45.721m) or more of stream impacts will require mitigation.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of flora and fauna have been in, or are in, the process of decline due to either natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of April 12, 2001, the FWS lists
two federally protected species for Rockingham County (Table 2). A brief description of the
characteristics and habitat requirements for these species along with a conclusion regarding potential
project impacts follows.
Table 2. Federally protected species of Rockingham County.
Scientific Name Common Name Federal Status
Echinacea laevigata Smooth coneflower Endangered
Pleurobema collina James spinymussel Endangered
Endangered - A taxon "in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range."
Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower) Endangered
Plant Family_ Asteraceae
Federally Listed: December 9, 1991
The smooth coneflower was once found in all of the Atlantic Coast states from Pennsylvania to
Georgia, on the Gulf Coast in Alabama, and inland in Arkansas. Populations are now limited to
Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia.
Smooth coneflower is a perennial herb with fleshy roots, hairless stems, and few leaves. It grows to
20.00 to 39.00 in (50.80 to 99.06 cm) in height, has a smooth stem, and few leaves. The simple leaves
are smooth, with toothed edges, lance-shaped with rounded bases at the base of the stem, and smaller
and elliptic at mid-stem. The leaves measure 4.00 to 8.00 in (10.16 to 20.32 cm) in length and 1.00 to
3:00 in (2.54 to 7.62 cm) in width. Flowers are light pink to purple, solitary, and 0.79 to 0.98 in (2.00
to 2.50 cm) across. Flowering occurs from May to July and fruiting occurs from June to October.
Fruits are small, gray-brown, oblong, one-seeded, and usually four-angled.
The smooth coneflower grows in meadows, open woodlands, glades, cedar barrens, roadsides, power
line rights-of-way, clearcuts, and dry limestone bluffs. Plants usually grow in soil derived from
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 10
calcareous parent material. Optimal sites occur in areas with abundant sunlight and little competition
from other herbaceous plants. Natural fires and large herbivores are important to the maintenance of
the smooth coneflower habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The open woodlands, roadsides, and clearcuts required by the smooth coneflower are present in the
project area. A plant-by-plant survey was not conducted for this species nor were any observed during
the March 11, 2002 site investigation. Additionally, a review of the NHP database on March 6, 2002
revealed no records of existing populations of the smooth coneflower within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the
project area. An additional field survey will be conducted between May and July during the optimal
survey window for the smooth coneflower. A letter will be attached as an addendum to this report after
the completion of the survey for the smooth coneflower.
Pleurobema collina (James spinymussel) Endangered
Animal Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: 1988
The James spinymussel is found in the James River basin, Virginia, and West Virginia.
This mussel is usually found in a variety of substrates including sand, gravel, cobble, and mixed
materials on the bottoms of streams and rivers. They generally require a slow to moderate current, and
clean, well-oxygenated water. The James spinymussel lives in a variety of environments ranging from
large rivers to shallow streams.
The James spinymussel has an oblong shell approximately 2.00 in (5.08 cm) in size. This mussel is
one of three freshwater mussels where prominent spines can be found on juvenile shells. The adults
have a dark brown shell and the spines are typically absent or reduced.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: UNRESOLVED
The NCDOT will conduct a biological assessment to determine any potential impacts to this species
due to construction of the proposed bridge. The NHP database of rare species and unique habitats
reviewed on March 6, 2002 revealed no records of existing populations of the James spinymussel
within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the project area.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally listed or
proposed as threatened or endangered. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and
therefore should be included for consideration. FSC are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms that
are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the NHP list of Rare Plant
and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under the N.C. State Endangered Species Act and the
N.C. Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 11
There are two FSC listed by the FWS for Rockingham County. A survey for these species was not
conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species observed. A review of the NHP database
of rare species and unique habitats on March 6, 2002 revealed no FSC within 1.00 mi (1.61 km) of the
project area.
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern for Roi
Scientific Name Common Name NC Status Habitat
Lotus helleri Heller's trefoil SR-T Yes
Lasmigona subviridis Green floater E Yes
"E"-- A taxon in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of it's range.
"T" -- A taxon likely to become extinct within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of it's range.
".SR"--A Significantly Rare species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation, or disease. The species is
generally more common elsewhere in its. range, occurring peripherally in North Carolina.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 12
t
5.0 REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina.
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Basinwide Information Management System, [Online]. Available:
h4p://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/Reports/reports.html [2002, March 5].
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Lists of Active Permits, [Online]. Available: http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xls
[2002, March 6].
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.
NCDEHNR 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEHNR. 1995. Guidance for Rating the Values of Wetlands in North Carolina. Division of
Environmental Management.
NCDENR. 1996. Roanoke River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. March 2000. Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program
Biological Conservation Database.
Palmer, Willliam M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3rd. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696 March 2002
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99 Page 13
•
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. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA. 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North Carolina. US Department of Agriculture,
Soil Conservation Service.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Endangered, Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal
Species of Concern, Rockingham County, North Carolina.
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.
North Carolina Department of Transportation TIP #: B-3696
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-M50.99
March 2002
Page 14
f T
---
North Carolina Department
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch
or Tot
Rockingham County
Replace Bride No. 84 on SR 2579
Over Jones Crock
B-3696
r--S-(---11 E: I in = I mi I:i ure I

tsh,dgn
CONTRA CT.- C20I004 TIP PROJECT: 8-3696
0 0 0
N 0 O O
O m
_ n
O
N H
o ? o o
O .r
N ? y
n? v ; c
n+ u n u u u u
0c 0 00 o co
PF
a3E3e?•o? a
O aR _
-? m
O Z z
r
O c o
o o y
46-
m m
f?
CA. a
10
P
0 o O
r
N O O
W Cp ?h
m? b
cS
O
C
pa
r
m in
x ti
x
Ox r
? "s ? O )Z
0111 ? ? ?
J cnn?,
n
+
g ? -
A?
o A
? a
o
o n ?
0 0?
{0 ?
F?
KNOWLES RD.(SR 2588) y
ti
ro
ON o
o
$ z y
O!z e
o0z
z
S
b CA ca I(7?
c NAD 83 N W
0. P,
a
r ??

ti
38
rdy_tsh.dgn
C. S. i
O. ° ° M
M :E c
'a m 3
0
O ? O
0
= x
c
O. C
o ?
C)
O Q N N N Q m
'O Q 3 3 3. g? 0 3
O.
79C
O N '
c I 3 c ?'!
S ? ? ?IJ
I
m c o c c bA m m n m°
a 0 3 S. o c
O O W o s 1?
Qi O M 0
O
?.
-0 SO

?5 I ° I I I m m IDf?I D? 0 ololl
I ?I IlY
? 6 I ? I I / I
'? I I I ? y I I' I I I I
?--? I I I I I I I ? I I I I I
NC W T-1 1N ? "Or a -a -a m 0° C O O O s C A° -1 -u
a°« A_ °
F*H " F F
3 p O O N -i 7 ?- ?• C O O o? A O O O O O O 2 O a 0 •° O
O °. m' 3 N al ° O v o o°$ s p o A ?° 30 3 3 .a •°o a s
;v
I- • c o c o ° p 2.00 a
t° a. 03 on 0
_ n m m
° c 0° -o c o'
0-2 ?
'
3 0
O o 0 0 - c s° t i S s an 7 a 11 5-3-2-E:
002 c x' qf --I
o_ o 3 °
°° f oo; ° o °._
0, OX
Oo a ?
rt . ; °.
, i i i I I 1 , I
;
BOO e 0 (9 (9 -Co -C> El e(9 ?K 4, 0 0.
2T7F3:MT o 77 T R- a arAO n w
mao QC cm cz c v c: =0 to
MM a
> > -T ABC o 9' 3 3 3 ° °' != ; on
O A 3` a O N O
O. `
O O Q °
Q ; ; q. i i
rt r-
. Q ? I
C c o c
Q 3
m m E 4 1. P• 0? N? I I I I I
m Ono m x
m W ? m W I '
II I?I ?IIII
N N S Q:* = N N
A N_ , S O o m
S m C ?° ° M O O O
o a a a c s,
2
V m
O
I I
p
5 ?
H
O
C
s
a 0 A
C
cr O
S Q
°
i
I '
3?
3
3
i
i
I
i
-O v M x 3:
• T "s a
S

3 ?
°- o
.
On a C a
v s n
°
s g a 9
CL

o

I

I I

I
Y

f 1
1
I

I ? II

I ? I II

gv ;o v c v ° v v c? v v v g?
n a m b
CL. -?? n? a n3a o m a n3 a 3 a 433 moo , a ? .o a
?
CL IL IL -1 a- 11
O :-C T O m A 0 M O S
gg 3 .7
0 1;
3- 0
3 m O
3 O O _
:I car
E i A ?• ° N i i C i O ' to
L7 °• ° o ° A g° C I rn 0 C
a A O ° in ^ N' O d N I ,3 A O
' H C o- c C °
C ~'
M P,
a in 9
m
..
m
I
f i l l I? I
I I I ? I
I
e l I I I I I ?, H N
O O < < ? t?j P~I i I i 9 N f? ? ? N
IIIII1111111III I??

x
C M 0

c I I
3 O'
O
°
i
??o
a' 3 a O
40 O C N
c
b
d

II I
I ; I I

??
I o
M i

I I
I I I ? ?
I
I I I I
1 Y
' I
? I I
i

i . I

I A
SSN

3
m
0
O
'O R '
'
0 n •O
v v
a
a
v '0
a g p
v Q
v
s o •
o o
- • }
9
O

c •
c g A
A 7"

p N

C t/i

O
P. CA a. a. I I
3 g ?'?- 40 o 3
< C ? a 7? a
?
I l a ?-np
3 O ? ? ? ?
n O
s

I I

c a ° 3

Q C
?

°
v
V S

i

S

o c
7 Q.
o
M.
N
I
1
i
I
I
i
i
n
O
z
m
Z
O
Z
D
r
tJ1
3
O
r
to
r?
T

I' ?l
*0 00
L 11
h
5/28/99
N
C
I
N
C
A
Cm
C
M
Z
C)
T
M
M
®®
C

rdy_typ.dgn

r 0
tr
m v
+ + _
N O 0
I w
N86 m
0 07O
m -- -
m N
?? C Zf
14
+ +
w

po
$co rn

70

F
r
C -1 m
r C- N m N 0 N i
m
X.
" CI o
a s
n m>v
A io >v
-?o my „
am o
'
' v
o m>v
moo >>la
< o
S -?
z
c
r
ME
v
ets'
Co
?
?
=A9
my
ts'
ats•'
O O M. t! ;
a a A<
aOmTs <9
m9 O
??• ? O?
9 m<
Om? <9
m

m
m
m
•e
>
<
m
a
m
A
.i

zz
a
o
o-
mm
l
y
oa
mo
a-
..?
s
o D

1

m
Isil
1.1
a
s >
O
m
o
1'mm
X
am-
i
l
o
m
X

-IN
i v
mm
i
X
m• r
C p
> i 7 a 12 sm U
O m m m? A? ?? m? D
m
- O m
0-8 /
71 ?T m:mss i<119 in 119
^1 m 54 ay S+-ri 01 M
M T
; C Wye ?0 .
mm0 mri 000 p-ri m
m
A
at
10 m
71
Fa
m?.
rG
=
d
m
m
!I m Z
a 9 OM °9m ,.?

r
v
'a
om
a?? m
s.. m
s mm
am N
-1 A ..• m m 0.1 mz a. 11 aca n
a g cgs ii ra
3 zam s =
m c m

mi 0M.-1
a +Yzm
' z>i
1" i70o z
a C
r
sK
° ' m?
-cc to "?°
omm
? m
u
°
a=° o? 177
-4m
Mim m m
•
?
p-m 09
M O!0 go1
m
- a
T
m
i
N
Ri
Z
N
OO.
0
z
N
V
P
N
61
m
+ m
Z
mm
m a
rn
s
s 's
Q 0:2
z < i s
1? ? rn 3 m ?
z } I b p
sz w a a z a?
C m N s m z o ?T
Z `3 I Q O s N
rn la N '?.
I? ? N
N o. 00 P
N O.
nin
Z
N ? 7
? ? TT
i ca
O ? m N co
S.
+
?
m p z
$ m+
?o o o
Viz"' ? z O$
OAP + O O? O
0 N Z N
N ? +
T+ O v
Do
Z
y
pA
G
as
8p NT
OOO O
NNE Z
++ o
S J
S
rA
Q ? '? • • p4 y?5 r ? I ,, I I I ? AG
-
Q , I ACSta 1/+99.54
y
Ott,
Q •' . M p? ? I I
9 O HQ
? yam.., •. * / ? .. ?
I MINI Q
Arn
A ?y?a
nr ,97
W
?d?oD b
?] •q •? a•u15 / a?iaaa.
b r \ Pill : Tov M
pti
a r r ??' a C
° a = ? _ ?n J7:?w
oao = -•
P
+ u ii a 777 / 7 Q V)
• rt ± y R'? J '
3b / ? / `/ ???tir?op?
s aaaaa??
ni v)
"' `caES Musa ezae? _ J
y ro q
Q a / z- p +
41 Q / log 7
N
NADT f"
1 I ?: ?' b
" " sp(4 b R ~
I I I " ? 25 -
IOU SaSa
L L GRAVEL p4N£ ? ? f C'
? ? ? SY
r3 i 6 G« `? .Yi ! J r. ? Q' 't 4?'F a r x ? H ;
3
? S'i . 3 1.a ? ? a r V' x r', s
.r? ire ., ? ! h f v' "7 ;t t ;r. '?. it ,. y. 3. :; <<= f .;> # r ?. lr? < L F >• P6111
!d-
2 .i
K a{ ?i y e
,r
r
- Y ft ' ,'t'<,?5-:. ? tF .?. ?< =r? '? i?" ? ? '" S _ a i? ; iR ( `? ° ? IYi' ??? =gnr'•: t"Atz...
'f z tti' ?'?? [a'? 3 ar ? ./1F: yt?, . ? f # < :(; }}# { ? ? ,? Atg?.v , c- ? .1(= •.
44
•r '? < '? > .wf FY":'"'y7r' r sc'r K,? x,? K?'. '?'? <.} [. •Y z 'd w j
14 pit
NBA } Y { .Y mot,
..h- his s` : x f 3 < :? ,rL __#.' #? '?' 'a j jEi, 3Yr:'-A v >
'Im '?" Ry'F rj ' }v Tk < x , <`?, rsy f f 1 r: r D
'W r t ,k ? ?' t i1 ? #_? :, 1 ? i? ? . f# i? ?':, r•#? y? 7 ? :' :sue ?»>?;,d?? ?? ? y K
f>f
M Is V 4,
t ', £ _'.. r? ? ?} ?'?- LS+'t __. 1? ?s? ?' ?? iii c ; :' ?}, Y! ? .? - ?^'' ?Ck+u? ¢ ? ?•`??&&&1 5 Jr '- a? '?!?
Alto
yW y Y j a- . C yy I lj {.
Alt
'?'•.. y1 ,. f s 1 > r ? ?'jiti ? ? 1??? i? v g ? s-G? ? •?.• ,?? Lr ?" ! '!'? ,?t' -
r
}
K?s T
? ?"',?r ?1 ; 'r,? a '. 'r > ,.:. €.?a? ,I'?+`h, r •?r K, ?_.1L,'Tt ?. '
r sx ?fC-,? ? ? 1 1"f : ?'?- ? ?. ?''{<`ri:• .??'»? r?'*•,ty' ?'G,y-?? {7. ? > 'P''? .r?, x r
?- Est s: r.. T,?S }yk•t? s w> 'a< '? r > r? yg A4,.'1. ? ? ? } _?"« ;?.y r Ss?.: 'k7' Y
7 .
"X=
.•t>"r'? i.:!'?h'a'slM? ?' .f r r ' 'x k .s`'Y? j r> ?'; -^V t9 ' d?L?'^ri ""!h' T r'e ?s
- W r s _ '.??'y?Y:^,:f js??+t"?}?,•'E?. ?»?r,,A?,"A?' r?,rrjt'.r?«ts'l.', jt? o-. .c' :>T ? t r »? : ? z,
G L?,< T} r? ?Y ,a 1 lk`r^ ?y
-'? i?+Y 1 ri_ }`)III : „}.? +r 'u> A''' lr.r? »`•+ '7!".' ! i' ':i 'f, H , }?'..?ri f
WIN
i jh fit; ff 'f 1} yri.
z n K 3? t >,
&-I 'Pak "r jv4-
f s:=? ? ?- ? ? `r ?". ' f +?', .:. ..? .. r wt r i W d(. ? ..?;w? N !<» b':=?y ? ?M'.H - .,Oy- . ? .?a:ri'1^ -
,t.
},. <.lr - _ w ?.w vs ,K +2y„ % Q?+' s rli F? r r, jt z:"Y :, 1 ;
{ C... > a - ' +? 1 k •a" „G#` rrw 3 x
F : k?'t"?',?'' 2' A' ? II"'`` ?? C?' ? 1'^:? t S,c' OF?? ? 'S ?r?1?•;
< n T? SIN
€ K ? a u ?,
tit: tool! Y - V• ` rI:' r» ,114 .._Kr'. Y A'.< s.'0 ,?,a= `iC `'lr J?
? r
4 AT,
vl
? • ? f?? f.<??'k f j rF' us jrK E ?` '. • i ,- w ? h? ? '? ??i?`'
?I
rS E ? ? ?i€` rrtr,,
a
yrrs
v'? i9
Y ? :v
41
f

1 "•?N

r
i
8
A11+ . r.
1iy't.

_...I ?? ? tYP63.i

a

a
ca)

' 1
r.
GL4 11H
,?.sU*Eo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
May 2, 2000
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Development Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3696, Rockingham County, Replacement of Bridge No. 84 on
SR 2579 over Jones Creek, State Project 8.2511001,
F. A. Project BRZ-2579(1)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on March 7, 2000.
The following people were in attendance:
Mike Cowan Division Seven Construction
Derek Bradner Location and Surveys Unit
Roy Girolami Structure Design Unit
Jerome Nix Hydraulics Unit
Lanette Ingham Programming and TIP Unit
April Alperin State Historic Preservation Office
Art McMillan Roadway Design Unit
Gary Lovering Roadway Design Unit
Heather Montague Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Karen Orthner Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
The Transportation Director for Rockingham County Schools stated that he could
re-route buses during construction in the case of road closure.
Steven Hales, EMS Coordinator for Rockingham County Schools, stated that road
closure was not a problem as long as notification was given in ample time to re-route the
EMS response efforts.
Mike Cowan, Division Seven Construction Engineer, recommended closing the
road and detouring traffic along surrounding roads during construction of the new bridge.
1*11
April Alperin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) recommended no
architectural surveys in connection with this project. In addition, April recommended no
archaeological surveys in the case of replacing the bridge in place with an off-site detour.
Jerome Nix recommended that the bridge be replaced with a 70-foot long bridge
in approximately the same location and roadway grade as the existing bridge.
Sid Autry of Location and Surveys did not locate any utilities at the project site.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) commented that
standard WRC comments apply to this project.
Curtis Yates of the Bicycle and Pedestrian Division commented that this section
of SR 2579 is not a part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP as needing
incidental bicycle accommodations.
Art McMillan and Gary Lovering of Roadway Design recommended replacing the
bridge in approximately the same location as the existing bridge and detouring traffic
along surrounding roads during construction. In addition, they noted that the roadway
design could require a longer bridge with a slightly higher grade than that of the existing
bridge.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Proiect Schedule:
The Categorical Exclusion document from Project Development and
Environmental Analysis is due January, 2001. The right-of-way acquisition date is
scheduled for March, 2002 and the construction let date is scheduled for March, 2003.
Existing Bridle Information:
Bridge No. 84 was built in 1952. It is 53 feet long and 20 feet wide. The current
weight limit for the bridge is posted 9 tons for single vehicles and 15 tons for truck
transfer semi-trailers. The sufficiency rating for the bridge is 19.0 out of 100.
Traffic Information:
SR 2579 is classified as a Rural Minor Collector in the Functional Classification
System. SR 2579 has a 55-mph posted speed limit in the project vicinity and a 40-mph
cautionary speed limit across the bridge. The current average daily traffic (ADT) is
1200 vehicles per day (vpd) and the projected 2025 ADT is 2000 vpd. Approximately
2% of the ADT are dual trucks and I% of the ADT are truck transfer semi-trailers.
Crash Data:
No accidents were reported in the bridge vicinity from November 1996 until
December 1999.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATES
r_
During the alternate discussion, Gary Lovering of Roadway Design agreed to
complete the preliminary cost estimates and roadway sketches by September, 2000. One
alternate emerged from the scoping meeting for evaluation as follows:
Alternate 1: Bridge No. 84 will be replaced with a 70-foot long bridge in
approximately the same location as the existing bridge. Traffic will be detoured along
surrounding roads during construction.
New Cross Section: Due to some inconsistencies between the 1994 Greenbook and the
Roadway Design Unit Design Manual, Roadway Design will be responsible for choosing
the appropriate reference and indicating their choice in their cost estimate.