20071686 Ver 1_Application_20071005

,,. SfATF v~
,pao.,
.~~
.~~~.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTZVIEENTT OF TRANSPORTATION '~~ti
~, v
~3
~ o
o~
G ~
i~
~ 0,
Ql
~ o
~~
v I~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Richard Spencer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
~~
~~ ~/j
~Cr oV
~~
~T~r~F^'k'• ~0
OSgNO cT t~k ~~ OJ
ORM~'9 ~~~
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
07?636
Subject: Application for Section 404 Nationwide 23 Permit for the replacement of Bridge No.
88 over Ferrells Creek on SR 1525 (River Road), Chatham County. Federal Aid Project
Number BRZ-1525 (4), WBS No. 33276.1.1, State Project No. 8.2522101, Division 8,
T.I.P No. B-3824.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 116 foot
Bridge No. 88 over Ferrells Creek with a new 3 span bridge approximately 144 feet in length.
The new structure will be a 45 inch pre-stressed concrete girder bridge with one span at 30 feet,
one span at 60 feet and one span at 54 feet. The project will replace the current bridge with a
new bridge on its existing location, while using an offsite detour to maintain traffic during
construction. The new bridge will span the stream and no bents will be placed in the stream.
Please see the enclosed copies of the permit drawings, half size plan sheets, utility drawings, and
the United States Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) concurrence letter. A Programmatic Categorical
Exclusion (PCE) document was completed for this project in March 2005 and the Natural
Resources Technical Report (NRTR) was completed in September 2003. They were both
distributed shortly thereafter. Additional copies available upon request.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project is located in the Cape Fear River Basin (subbasin 03-06-04). This area is part of
Hydrologic Cataloging Unit 03030002. Ferrells Creek, DWQ Index # 16-32, is the only water
resource within the project area. Ferrells Creek is assigned a Best Usage Classification of WS-N
NSW. No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters (HQW),
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
NATURAL ENVIRONMENT UNIT
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
September 28, 2007
TELEPHONE: [phone] or
919-715-1335
FAX: [phone]
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD. SUITE 240
RALEIGH NC 27604
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG

Water Supply I (WS-I), or Water Supply (WS-II) occur within 1.0 mile of the project area.
Ferrells Creek is not listed as a 303(d) stream according to the Fina12006 303(d) list and there
are no 303(d) waters that occur within 1.0 mile of the project area.
The wetland is considered riverine based upon its location within the Ferrells Creek floodplain
and is classified as a palustrine, seasonally flooded, forested wetland supporting broad-leaved
deciduous vegetation (PFO1 C, Cowardin classification). A jurisdictional delineation information
package was sent on July 6, 2007 to the USACE Wilmington Office followed by Rapanos forms
that were sent on August 7, 2007.
Permanent Impacts
There will be 0.06 acres of riverine wetland impacts resulting from construction of
roadway/bridge approaches. There will be 0.03 acres of impact resulting from fill and 0.03 acres
of impact resulting from mechanized clearing in the riverine wetland.
There are no stream impacts associated with this project.
Utility Impacts
The proposed power poles are being relocated to the south side outside the wetland. However,
hand clearing will be necessary through a part of the wetland to allow fora 15 foot zone on each
side of the aerial power line to be used for future maintenance. The proposed aerial and buried
telephone lines will be relocated to the north side. All telephone line relocations will be aerial
except at Ferrells Creek where the telephone lines will be directionally bored under the creek.
The new power pole is shown in the attached utility drawing (Sheet 4 of 4) southwest of the
existing pole at Sta. 11+50 55 RT. The utility impact area shown is the area just outside that
which will occur due to the road construction. The utility impacts for hand clearing in the
wetland for the aerial power line is 0.02 acres.
Bridge Demolition
The existing 3- span bridge was constructed in 1953 and is 116 feet in length. The superstructure
consists of anasphalt-wearing surface, timber deck on steel I-beams supported by timber end
bents and timber piles. The substructure is composed of timber caps supported by timber piles.
Some of the interior bent timber piles do have concrete jackets around the base. Only one of the
two interior bents is located in the stream. It is expected that this bent will be pulled out with
minimal stream disturbance. Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
will be implemented during demolition and construction.
B-3824 Permit Application
Page 2 of 5

MITIGATION OPTIONS
Avoidance and Minimization and Compensatory Mitigation
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 impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the
planning and NEPA compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the
project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) §404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to waters of the US. The following is a list of the
project's jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by
NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization
• Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized through
implementation of stringent erosion control methods and use of Best Management Practices
(BMPs).
• Use of 2:1 fill slopes in jurisdictional area (Roadway plans sheets X-2 - X-3 and X-5).
• Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and for Demolition and
Removal will be implemented.
• Traffic will be detoured offsite.
• No staging of construction equipment or storage of construction supplies will be allowed in
wetlands or near surface waters.
• No bents will be placed in the channel.
• Limited instream activity.
• A longer bridge will be constructed, which will allow for better floodplain access.
Compensatory Miti atg_ion:
NCDOT has avoided and minimized impacts to jurisdictional resources to the greatest extent
possible as described above. The project will only have riverine wetland impacts. However,
NCDOT does not propose compensatory mitigation for the 0.08 acres of riverine wetland
impacts because wetland impacts are minimal.
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists four species
for Chatham County. Table 2 lists the species and their federal status.
B-3824 Permit Application
Page 3 of 5

Table 2. Federally Protected Species in Chatham County, NC
Scientific Federal Biological Habitat
Common Name
Name Status* Conclusion Present
Haliaeetus N~`~
Bald eagle Delisted No
leucoce halus
Notropis May Affect Not Likely
Cape Fear Shiner E yes
mekistocholas to Adversel Affect
Picoides No Effect
H erella
~ E No
borealis
Red cockaded Echinacea ~ No Effect

wood ecker
laevi ata E No
*E= endangered
Field surveys for the Cape Fear shiner were conducted on June 25, 2003 and May 22, 2007 by
NCDOT Biologists. A Biological Conclusion of "May Affect, Not Likely to Adversely
Affect" was determined for Cape Fear shiner based on presence of habitat, though no individuals
were found. Concurrence was received from USFWS on July 19, 2007(see attached letter dated
July 17, 2007). A project survey was conducted in March 2002 to establish presence of habitat
for harperella, red-cockaded woodpecker, and bald eagle. A Biological Conclusion of "No
Effect" was given in the NRTR for harperella and red-cockaded woodpecker due to lack of
habitat.
The bald eagle has been delisted as of August 8, 2007 and is not subject to Section 7 consultation
and a biological conclusion is not required. However, the bald eagle remains protected by the
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act. The location of the project is in both urban and disturbed
azeas within the City of Greensboro. No nesting or foraging habitat for bald eagles is present.
SCHEDULE
The project calls for a letting of January 15, 2008 (review date of November 27, 2007) with a
date of availability of February 26, 2008. It is expected that the contractor will choose to start
construction in February.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: Application is hereby made for the Department of Army Section 404 for the
issuance of a Nationwide Permit 23 for the above-described activities.
Section 401 Permit: We also hereby request a 401 General Water Quality Certification (WQC)
3632. The NCDOT will adhere to all general conditions of the WQC. Therefore, written
concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H 0.0501(a)
and 15A NCAC 2B 0.200 we aze providing two copies of this application to the North Cazolina
Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, as notification.
B-3824 Permit Application
Page 4 of 5

A copy of this permit application will be posted on the NCDOT Website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/doh/preconstruct/pe/. If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Deanna Riffey at [phone].
Sincere ,
~,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 Copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Victor Barbour, Project Services Unit
Mr. Tim Johnson, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Mr. Art King, Division 8 Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Scott McLendon, USAGE, Wilmington
Mr. Terry Hams, PDEA
B-3824 Permit Application
Page 5 of 5

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
July 17, 2007
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699- i ~ 98
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
RECE~~`~~ i,
JUL 19 2007
0~~~~ Ir~ CS i''iJ~i~r~'1~YS ~
PDEA•OFFICE 0; i~~ ~ ~'r~'~_ ~1NiROh'h1ENTJ
This letter is in response to your letter of July 13, 2007 which provided the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) with the biological determination of the North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) that the replacement of Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525 over Ferrells Creek
in Chatham County (TIP No. B-3824) may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the
federally endangered Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas). In addition, NCDOT has
determined that the proposed project will have no effect on the federally endangered red-
cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) and harperella (Ptilimnium nodosum). These
comments are provided in accordance with section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of
1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543).
According to information provided, fish surveys were conducted at the project site on June 25,
2003 and May 22, 2007. The surveys extended 100 meters upstream and 400 meters
downstream of SR 1525. No specimens of Cape Fear shiners were observed. Based on the
survey results and other information available, the Service concurs with your determination that
the proposed project may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect the Cape Fear shiner. Also,
due to the lack of habitat, the Service concurs with your determination that the proposed project
will have no effect on the federally endangered red-cockaded woodpecker and harperella. We
believe that the requirements of section 7(a)(2) of the ESA have been satisfied. We remind you
that obligations under section 7 consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information reveals
impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or critical habitat in a manner not
previously considered in this review; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a manner that
was not considered in this review; or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat determined that
maybe affected by this identified action.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to review this project. If you have any questions
regarding our response, please contact Mr. Gary Jordan at [phone] (Ext. 32).
Sincerely,
Pete Benjamin
Field Supervisor

cc: Richard Spencer, USACE, Wilmington, NC
Polly Lespinasse, NCDWQ, Mooresville, NC
Travis Wilson, NCWRC, Creedmoor, NC
Chris Militscher, USEPA, Raleigh, NC
John Sullivan, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
David Harris, NCDOT, Raleigh, NC

~ I
f ~ f
isms tw1 '
tats J
~.
~

~ 536
~
a /

.
~~ ~ ` ~
C1 /
'
18~J - - Z ~ _ 7538
162a
7~
T m'P
, J t6
PR
C
o ~
'~
1~
]~ ~
J CT
u ~s
NNQQ Gaza
~~
~
PRCJECT
D
i
\ - ~ v

~
J~
_
~
~ •--.-• nErouR Houle
hanTY w~ sHOimc ~ocnTion of ~-~
~~~~
SHEET ~ OF ~ 3/ 19/07
~IC~NI7[°~
N~~®7C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33476 (B-384
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELL'S CREEg
ON SR 1545
NORTH CAROLINA

1 ' ~ I

~"°}.~: {~ _.~ ~i ~... r, sl_ti.r' r 7~; i ;i } ~.. f,~~ f~7?r.
~./ r. Y a fi .~~r• /s.t +'9.~ f'.`..:1 1 ?.F; . +C+,l`. `j~ ^.l 1.
r ` ~ ni _'` >• ~' , ~ ~~ ICI I = ~ £~i
t".(.~~ ~•~J`y."~'4 ~ ~~ ~': J 1r3 T~1}~Y,a,''~"yy
.+r i.:.,~4~ ~,51~,~{• ~~'R ~ a ~ ~. {r_ +t^ -'^'` ;.~ . .~, Y~ "n ~~„'ty~rg~
. I , ,~ ~~
' r : T ~ f.,R 'rra" f'J s:~t- :.~~~~.a.J.i: . i +~• '.'W ~ ,. ~u ~{ .f ~~'~.~~°~ ' ~~'.'. ~li
~~~~~~~~
~~~~
i
N~~®°]C
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33276 (B-382
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELLS CREEg
ON SR 1525
SHEET ~ OF / 3 / 19 / 07
NORTH CAP,GLINA

i ~
~~®~~~~ ~l ®~~~~~
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL N®. NAMES ADDRESSES
fl Dale Kiser 328 Lashley Rd., Chapel Hill, NC 2751Qi
2 Horace Ciordom 11$2 River Rd., Pittsboro, NC 27312
3 Daniel Carmichael Jr. 2152 Lakeshore Ct., Chapel ]Hill, NC 27514
q( Amy Stanton 724 lsleton Dr., Brnmdon, FL 33511
5 Philip Il'izzarri 101 Nicka Bend WeaE, Pittaboro, NC 27312
~ Lenorn Ingle 703 Ragsdale Rd., Jamestown, NC 27282

WETLAND PERMIT IMPACT SUMMARY
WETLAND IMPACTS SURFACE WATER IMPACTS

Site
No.

Station
(FromlTo)

Structure
Size /Type
Permanent
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Temp.
Fillln
Wetlands
ac
Excavation
in
Wetlands
ac
Mechanized
Clearing
in Wetlands
ac an
Clearing
in
Wetlands
ac
Permanent
SW
impacts
(ac
Temp.
SW
impacts
ac) Existing
Channel
Impacts
Permanent
ft Existing
Channel
Impacts
Temp.
ft
Natural
Stream
Design
(ft
1 12+00 to 13+00 RT 0.027 0.032

TOTALS: 0.027 0.032
R~.~d ~ttro~

~ i ~ ,~ r
', ,~., ; a
' -' ~ J
ct ~ "
~.- p= ,"~
r z
~aso ~ • ~"~ ~ ~
TerteJs _ ~
(~RQJ~T ~~Np ~ 1~S
+~24 ~ PR-OJECT
~ ` o.r ~
-- ~ ~-
UTILITY DRAWINGS
lol ~~® 1l
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33276 tB-382()
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELL'S CREEK
ON SR 1525
SHEET 1 OF ~{
9/13/07
fJOB H (:~R;~LINA

NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
1 Dale Kiror 328 Larhle~ Rd., Chapel Hill, NC 27b16
2 Horaee Gorden 1188 Rirer Rd., Pitfabero, NC '17312
3 Daniel Carmichael Jr. 2162 Lake.here Ce., Chapel Hill, NC 27b1~
~ Amy SEae4on 72~ IoleEon Dr., Brandon, FL 33b11
b Philip Biuarri 101 Nickr Bend WerE, Piffaboro, NC 27312
6 Lenora Injle 703 Rapdale Rd.. JamseEowa, NC 27282
~~~®~
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 33276 (B-3829)
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELL'S CREEK
ON SR 1525
SHEET 2 OF ~ 9,/ 13 ~ 07

WE7[']LAN~9 ~..]EGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
WETLAND
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL 1N
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
T T DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
D DENOTES EXCAVATION
E E IN WETLAND
DENOTES TEMPORARY
TS TS FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
. .
` CLEARING
DENOTES HAND
CLEARING
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12"-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
SINGLE TREE
.. .. .. .. WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
RIP RAP

-~ -~ FLOW DIRECTION
TB
-~_ TOP OF BANK
-••• WE EDGE OF WATER
- - C- -PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - F -PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
~- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- -NATURAL GROUND
- PE- - PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP.ORAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- - 0 - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
BOULDER
--- COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
~~~® 1L
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
PROJECT:8.252Y101 (B-382()
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELL*S CREEK
ON SR 152b
SHEET 3 OF
9,~ 13d 07

~~~1.~I ~~~ V~'
~~~~

+25.00
60.00'
75.00'
4~ER P.S.
~ EXISTING
a_ n
~. ,. .~:1
w. r ~
-Y -- a nF`.~ ... ,.. , _< _, ~~ _....~, ~ ... , .'.t` .k
,, ... i., u ~ -
. ,~
p _
--
EXISTING R/W `. ,;_ ... ;. .,
t_, GRA1J 350 ~~ TYPE-III - --- - --~ 1
a:~ ~~
~.
s` °~ ~ ~~°~ ~ of / A BRIDC>tE # ~ v~
8 : I TAPER _~ TYPE-III _ \
ExlsTw~ Riw
~ \ R~ e
Fes'"' ~"'4 Q~PQRr'l.I ~'~~'R~ - ~ 6~
TAPER P.S.
TO EXISTING
+25.00
60.00'
''
^x' _.~-

PROP. POWER~P6f=E
Sta. 11+50.000
Offset 47.000 RT
1
__I
BEGIN BRIDGE
-L- STA.l2+6.'
'~
~ ~,,,
/ PROP. AERIAL POWER LINES
nc~~e~ n nnnn nr•u c^~ w n
HAND CLEARING ONLY I~~~®7C
872.24 Square Feet (0.02 Acre) DIVISION OF H[GHwAYS
CHATHAM COUNTY
Perimeter 375.5 PROdECT:33276 (B-382)
BRIDGE 88 OVER FERRELL'S CREEK
ON SR 1625
~~~°lE IL
SHEET 4 OF ~ 9013.107

~.

-L- PIpC STA
~~~~\1~ ~ iR Y
1~ +
r\ _ .
;5 D 1 _
\5f I ~L6 ~ i
j ~ 6A ~ C ~D~'~A ~"
0. / /'~ ,7~
j / /~ t
~a~
~¢
~~
*~ Design Exception required far the vertical curve "K" and the stopping
sight distance.
Q
T!P PRa
~N$(ATFST~ABIAC LEfR
EST. ~ SY
0
~.-
0
~~
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
no Yor ust carsraucrav
Permit bra ng
of '
NOTES:
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- PROFILE
~F~F SHEET S- TO 5- FOR STRUCTURE
h
-L- PpT STA 19+00.00 ENO TIP PAbIECT B 3A24
N/CELBOEK
CRASS
w0005
~~ -
RCP ~~
o
SIfE 1 /
~D
~

EST g:1R FABRC LM1ER
T. SY
O ®OEA ~EttAF1~LL IY
DENOTES IfCwaIIEED
CLEMDM
Ri01ST
SHOULDER BERM GUTTER LOCATION
BECW: -L- Sta. II+60,00 L'':
END: APPROACH SLAB LT. BEGIr,E APPROACH SLAB LT.
END; -L- STA. 16+25.00 LT /
~t
BEGM:-L- Sta. 11+00.00 At, BEGIN: APPROACH SLAB AT l/
ENO: APPROACH SLAB RT. El~q: •L- STA. 15+10.00 RT.

'~\
N ENO APPROACR S
N -L- STa/2+6300 4`1
{- $fa14r2DJFs
PNfO SMIIQER PNEO SAOINER
fIO Fq'E VF CYARORAEI Rb FA'E 0° DUARp'fAgJ
tYlB~11 + lYA&Y
'L- ~ a 4 Y a
?4 ~
II ~ TTRi~
PNfD 9AIADfA PNEO SAOUIEER
/!b fACE OF O/ARDRACI RO FACE OF DJYIpRNU
ENO BR1IX;E
Ix APPRD -c- sral4+rnm
-L- sral2 ~
>~
I O
^.VER YA4(
fIEV . 56602FR70 CREI $$ 5
\~ ~ \ O
F
• `~F,' EIS%AT S TAR FABRIC LErER
I ~, S~URE~ EST. ~ 9T woods
A CLASS ~RF REAP LRIER
q~\
SEE DETA~ 'A• ' ~'`?~ ~
'I~ 3 - -~ \~\ --
.. .. REMOVE '1
~~
S
~I w~5 S$ RB+ pp 1~1 REMOVE
woods TRLCTURE \ MiTFS Tg F BRI 1
A ~R A AC L
EST. ~ $Y ><
IB' RCP ''
9
p j~,~ e~
Ei~i~~Sr~'Ae~ic Lo~ER ~i
~~ O
I'.
/~ /
wC0p5
wODDS
O
SKETCH SHDN/NG RELAT/ONSHlP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS

IRORCf A!F!K! N0. IXQT
~* Design Exception required for the vertical curve "K" and the stopping
sight distance.
{-
Q

AI ' '
tRO1 f0 sodp
Pib~
s~aa?I~~~yA~~'
a
a w cr, imne
Typs of LMr= 0.u 8'Rp•Rap
fl10M iTA10+~ 10 iTA10+70 k nT1
ervm Prrrtun~n xno n u: -~- ~ iw iow.au n i, ~-
N ENO APPFOACH SLAB
N i- SfA12~63D0 {- SIA19+27d5
PNm SIR4aFA PNm SnW111ER
(l0 FO('E OF QINrpRW 110 FA(E CF p/NtpR,Wl
TTR-11 + 1~~
-L- ~ 41 ~ W
h 4 ~
u ~ tT4F11
PA/EO ~~ PMEO SSWILIER
no PNF ~ axeaTru no Frce ar dl~vwu
Exp BIapGE
BEGIN APPAOACN {- 5TA14+O7LO
-L- A/2P491
Lam'
' SKETCH SHOVING RELAT/ON5HlP OF BRIDGE TO PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
d
a
m rvor yr ro wrisraucn~+
SEE SHEEP 5 FOR -L- PROFILE
~E~,$SHEET S- TO S- FOR STRUCfURf
~n Uw ~

~ ~
F
DO NOT 0!{ CONl1'AVC[[Ol
n ~.
1fl::: ~~a
seoe~';
f sp1'~~r~ r~8q~~r~~d 4r t~~ ,~v~~'h~~c~ ~urv~~ .:~ ~~~ : ~'
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
...............
............... ..............
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... .....
..... ..... ..
.
.
..
..
..
.. .................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
.................
~`[

....
.... .... ... .... .. .... .... ........... ..... .... ..... ... .................... .... ... .
.............
................. ...................
................... ..............
.............. ...
... ............................
............................
OED(:

.....
...
.. OYSCF/ : :: :::
PHQl1 FS
.
.
..... ................... .............. ... ...........................
DE51GrN HAP`€ELEV _ :~ ~.. FTi

...........
.
.. ............ . .a:::
...
~~..: .................
.: ~.~..1 .::......:. ...............
.....~..1. F:':: .
:: ............................
: ~:: ::.:.::5::::
... i N b ~'
.
....
f G::a :A ~?~'::::::
I

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 ZO
~ J Pt.AN SffEf'~: ~:

P/
: ~ ~.
m
m
0
N
U
O
a
1-A For Index
See Si~ei 1-8 For Convenilonol S mbols '
1 ~ ~ ~ 14lP l -

1641 ;.
~~ 1~1q e°
Je~.
,
\ ~ ' \ - ~ 1 ~
636 r
~
~~ ~
~ L
-~
J4B3, - ~ x ,
~
r
~ m
'
' Tenets ,
_
0
~1i1/J~T
~~
~¢ ~Z
161 ~
NN
- ~ PRO~CT
v, -~
J
~. - Cn~lt / U -
o" , ~ ~ ~-~~ OETOUR ROUTE ~
VlCgriTY MAP SROIIBIC LOCATgN OF PROJECT 8-3824
STA 9+00.00 -L- BBGIN TIP
~~L71 ll ~ ®~ l~l ®~~~ ~~ll~®~I1V
I~IVI~I®N ®~ ~[I~~[~A~~Y~
CHATHAM
covxzY
LOCATION; BRIDGE 88 OVER FlsRREI,L'S CREEK ON SR 1525
TYPE OF WORK GRADJTNG, PAVING, DRAINAGE, AND
STRUCTURE
TO HAMLET CHAPEL RD (SR 1539) -~
-4-- TO CHICKEN BRIDGE RD (SR 1545)
7,00 -L- BND TIP PROJECT B-3824
m
V
[~i
U
O
U
<°
THIS PROJECT IS NOT WITHIN ANY MUNICIPAL BOUNDARIES
CLEARING ON THIS PROJECT SHALL BE PERFORMED TO THE LIMITS ESTABLISHED BY METHOD III
M~ Design Exception required for the vertical curve 'K' and the stopping sight distance.
erm v~n,mx rno,o na '~'
•c 8-3824 1
em ,mu,e r.wu+ wos,n,
93276,1.1 BRI-1525 P,E.
33276,2.1 BA2r15254 ROW 6 tl11L

~
~ _

PRI3LIMINARY PLANS
~~~_~~~
GRAPHIC SCALES DESIGN DATA
ADT 2007 = 2616
50 25 0 50 100 ADT 2027 = 4376

PLANS DHV = 10 %
50 25 0 50 100 D = 65 %
T = 3 % •
PROFILE ~HORIZONTAW ~ ~V = 60 MPH
10 5 0 10 20 ' TTST }~!6 DUAL 2 %
FUNC CLAS = RURAL
www"' ^~~^.~, MINOR COLLECTOR
PROJECT LENGTH
LENGTH OF ROADWAY TIP PROJECT B~624 = 0.162 MILES
LENGTH OF STRUCNRE TIP PROJECT 8-3824 = 0,027 MILES
TOTAL LENGTH OF TIP PROJECT 8824 = 0,189 MILES
Prepared !n tlb aflgt of:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
lpoo alrali au~~ n,., xc, s~oto
loos sr~an seacmculce~
RIGHT OF IVAY Jb9TBr TONY ROUSER. PE
April 21, ZOD6 "~ sorter
I.STITNG 1>alTB: LEE ANN MOORE
January 15.2008 »oacr °"'xoo" Ate'
NYDRI ULICS BNGARt81t Y DIVISION OA 1DG9WdYS
STA28 OP NOR17<I CAROLIIV,!
RQADA'AY DESIGN osots eMrceIIe
13NGJN~B DBPAR2INBNT OF TRlNSPORTA270N
FBDFILlL XIGfI1PAY dDIMINlSTRA17
aaacv~
EJ1ID BRIDGE
'CT 8-3824 ~ STA.14+07.00
~ ~I ~

~s
Note: Not to Scale
eS U,B = Subaurjace Utility lsxgr~reerin8
~°~'A7l°]E ~F NORTH C.~I$~1LIN.~
~IVg~I~N ~]F IEYIGHW.~~S
CONVENTIONAL PLAN SHEET SYMBOLS
BOUNDARIES AND PROPERTY.
St
t
U
ne
a
e
Couniy Une -....-~..--
-
Township Une
Cit
U
y
na
Reservation Une - ~ - ~ -
Propery Line
Existing Iron ffin o
Properly Comer -~
Properly Monumerrt
Parcel/Sequence Number
iodating Fence Une -x-x-x-
Propoaed Woven Wiro Fence a
Proposed Chain Unk Fence e
Proposed Barbed Wtro Fence G ---
Exiating Wetland Boundary - - - -~•- - - -
Proposed Wetland Boundary
Existing Endangered Mimal Boundary -
Edsting Endangered Plant Boundary
BUILDINGS AND OTHER CULTURIs:~
Gaa Pump Vent or LING Tank Cap o
Sign o
Well o
Small Mine ~
Foundation ~
Aroa Outline [-~
Cemetery ~~
Building LL~
School
Church
Dam
fIYIJROLUGY.~
Stroam or Body of Water
Hydro, Pool or Reservoir
Jurisdictional Stream
Buffer Zone 1
Buffer Zone 2
Flow Arrow
Disappearing Stream
e.,..
~~....~
Swamp Manh
Proposed Lateral, Tail, Head Ditch
False Sump
` ----,
~_~~J
-u-... _
RAILROADS.
Standard Gouge
ar Tn~rsvavroor
RR Signal Milepost ~~ u
Switch
RR Abandoned ,-- ~ T T
RR D'umantied -
RIGFIT OA R'AY
Beeline Control Point .
Existing Right of Way Marker ~
Existing Right of Way Uns -
Propoaed Right of Way Une - --~---
Proposed Right of Way Une with
Iron Pin and Cap Marker
Proposed Right of Way Urn with
Concrete or Granite Marker
Existing Control ofAccess - _-
Proposed Control of Aeceu ~_
Existing Easement Line - -E-_
Proposed Temporary Construction Easement- e
Proposed Temporary Drainage EaaemeM- -~pE-
Proposed Permanent Drainage Easement- -~-
Proposed PermonentUtility Easement -~r-
ROADS AND RELATED FEATURES.'
Existing Edge of Pavement --
Exisfing Curb --
Proposed Slope Slakes Cut - - - ~ - - -
Proposed Slope Stakes fill - - - g - - -
Proposed Wheel Chair Ramp
Curb Cut for Future Wheel Chair Romp - cr
Existing Metal GuarcJroil
Proposed Guardrail
Existing Cable Guideroil ^
Pro
osed C
bl
id
G
il ^
p
a
e
u
ero
Equality Symbol
Pavement Removal
IBGETAT70N.`
~-- Single Troe Q
~------ Single Shrub o
~'~~~ ~ Hedge ..~
't Woods Une
Orchard S3 ~ 4 f?
m Vineyard w~,~^
EXISTING STRUCTURES.
MAJOR:
Bridge, Tunnel or Box Culvert r ~ ~
Bridge Wing Wall, Head Wall and End Wall - ~ ~~
MINOIL
Head and End Wall ~ „.
Pipe Cuhrort
Footbridge ; --~~
Drainage Box: Catch Basin, DI or JB ~~
Paved Dikh Gutter -----
Storm Sewer Manhole p
Storm Sewer
UTILITlES.•
POWER:
Existing Power Pole ~
Proposed Power Pole b
Existing Joint Use Pole +
Proposed Joint Use Pole
Power Manhole
Power Line Tower
Power Transformer p
lYG Power Cable Hand Hole
H-Frome Pole
Recorded lYG Power Une
Designated lYG Power Une (S.U.E.•
TELEPHONE:
.Existing Telephone Pole +
Proposed Telephone Pole ~
Telephone Manhole 8
Telephone Booth p
Telephone Pedestal p
Telephone Cell Tower 'i,
USG Telephone Cable Hond Hole
Recorded U~G Telephone Cable ^
Designated WG Telephone Cable (S.U.E.•J- ----r----
Recorded USG Telephone Conduit ,r
Designated lYG Telephone Conduit(S.U.E.•~ ----R----
Recorded USG Fiber Optia Cable ~ ~~-
Designated U-G Fiber Optics Cable (S.U.E.'j- - - - -^ ro- - -
WATER:
WaMr Manhole p
Water Meter o
water valve
Water Hydror~ ~
Receded USG Water Une
Designated tJ~G Water Une (S.U.E.•}--- - ----~----
Above Ground Water Line ~~~ .,.,.
N:
N Satellite Dish p
N Pedestal p
N Tower
l4G N Cable Hand Hole p
Receded Uri N Cable ~~
Designated WG N Cable (S.U.E.7 - - --~~- - - -
Recorded l!•G Rber Optic Cable *~~-
Designated l4G Fiber Optic Cable (S.U.E'r - - - -~~ ~^_ _ _
GAS:
Gas Valve p
Gas Meter
Recorded l1G Gas Une ^
Designated lVG Gas Une (S.U.E.•j - - - -~- - - -
Abovs Ground Gas Une 1D `°°
SANRARY SEWER:
Sanitary Sewer Manhole
Sanitary Sewer Cleanout p
U~G Sanitary Sewer Une ss
Above Grdund Sanitary Sower ~,0 5m„ay ~..~
Recorded S5 Forced Main Lins ,ss_
Designated SS Forced Main Une (S.U.E.•J - ----,ss____
MISCEUANEOUS:
Utility Pole ~
Utility Pole with Base ~
Utility located Obiect o
Utility irofAc Signal Box m
Utility Unlmown ll~G Une ,~_
IJ~G Tonk; Water, Gaa, Oil
AEG Tank; Water, Ga:,Oil
tyG Teat Hole (S.U.E.h ~
Abandoned According to Utility Records -- ,t„q~R
End oflnformation E.0.1.

r ~
P
P
I ~ ) ry
D
a
a
v
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
PROP. APPROX. 21"t" ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE, TYPE 3F9.5A,
~j AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 137.5 LBS. PER S0. YD. IN EACH OF TWO
LAYERS.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE TYPE SF8.5A

C2 ,
AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 110 LBS. PER S0. YD. PER 1h DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT TO EXCEED 11~" IN DEPTH.

D1 PROP. APPROX. 21~t" ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
Y
B
AT
,
T
PE I19.O
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 285 LBS. PER SO. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE,
D2 TYPE I19.OB, AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SD. YD. PER 1"
DEPTH, TO BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 21iaj" IN DEPTH OR
GREATER THAN 4" IN DEPTH.
Ej PROP. APPROX. 4" ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE 825.OB, AT
AN AVERAGE RATE OF 468 LBS. PER S0. YD.
PROP. VAR. DEPTH ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE, TYPE B25.OB,
E 2 AT AN AVERAGE RATE OF 114 LBS. PER SO. YD. PER 1" DEPTH. TO
BE PLACED IN LAYERS NOT LESS THAN 3" IN DEPTH OR GREATER
THAN 51~" IN DEPTH.
R SHOULDER BERM GUTTER.
T EARTH MATERIAL.
U EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE WEDGING DETAIL)
NOTE: Pavement Edge Slopes Are 1:1 Unless Shown otherwise.
-L-
NOTE: BICYCLE SAFE TWO BAR METAL RAIL
-L- STA. 12+63.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE) TO 14+07.00 (END BRIDGE
E2
D1
C1
D1
E2
I
. ' 2 V4" 2 V~"
3• MIN. ~ MIN. 3"
~N' MIN.
DETAIL SHOWING METHOD OF WEDGING
VAR, ~ 2,33', 3'
_ C~ R ~ T
.01. .08.
s" ~ i ? ~ ORIGINAL
E1 ~ GROUND
DETAIL SHOWING PAVED SHOULDER
IN REL4TION TO GUARDRAIL
USE SHOULDER BERM GUTTER FOR THE FOLLOWING:
LEFT SHOULDER -L- STA 11+47.01 TO APPROACH SLAB
APPROACH SLAB TO -L- STA 16+15,18
RIGHT SHOULDER -L- STA 11+00.00 TO APPROACH SLAB
APPROACH SLAB TO -L- STA 15+12.99
~IECr e~RRNCe Na. sner No.
8-3824 2
R ~AY~D~GN -AWdENi D61GN
91GINRR
PRELIMINARY PLANS
uo xor vse roe coxsrnvcnax
TYPICAL SECTION ON BRIDGE

I
rv
a
Y
D
P1
vAaueLE
SLOPES
ORIGINAL NUORG D
IROJECT R N0. SHlET N
8-3824 2A
ROADWAY OBIGN IAYlMD~IT DESIf
1T161NEER ENGINE
-L-
PRELIMINARY PLANS
~ DO NOT U5S A00. CONS'fRUCC[ON
6' 18' 8' VARIES I YARIES 8'
8' TO 12' I 8' TO 12` 11' WiGR
4' FDPS YARIE$ ~ VARIES 4' FDPS
0' TO 4'
., G E
= E ~- POINT fL~ De
6c1 --- - - 6:1
T EI Dt CI g W I U W ~° CI DI EI T ?'I VAR SEE X~ECTIONS
GRADE TO THIS LINE
TYPICAL SECTION No. l ORIGINAL GROUND
6'_ ~ _ 18'
vAausLE
SLOPES
~~
Q
~S
-s
6:1
PAVEMENT SCHEDULE
C1 21~" SF9.5A, ASPHALT CONCRETE SURFACE COURSE
D1 2l~" I19.OB, ASPHALT CONCRETE INTERMEDIATE COURSE
E1 4" B25.OB, ASPHALT CONCRETE BASE COURSE
T EARTH MATERIAL.
EXISTING PAVEMENT
W VARIABLE DEPTH ASPHALT PAVEMENT (SEE WEDGING DETAIL}
-~-
8' 12` ~ 12'
4' FDPS I
* ( GRADE
POINT
s ~ o.n ,
I
T EI DI CI GRADE TO THIS LINE CI
TYPICAL SECTION No. 2
USE TYPICAL N0.1 FOR:
-L- STA. 10+00.00 TO STA. 11+60.00
-L- STA. 16+40.00 TO STA. 19+00.00
~ DESIGNATED BICYCLE ROUTE
8`
n' WiGR
4' FDPS ,
- 6:~
~ ~'~ VAR SEE X-SECTIONS
ORIGINAL GROUND
USE TYPICAL N0.1 FOR:
-L- STA. 11+60.00 TO STA. 12+63.00 (BEGIN BRIDGE}
-L- STA. 14+07.00 (END BRIDGE) TO STA. 16+40,00
* DESIGNATED BICYCLE ROUTE
NOTE; Pavement Edge Slopes Are t;l Unless Shawn otherwise.

I~
r , ,
1
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
1 I 1
I 1 I
1 1 I
I i I
I 1 I
I 1 I
I I I
1 I I
I I I
I I 1
I I 1
I I 1
i I I
1~
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
1 I I
I I I
1 I I
1 I I
I I I
1 I i
1 I i
I 1 I
I I 1
I I i
I I i
I 1 I
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
1 I I
1 1 I
I I I
I I 1
I I I
I I I
I 1 I
I 1 I
I I I
I I I
I I I
I 1 I
I I I
I I ~
I I I
I I ~
I I 1
I 1 ~
I 1 ~
I 1 I
I I ~
I 1 ~
I I ~
I I 1
I I ~
I 1 ~
I I ~
I 1 I
I 1 ~
I I ~
I i 1
I 1 ~
I I I
I I ~
I 1 ~
I I I
I I I
I 1 ~
I 1 ~
I I 1
I i ~
I I I
I 1 I
I 1 I
I 1 ~
I 1 ~
I I ~
n~ /
BEGIN BRIDGE END A°PFi0.4E'H SIAB N
N -L- SfA12+fi.3B0 -L- 5lAI9+20B5 h ry.
PNEO SITYNaER PAIEp SAdIIPER 19,6Y ~'
RO FME 6` 6VNN#IAU (f0 fA'.Y: pF d/Mx)4NU NS6'ypw N
TYN9111 F 1Y1E-11
-L- rv h $ ~' ~ a
E h H h ~
IYl6EI1 ~ IYIEd9
Pa•ED LAVfAER
PNED SNxMFR RO fACE ~ p1A9?PNU
RO FAY ~ WNID'2NU
Ex0 BINOGE
BEGIN APPROACFI SLOB -L- STA19+0/LU
-L- Al + !
°~ SKETCH SHOWfNG RELATIONSHIP OF BRIDGE 70 PAVEMENT AND SHOULDERS
&a
it
60.00'
** Design Exception required for the vertical curve "K" and the stopping
sight distance.
GRwSS
-L-
P!510 9+4413
o= 4',3'S39rRT1
D -4'00'109
L - IosJr
T • 5268'
R - 1,43132'
AO ~ see pMns
SE ~ see pons
GAS ~ Y X ~~ ,F/
µ:w~ std 1 `~ y ? ~pyu~
~\ ~` o T ~~
sp~w~,
/ EL ~ ~ry'v= T1.J9'
P i
~ / /~i
~ C
GaP~ {~ +20.00
BL- 106 ExIST
60.00' ~
PINC 9+43.77
e
Q -T- 104 PING 6+1312 -L- STA 13+~J2,18 11.31' LT I
117JECT 8-3824 -T- 103 POT 5+00.00 ELEY = 364.39' -BL- Iq
ELEY = 364.56' REBAR AND CAP SET REBAR AND CAP SET
~~SS55~p REBAR AND CAP SET ELEY = 378,96' o N -L' P'pT STA l9'-L
iiiEn FA~IC LNER _ -T- PINC 7+71.74
ES TOnS Z'. h N
~ EST: SY ~6~'09'Ui'T ~~•6~
"/ DYEL W CARNCNAEL
NOTUCE PAUL CORDON D6 103 PD 201
OD ~s ~ ~ PS IF~E
Ps A-962
PS 6TrCK PNLP L. BLT2ARPo
O ~' 3 9, ~ De 595 PO a9
NNOE w3- o$ E/-39E
2 ~ .` T :, ~iE wnru~ Fri EAG BR06E S+'\ /~
~pL~ S 1 8 Eta c~u alOr i- 4 m Rp p / e 1.
+60~, SEER$T~ICTURE \}F~, ~ CLpS ENS~ASZSgFABRIC LRER EF t` J~ /
T5.00' PLANS ~i :aa, gp RSi1P -SEE EST:F7 S~TNIS wro05 y~
TT T~ p~ DPoVE
EE ti CS~pp r•,`^ ~ SPLU°NCS +T5.00 Yaj/ASPISLT•EgR pABRIC LNER ~~3~4 100'Ti
D' TO E%ISTIN6 M/ ELBORS •,q, 60.00' EST 12 TONS A~"e \ °+•
lNC. ~•~ SEE OETAI .A. . ~(\ LF
3 \~\ ~ . 20' R
C _OODS F + .I . F O F - __ ID' P \ C h C
.n ~ ~ ~ .. .. MA
-.. _ ~~
RCP
---- - _ -\
.i
CEP ~'/ ~'
woods
A
T5,00'
BE6sl A pPEgICII SU8
J i- 5 7A,IYM9J5

- gggg,~S~SS re p(
¢N5iT tTLi~~ABRIC LINER 36 TIiIRIIGOHT
EST SY ELEV. 368.76' A.
u
EEC SLAB
i- STAN+2DB5 ~,
O
I -T- 105 POT 10+26.11 ;
DALE R.xKER
~ ~ ~ ~ ELEY = 362.15'
REBAR AND CAP SET
PS 91.2x1
i ,F - I
~~ - -~
L 1
.01. .n
1

woods w.7r w.i
T
I~
I A
NO
V
E
E

+75.00 555 gg
ER/AF~TEf1~ABRIC LWER
~
T ~
p
y
E
~
Iw DRIVE
60.00'
75.00' .
ES
SY IB' RCP

~~ ~
~ ~
USS ~~gB' RP RAp
STF~TE~4BRIC IMER
j
T
5i
~S
5T.
Y O
A61Y D. STANTON
oe622rom
p;, eT-296
SHOU(DER BERM GUTTER LOCATION
BEGIN:-L- Sta.q+60.00 LT. BEGIN: APPROACH SLAB LT. ~ \
END: APPROACH SIAB LT. END:-L- STA. 16+25.00 LT ~
BEGRI: -L- Sia. 11+00.00 RT. BEGIN: APPROACH SLaB RT Y63.3g
END: APPROACH SLAB RT. ENO:-L- STA. IS+10.00 RT. ~ sea•3G'o:
3 V ~//
nm~cr 9@~Ie11lE No. seer No.
- 4 4
sw u9nr No.
EOMWi1Y 0>9N7N NYI7AAWCE
EN01NeR C9GIP@
PRELIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT U3w WN57wllCENHi
I
xorES: - -
SEE SHEET 5 FOR -L- PROFILE
PLFbNS MEET S- TOp S- fOR STRUCTUF
N
T!P PRQIECT 8-3824
40.00
'XIST $
0.00' ~
wp0p5
~ ._.._..-.. _.._.. _..-..Ex'
-BL- 102
-L- STA 20+74.04 12.12' LT
wOppS
'OO.DO BM • 2
EXIST -L- 19+07.01
60,00• 30.80' RIGHT
ELEY, 4DT,01'
POTSta.20+91
0
LENOIIA 1lN(4.E
OB 900 PO 291

1 i e
................
. .
.
..
..
..
..
.. ..................
.
. .
. .
.
..
.
.. .. .................
.. ' ' .......: . . .. ... ..................
.........
..
....... ............
..
...
.
.....
pry
Y~~
~~
yy
//
~~
YIC::71N16: rr
/ N
~~
p
~
y
l~WG .: ~
Y}
.:~ C.! :: p
6
~
.FlJ::: ~'.
~fSRiHf f1Y' ~'lf1V A9N r 37i :fi:.

..:. :~,.g ~.~ Jr
L#.4$E :.. . Fi~.. ~ ~ 37l fT
OVEti`t :.iN~` Rlt~ '= 61Ik1 F5 ''
fluE7tl . ; !hR'i .... . AiION ~ 3T FT
t~ 1~ 00 ::
L 88Q~bp'
~p ~if.~4
~:
wn e • nn ori~ tlt QF _ QMIER I
3 ~ B3 ; F'F R~' L STA ; 19+d6
`-i• 1- -f- ::
~o
E~ a to 11 19
t RlgE~C! N0. k16! N0. '~~
•38 4 5
Y DliIGN XMCIMILItl
N~ WGWl9 ~.
,BLIMIN RY PLANS
DO NOT 1196 CON9T6UCIpN
-L=~ PL~4M-SHEET 4
77 1d 1R 1F 17 1R 10 7A

~ , ~~~7 Q q~f ~/
N W... • ~ D~JVi'1 /~ Z
O
~ 4~L~ O,O~OD ~ ~
--------
.....,.,

_ _ _ _ _ _ _ _
_ _ _ _ -- -
- -
R: XSC 260 8242:Od x 1_l.d n _ _ - __
S$SSIIS 6Rt`I~i.tCie~i~ F 9 ~ ~ ~

t ,~
.snit ~."~ a~--* ~ ~ ~ `~ u
,,t, ~..
""-tea .,~~~ ~~'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA « ~ ~ n~,.;,~l+hrr.
DEPAR'T1V~NT OF TRANSPORTATION rUE~-G~ ~ ~~L u ~~~~~~~`~~ cdi'^tiPl~(ENT
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
March 14, 2005
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Omar Sultan
Program Development
FROM:
SUBJECT: Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Approval for Federal Aid Project
BRZ-1525(4), Replacement of Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525, over Ferrell's
Creek, Chatham County, WBS 33428.1.1, State Project 8.2522101,
TII' No. B-3824
Attached are four copies of the subject report, including 2 copies for your files and 1 copy for
distribution to FHWA. No significant adverse environmental effects are expected as a result of
the project; therefore, no other distribution of the report is necessary.
GJT/dp
Attachment
cc/attar Mrs. Deborah M. Barbour
Mr. Art McMillan
Mr. Jay Bennett (2 copies)
Mr. Greg Perfetti (2 copies)
Mr. Victor Barbour
Mr. D. R. Henderson
Mr. N. W. Wainaina (2 copies)
Mr. Charles W. Brown (3 copies)
Mr. C. B. Goode, Jr. (3 copies)
Mr. Ellis Powell
Mr. Don G. Lee
Mr. J. Kevin Lacy (3 copies)
Mr. J. B. Williamson, Jr.
Mr. Mike Bruff
Mr. William H. Williams, Jr.
Mr. Tom Norman
~~1r. "1~`irn .tohnson, Division S
i41r. ,fc~hn %lnerson, Attn. 1-like Sl.~tnti~ers
Mr. Doug Lane
N. C. State Publications Clearinghouse (10 copies)
~v; ~ ~~ ~C
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Gregory J. Thorpe, PhI
Environmental Manage
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT,STgTE.NC.US
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

. s
r
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3824
State Project No. 8.2522101
Federal Project No. BRZ-1525(4}
A. Project Description:
The purpose of this project is to replace Chatham County Bridge No. 88 on
SR 1525, over Ferrell's Creek. The replacement structure will be a new bridge of
approximately 138 feet in length and 32 feet in width. The bridge will have a 24 foot
travelway accommodating two 12 foot lanes, and will have 4 foot offsets on each side.
Bicycle design standards will be provided. Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction (see Figure 1).
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The approach roadway, extending approximately 366 feet to the east and 496 feet to .the
west of the new bridge, will be widened to a 24 foot pavement width providing two 12
foot lanes. Eight-foot shoulders will be provided on each side (eleven-foot shoulders
where guardrail is included). The roadway will be designed as a Rural Minor Collector
facility with a 60 mile per hour design speed.
B. Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 88 includes a 3-span superstructure composed of a timber deck on steel
I-beams. The substructure is composed of timber caps and piles.
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 19.6 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete according to Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines.
Inspection records show a substructure condition rating of 4 out of 9 (structurally
deficient). The bridge is also functionally obsolete due to a deck geometry appraisal of 2
out of 9. The bridge is therefore eligible for FHWA's Highway Bridge Replacement and
Rehabilitation Program.
Timber bridge components typically do not last beyond 30 to 40 years of age due
to the natural deterioration rates of wood. Past a certain degree of deterioration,
structures with timber piles become impractical to maintain and are programmed for
replacement, as is the case for this bridge. The bridge is nearing the end of its
useful life.
Other considerations such as wear and tear resulting from increasing traffic, aging
(51 year old) bridge components, and increasing maintenance costs all justify the
replacement of this bridge.

5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or
near a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
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 Proiect Information
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction Cost $850,000
Right-of--Way and Utilities 32.000
Total Project Cost $882,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 2,000 VPD
Year 2025 - 4,200 VPD

~ - i
(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
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing
regulatory floodway? a X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? ~ X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC. AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ^ X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
- business? ^ X
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and adverse
human health and environmental effect on any minority or ^ X
low-income population?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X ^
(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? ^
~_
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent
local traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? ^ X
5

G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-3824
State Project No. 8.2581001
Federal Project No. BRZ-1525(2)
Proiect Description:
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525, over Ferrell's Creek, in Chatham
County. Replacement will be at approximately the same location with a new bridge of
approximately 135 feet in length and 40 feet in width. The bridge will have a 24 foot
travelway and 8 foot offsets on each side. Bicycle design standards will be provided.
Traffic will be detoured over existing secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE II(A)
X TYPE II(B)
Approved:
~ ~l~'
I ~~ `~ ~~~ L~J~` ~i ~L~~
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
(~ ~„~ ~ / t
_ ~~ ti( ,~ .
Date Project Planning Unit H d
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
(- Z~ - v y t,~==j.~,..y, -,mss ~~ nl,.,,~ f-' L-".
Date Project Planning Enginee"r
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
12 2 $~ o~i c-~~ .~.~
Date ~.c'~ Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration

ENVIRONMENTAL CONIlVIITMENTS:
Chatham County
Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525
over Ferrell's Creek
Federal Aid Project No. B12Z-1525(4)
State Project No. 8.2522101
T.I.P. No. B-3824
1. Roadway Design Unit, Structure Design Unit, Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch (Permits), Resident Engineer:
Bridge Demolition:
The existing bridge has an asphalt wearing surface, and the remainder of the bridge, both
superstructure and substructure, is composed of timber and steel. The asphalt surface will be
removed prior to demolition. The remainder of the bridge will be removed without dropping into
Waters of the U.S. During construction, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will be followed.
Protected Saecies Concurrence:
Prior to construction, PDEA will obtain concurrence from the US Fish and Wildlife
Service for the biological conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" for the Cape Fear
shiner.
Greensheet, Programmatic Categorical Exclusion, November 2004, Page 1 of 1

i~Y~e ~ ~~ 4n,
V '~j~
w,,,.n• ,
.~~~
~J - _, ~~ ~
J J i ~'
I ~~ '~
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Goveroor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
Januart• 8, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project De~•elopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
.~ r, ~
From: Da~~id Brook ~ ~ ~`~1c~`~~L,
Deput<- State Histo~ic,'1Preservation Officer
Re: Replacement of Bridge No. 88 on SR 125 over Ferell's Creek,
TIP No. B-3824, Chatham Countt-, ER 01-7910
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
On November 30, 2000, April Montgomert- of our staff met with North Cazolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning the above project. She reported
our available information on historic architectural and archaeological surve~rs and resources along with our
recommendations. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the meeting, we offer our
preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources we are aware of no historic structures located within the azea
of potential effect. We recommend that no historic azchitectural survey be conducted for this project.
There aze no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project provided that the
replacement bridge will be located in the bridge's current location with anoff-site detour.
However, if the replacement bridge will be constructed on new location or an on-site detour will be
constructed on new location we will require more detailed drawings of the bridge location, replacements
and any detours and approach work prior to making our recommendations.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Presernation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have ant- questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-EazleS•, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919 733-4763.
cc: T. Padgett

~' STN[ o~
'y°
~ ~.
~~ au.,O~
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
September 19, 2003
Memorandum To:
From:
Subject:
Background
Dennis Pipkin, P.E., Project Engineer
Bridge Replacement Unit
Heather Montague, Project Manager
Natural Environmental Project Management Unit
Neil Medlin, Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Biological Survey Unit
Survey for the Cape Fear shiner in association with the
replacement of Bridge No. 88 over Ferrells Creek, Chatham
County, TIP No. B-3824.
The project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 88 over Ferrells Creek. The
current simple beam bridge was built in 1953. The new bridge will be approximately on
existing alignment, with traffic detoured offsite onto other local roads. The proposed
project length will be 400 feet (120m) long and 60 feet (18.3m) wide.
This memo addresses the Cape Fear shiner (Notropis mekistocholas) which is
Federally Endangered and listed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for Chatham
County. The Cape Feaz shiner is a small, moderately stocky minnow. Its body is flushed
with a pale silvery yellow, and a black band runs along its sides (Snelson 1971). The fins
are yellowish and somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black and the lower lip has a black
bar along its margin.
Cape Fear shiner habitat occurs in streams with gravel, cobble, or boulder
substrates. It is most often observed inhabiting slow pools, riffles, and slow runs
associated with water willow beds. Juveniles can be found inhabiting slackwater, among
large rock outcrops and in flooded side channels and pools. The Cape Fear shiner is
thought to feed on bottom detritus, diatoms, and other periphytes. Captive specimens
feed readily on plant and animal material.
The Cape Feat shiner is limited to three populations in North Carolina. The
strongest population of the Cape Fear shiner is in Chatham and Lee Counties from the
Locksville dam upstream to the Rocky River and Beaz Creek. Another population is
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPNONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTFI WILMINGTON STREET
1548NMILSERVICECENTER WEBS/lE: WNNV.DOH.DOT.STATENC.!/S RALEIGH NC
A.~ ev:u N~: 97RlXL7548

located above the Rocky River Hydroelectric Dam in Chatham County, and the third
population is found in the Deep River system in Randolph and Moore Counties.
Survey Methods and Results
A fisheries survey was conducted at the project site on June 25, 2003 by NCDOT
Environmental Specialists N. Medlin, Rachelle Beauregard, Shazon Snider, and former
NCDOT employee Anne Burroughs. The fisheries survey was conducted by pulling a
seine through the water in deeper areas of slow flow and by kicking/disturbing the water
while moving toward the seine in more shallow areas with faster water velocity. The
approximate stream distance covered during the fish survey extended from 150 meters
upstream of the bridge to 400 meters below the bridge.
Ferrells Creek in the azea surveyed had a predominately sand substrate with a mix
of silt in slower flow areas. Some cobble was observed with only occasional sand gravel
riffles. Stream width was estimated to be six (6) meters. Physical water chemistry
measurements indicated nothing unusual for this type of stream during the early summer.
The results aze presented in Table 1.
No Cape Feaz Shiners were collected or observed in the vicinity of Bridge No. 88
during the fisheries survey. The 9 fish species that were collected and their relative
abundance aze listed in Table 2.
Table 1. Physical Water Chemistry for Ferrells Creek at SR 1525, Chatham County, June
25, 2003.
Parameter Value
Temperature (°C) 22.1
Dissolved Oxygen (mg/1) 6.2
PIS (standard units) 6.9
Conductivity (umhos/cm2) 107
Table 2. Fish Species and Relative Abundance for Ferrells Creek at SR 1525, Chatham
County, June 25, 2003. (Relative Abundance: Abundant = A Common = C Raze = R)
Species
Golden shiner, Notemigonus crysoleucas
Sandbar shiner, Notropis scepticus
Spottail shiner, Notropis hudsonius
Eastern mosquitofish, Gambusia holbrooki
Redeaz sunfish, Lepomis microlophus
Bluegill, Lepomis macrochirus
Largemouth bass, Micropterus salmoides
Black crappie, Pomoxis nigromaculatus
Tessellated darter, Etheostoma olmstedi
Relative Abundance
R
C
C
A
R
C
C
R
C

Biological Conclusion: Not Likely to Adversely Affect
The results of the fish survey indicated that the Cape Fear shiner is not present in
Ferrells Creek in the area near Bridge No. 88. Preferred habitat for the species was also
not found in the project area. According to Natural Heritage Program records, the nearest
documented occurrence of Cape Fear shiner is in the Haw River at US 15/501. The US
15/501 road crossing is slightly more than four (4) stream miles from Ferrells Creek's
confluence with the Haw River. The Bridge No. 88 replacement project is located
approximately one-half mile above Ferrells Creek's confluence with the Haw River.
Given the results of the fish survey, the lack of preferred habitat, the distance to the
nearest known population of Cape Fear shiners, and the use of BMPs throughout project
construction, the completion of this project is not likely to adversely affect the species.
Qualifications of Principal Investigators
Investigator: Neil Medlin, Environmental Specialist
Education: M.A. Biology, Appalachian State University
B.S. Biology, Appalachian State University
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, January 2002 -present
Environmental Biologist, NC Division of Water Quality,
June 1990 -January 2002
Environmental Biologist, FL Department of Environmental Protection (formerly
Department of Environmental Regulation), August 1986 -June 1990
Expertise: Freshwater fish and benthic macroinvertebrate collection and identification;
aquatic habitat evaluations and function; biocriteria and biotic indices
evaluations; endangered species (terrestriaUaquatic) surveys
Investigator: Shazon Snider
Education: B.S. Horticulture, West Virginia University
M.S. Plant Sciences, University of Vermont
Experience: Environmental Specialist, NCDOT, July 2001-present
Reseazch Biologist, USDA, 1990-1991
Field Biologist USDA, 1989
Expertise: Section 7 field investigations, protected species (terrestriaUaquatic) surveys
Investigator: Rachelle Beauregazd
Education: B.S. Fisheries and Wildlife Science, North Carolina State University.
Experience: Biologist, Dr. J.H. Cazter III and Associates, Inc., Mazch 1997 - Januazy 2001.
Environmental Biologist, NC DOT, March 2001- present.
Expertise: Endangered species (terrestriaUaquatic) surveys; natural resource investigations;
wetland delineation; Section 404/401 permitting.
cc: Bill Goodwin, P.E., Bridge Replacement Unit Head

Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525 over Ferrells Creek
Chatham County
TIP No. B-3824
State Project No. 8.2522101
FAP No. BRZ-1525(4)
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
°~
;,
r
3rFtiT or
August 2002

Natural Resources Technical Report
Proposed Bridge Replacement
Bridge No. 88 on SR 1525 over Ferrells Creek
Chatham County
TIP No. B-3824
State Project No. 8.2522101
FAP No. BRZ-1525(4)
Prepared For:
North Cazolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Issued by:
Earth Tech, Inc.
701 Corporate Center Drive, Suite 475
Raleigh, North Cazolina 27607
Earth Tech Project No. 53190
August 2002

Natural Resources Technical Report
Ferrells Creek, Chatham County, North Carolina
TABLE OF CONTENTS
SECTION .................................................................................................................. PAGE
1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................1
1.1 Project Description ........................................................................................... 1
1.2 Methodology .....................................................................................................1
1.3 Terminology and Definitions ............................................................................ 4
1.4 Qualifications of the Principal Investigators .................................................... 4
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ...................................................................................... 5
2.1 Regional Characteristics ................................................................................... 5
2.2 Soils .................................................................................................................. 5
2.3 Water Resources ............................................................................................... 6
2.3.1 Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters .......................................... 6
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification ..................................................................... 6
2.3.3 Water Quality ....................................................................................... 7
2.3.3.1 General Watershed Characteristics ........................................... 7
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report ................................................ 7
2.3.3.3 Point Source Discharge Permits ............................................... 8
2.3.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................................................... 8
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ............................................................................................ 8
3.1 Terrestrial Communities ................................................................................... 9
3.1.1 Maintained Roadside Community ................................................. ... 9
....
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest .............................................................................. 9
....
3.2 Aquatic Communities ..................................................................................... 10
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ................................................................... 10
3.3.1 Terrestrial Communities .......................................:............................. 11
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities ......................................................................... 11
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ...............................................................................12
4.1 Waters of the United States ............................................................................ 12
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters ................................ 12
4.1.2 Bridge Demolition .............................................................................. 12
4.1.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ....................................................... 14
4.1.4 Permits ................................................................................................ 14
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation ................................................ 14
4.2 Rare and Protected Species ............................................................................ 16
4.2.1 Species Under Federal Protection ....................................................... 16
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Status ...................................... 20
August 2002
11

Natural Resources Technical Report
Ferrells Creek, Chatham County, North Carolina
TABLES
Table 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities .................................... 11
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County .................................... 16
Table 3. Federal Species of Concern in Chatham County .............................................. 21
FIGURES
Figure 1 -Vicinity Map ............................
Figure 2 -Natural Communities ...............
.................................................................... 2
.................................................................... 3
August 2002
111

Natural Resources Technical Report
Ferrells Creek, Chatham County, North Carolina
1.0 INTRODUCTION
This Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) preliminary to the preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE) for the proposed project. The purpose of this technical report is to inventory,
catalog, and describe the various natural resources likely to be impacted by the proposed
action. The report also attempts to identify and estimate the likely consequences of the
anticipated impacts to these resources. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of the preliminary design concepts. It may become necessary to conduct
additional field investigations should design parameters and criteria change.
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project involves the replacement of Bridge No. 88 on SR 2170, which
spans Ferrells Creek. The project is located in northern Chatham County about 7.5 miles
(12.1 kilometers [km]) north of Pittsboro (Figure 1). The existing structure is a simple
beam bridge, built in 1953. The existing cross section is a two-lane shoulder section with
a 60-foot (18.3 m) right-of-way.
One alternative is being considered for the bridge replacement (Figure 2).
Alternate 1
Replace bridge with a new bridge approximately on existing alignment, and detour traffic
offsite onto other local roads. The proposed cross-section and right-of--way will be
identical to the existing condition. The proposed project length will be 400 feet (120m)
long and 60 feet (18.3 m) wide.
1.2 Methodology
Published information and resources were collected prior to the field investigation.
Information sources used to prepare this report include the following:
• United States Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map (Bynum, NC, 1968).
• United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
(NWI) Map (Bynum, NC, 1983).
• NCDOT aerial photograph of project area (1:1200).
• Draft maps and descriptions of the soils in the project area (Chatham Soil Survey
Office, Natural Resources Conservation Service [NRCS]).
• North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources (NCDENR)
basin-wide assessment information (NCDENR, 1999).
• USFWS list of protected and candidate species.
• North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) files of rare species and unique
habitats.
August 2002
1

SR 1539
Meadow
s9
`~ 's
~ ~ ~~
~ ~ ,
~_
Sa 1545 ~ ~ `~ Protected Water
Supply V NSWhed
Haw River (Pittsboro)
d
SR 1525
~,
s9
'~s
~s
lsoo
Protected Water
Supply Watershed
WS-IV NSW
Haw River (Pittsboro)
rS47 1~ _-~
PROJECT
SITE
5~
LEE

0.5 0.25 0 0.5 1 Miles
North Carolina -Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
FIGURE 1
VICINITY MAP
Replacement of Bridge Number 88 on SR 1525
over Ferrells Creek
Chatham County
TIP No. B-3824

N,xturat Resaur~~es Teehni~aX Repair
p'erretts Creek, Ctuarhum County, tVarth Corrtina
Water resource information was obtained Pram publications pasted on the World Wide
Web by NCDENR Division. of Water Quality (DWQ~. Information concerning the
occurrence of federally protected species in the study area was obtained from the USFWS
list of protected and candidate species {2002}, pasted on the World Wide Web by the
Ecological Services branch of the USFWS office in North Carolina. Information
concerning species under state protection was obtained fr©m the Nk~F dat~~base of rare
species and unique habitats. NHP files were reviewed on March 8, 2002 for documented
sightings of species on state or federal lists and locations of significant natural areas.
A general field survey was conducted along the gropased project route by Earth Tech.
biologists on March 21, 2002. Water resources were identified and their phy;~ical
characteristics were recorded. Far the purposes of this study, a brief habitat assessment
was performed within the pxaject area of Ferrells Creek. Plant communities and their
a~ssaciated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation techniques, including
active searching, visual observations, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife
(sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows. Terrestrial community classifications generally
fallow Sehafale and Weakley (1.990) where appropriate and plant taxonomy follows
Radford et at. (1968). Vertebrate taxrsnamy follows Conant ~t al. (1991 }, Patter er at.
(1980), Martof et al. (198{1), and Webster er at. (1985). Vegetative communities were
mapped using aerial photography of the project site. Predictions regarding wildlife
community composition involved general qualitative habitat assessment based an existing
vegetative communities.
Jurisdictional wetlands, if present, were delineated and evaluated based an criteria
estitblished in the f1.S. Army Carps of Engineers Wetlands Detineatia>x Mcznuul(US~CE,
198?). Wetlands were classified based an Cowardin et al. (1979).
1.3 ~'erminology and Definitions
Far the purposes of this report, the following terms are used far describing the limits of
natural resources investigations. "Project area" denote an area with a width of 60 feet
(3U.S m) along the full length of the project alignment. The "project vicinity„ is an area
extending I mile (1.6 km} on all sides of the project area, and "project region" is an area
equivalent in size to the area represented by a 7.5-minute USES quadrangle map (about
61.8 sq miles ar 163.3 sq km). When referring to stream banks, "left bank" and "right
bank" are relative to an observer facing downstream.
1.4 Qualifications of the PrinciQal Investigators
Investigator: Daniel Ingram
Education B.S. Natural Resources, North Carolina State University
Experience Staff Biologist, E~arih Tech I.5 years
Expertise Wetland delineation, wetland mitigation
August 2CX?2
4

Natural Res~aurces Technical ft`epnrt
F'errelts Creek, Chrtthana Cr~unty, North Gr~mtirta
Investigator. Heather Wallace
Education B.S. Ecology, Appalachaan State UnxversYty
Experit~nce Staff Biologist, Earth Tech > 1 year
Expertise Natural resources surveys, roalagy
2.U PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Sail and water resources that occur in the project area are discussed with respect to
passible environmental concerns.
2.1 Re~gicrnal Characteristics
The project area lies in the central portion of North Carolina within the Piedmant
physiagraphic province. The geology of this area is within the Carolina Slate Belt.
Elevations in the project area are approximately 380 feet (143 m) { 1927 North American
Datum). 'The topography of the project vicinity is moderately hilly with sharp topographic
upland breaks and relatively short valleys.
The proposed. project is in a rural area in Chatham County approximately S.l miles (8.1
km) southwest of Siler City, NC. Chatham County's major economic resources are
matrufacturing, retail trade and agriculture. The population of Chatham County in 2000
was 49,329 (North Carolina f)ffice of State Budget, Planning and Management 2001).
2.2 Soils
information about soils in the project area was taken from draft maps and descriptions
provided by the Chatham County Soil Survey Office. The provisional map units in the
project area are Chewacla and Wehadkee soils, and Wedowee sandy loam. All of these
sails have formed from fine-grained metavolcanic rocks of the Carolina Slate Belt.
Chewacla and Wehadkee sails are listed as hydric sails by the MRCS,
• Chewacla and Wehadkee soils (5458}, 0 to 2 'yO slope, is mapped along the
flaadplain of Ferrells Creek within the project area. These soils formed in loamy
sediments and occur on floadplains of Piedmant streams. These sails were not
separated into individual mapping units because of difficulty in distinguishing them at
this mapping scale and similarity in management. Chewacla sails rarely to frequently
fla~d. These are very deep, somewhat poorly drained, with moderate permeability and
slaw nxnaff. Wehadkee soils are frequently flooded. The seasonal high water table is
0.5 to 2 feet {O.15 to 0.6 m}. These soils are very deep, poorly drained and very poorly
drained, with very slow runoff and very slow internal drainage. This soil occurs an
flaadpiains. The seasonal high water table is 0 to l fast (0.3 m~. Wehadkee soils are
listed on the National Hydric Sails list.
August 2t~02
S

Natural Resources Technical Re~t~r>'
I~erretls 'reek. Chatham Cr~unty, North Carc~Ciruz
« Wedowee sandy loom (SOB}, 2 to 1S '~ slope., is mapped: on the uplands adjacent to
both sides of the Ferrells Creek flaodplain. These soils occur an narrow ridges and
side slopes of uplands. Wedowee soils are very deep and well drained with moderate
permeability and medium to rapid runoff. The depth to weathered bedrock is 32 to t5f)
inches jg 1 to 152 centimeters (cm}1. The seasonal high water table for this sail is
greater than ~i.0 feet (2 m}, and the soils are never flooded.
Site index is a measure of soil quality and productivity. The index is the average height,
in feet, that dominant and co-dorn~inant trees of a given species attain in a specified
number of years (typically 50). The site index applies to fully-stocked, even-aged,
unmanaged stands. The Chatham county sail survey is incomplete and site index
information is not available.
2.3 Water Reso>~rces
This section contains information concerning water resources likely to be impacted by the
proposed project. Water resources assessments include the physical characteristics likely
to be impacted by the proposed project (determined by field survey), best usage
classifications, and water quality aspects of the water resounes. Probable impacts to
surface waters are also discussed, as well as means to minimise impacts.
2.3.1. Physical Characteristics of Surface Waters
The project is located in the Cape Fear River basin (CPF04 sub-basin, HUC 030604).
Ferrells Creels originates about 5.2 miles (8.4 km~ north of the project area. From the
project area, the stream travels in a southerly direction about 0.4 miles (0.6 km) to its
confluence with the Haw River.
Fetrells Creek is approximately 16 feet (4.9 rn} wide and flows from Werth to south in the
project area. The banks are 3 feet (0.9 m) high, and are moderately steep. Banks are
vegetated and are stable. The substrate is sand and gravel. Flow was heavy at the time of
the field survey due to recent heavy rains. Water clarity is moderate. The mean depth is
unknown due to the heavy flow conditions at the time of the field survey. Three beaver
darns are present in the vicinity of Bridge No. 88. An active flaodplain is present
upstream and downstream of the bridge. This flaodplain is vegetated with farces, shrubs,
vines, and herbs. The channel flaws relatively straight through the project area. The creek
is about 80 percent shaded by trees.
2.3.2 Best Usage Classification
Surface waters in North Carolina are assigned a classification by the DWQ that is
designed to maintain, protect, and enhance water quality within the state. Ferrells Creek
(Index # 16-32) is classified as a WS-IV NSt~ water body (NCDENR, 2002.}. WS-IV water
resources are waters protected as sources of potable water where a WS-I, II ar III
classification is not feasible. These waters are also protected far Class C uses. W5-N
August 2UQ2
6

Natural :R~.rr~ur~es 7'echnrc;at fiej~ort
F~rretls Creek. Chrttham~ County. Itt~rth Cproltnrt
waters are generally in moderately to highly developed watersheds or Protected Areas,
and invelve na categorical restrictions on discharges. Class C. uses include aquatic life
propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Secondary recreation includes wading, baatang, and ether uses involving human body
contact with water where such activities take place in an infrcqu~ent, unorganized, ar
incidental manner. There are na restrictions on watershed develapment activities. The
supplemental NSW classification is intended far waters needing additional nutrient
management due to their being Subject to excessive growth of microscopic ar
macroscopic vegetation. Ln general, management strategies far paint and nanpoint source
pollution control require central of nutrients {nitregen andlar phosphorus usually} such
that excessive growths of vegetation are reduced ar prevented and there is na increase in
nutrients aver earget levels. Management strategies are site-specific.
Na waters classified as High Quality `VS~ater {HQW}, Water Supplies {WS-I or WS-
II} or Outstanding Re~urce Waters {ORW} occur withrn 1.0 miles (1.5 krn) of the
project study area.
2.3.3 Water Quality
This section describes the quality of the water resources within the project area. Potential
impacts to water quality ftan~ paint and non-paint sources are evaluated. Water quality.
assessments are based open published resource informatien and field study observations.
2.3.3.1 Genera! Watershed Characteristics
The project area is in a forested and agricultural, largely undeveloped watershed.
However, residential use is growing. Potential threats to stream quality in this area aze
agricultural and forestry operations as well as develapment activities that would result in
increased sediment and nutrient-laden runoff.
2.3.3.2 Basin-wide Assessment Report
The Environmental Sciences Branch, Water Quality Section of the DWQ, conducts basin-
wide water quality assessments. The program has established monitoring stations for
sampling selected benthic macrainvertebrates and fish species, which are known to have
varying levels of tolerance to water pollution. An index of water quality can be derived
from the number of taxa present. and the ratio of tolerant to intolerant taxa. Streams can
then be given a biaclassification ranging from Faar to Excellent.
There aze na benthic monitoring stations an Ferrells Creek. DWQ sampled the fish
community neaz Bridge Na. 88 in 1998. The fish community at this site was rated Goad-
Fair. The absence of any intolerant fish species was the most apparent reason far the
rating net being higher {NCDEIVR 2402}.
August 2fk72
7

Natural R~sc~urces Trchni~~al R~~art
~°~rretts Creek, Chatham Cc+uraty: Nc~rrtz Carat6+u~
2.3.3.3 Paint Source Discharge Permits
Paint source discharges in North Carolina are regulated through the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (NPDES~ program administered by the DWQ. Not all
discharges, nor all dischargers, are requireed to obtain a permit to discharge. There are na
permits issued to discharge in Ferrells Creek as of March 2tX}2 f NCDENR 2UC12).
2.3.4 Summary n[ Anticipated Impacts
Any action that affects water quality can adversely affect aquatic organisms. "Temporary
impacts during the construction phases may resole in tang-term impacts to the aquatic
community. Isa general, replacing an existing structure in the same location with an aff-
site detour is the preferred environmental approach. Bridge replacement at a new location
results ~in mare severe impacts.
Project construction may result in the fallowing impacts to surface water resources:
• Increased sediment loading and siltation as a consequence of watershed vegetatian
removal, erosion, and/or construction.
• Decreased light ~netrationtwater clarity from increased sedimentation.
* Changes in water temperature with. vegetatian removal.
• Changes in the amount of available organic matter because of vegetatian removal.
• Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction
activities and construction equipment, and spills from construction equipment.
• Alteration of water levels and flaws as a result of interruptions and/or additions to
surface and. groundwater flaw from construction.
Cansiructian impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which the construction
activity occurs, but may also affect downstream communities. Efforts will be made to
ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site. NCDt3T's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable during
the construction phase of the project to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction
site.
The removal of the existing bridge has the potential to impact surface waters. P+tCDC7T
Best Management Practices far Bridge Demolition and Removal will be adhered to
during the removal process. Further information concerning bridge demolition is found in
Section 4.1..2.
3.U BIO'TIC RESOURCES
Terrestrial and aquatic communities are included in the description of biotic resources.
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated
plants and animals. These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and fauna in each
community and the relationships of these biotic components. Descriptions of the
August 2(XJ2

Natural ~esaur~~s T~chniraC Re,~trx
~"~rrells Creek, Chutirarr: Caunry, North Carolina
terrestrial systems arc presented in the context of plant community classifications. These
classifications follow Schafale and Weakley (19',3(1) where gassible. They are also crass-
referenced to The Nature Canservan~~y International Classification of Ecalt~gical
Cammunities.~ Terrestrial Ve~etatian of the Southeastern United States {Weakley et al.,
1995}, which has recently been adapted as the standard Land saver classification by the
Federal Geographic Data Committee. Representative animal species that are likely to
occur in these habitats (based an published range distributions) are also cited. Scientific
nomenclature and common names {when applicable} are used for the plant and animal
species described. Subsequent references to the same species are by the Gammon name
only.
3.l Terrestrial Communities
Two terrestrial communities were identified within the project area: maintained roadside,
and flaadplain forest (Figure 2). Dominant faunal catnpanents associated with these
terrestrial areas will be discussed in each community description. Many species are
adapted to the entire range of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not. be
mentioned separately in each community description.
3.1.1 Maintained Roadside
This community savers the area slang the road shoulders and fill stapes in the project
area. Species include bah:ia grass (Paspalum natatum>, fescue {~'estuca sp.}, glantain
(Plantaga sp,), Japanese honeysuckle {I,~anicera japonica}, golden-rod (Salidaga sp.),
greenbriar {Smilax ratondifalia}, blackberry (Rebus sp.}, and mu.ltiflara rose {Rasa
moltiflara).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are ogpartunistic and capable of
surviving an a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation to bath living and dead
faunal components. American craw (Carvos brachyrhynchas), European starling
{Sturnus vulgaris), and American robin (Turdus migratarius) are birds that use these
habitats. The area is also used by the Virginia opossum {Didelphis virginiarta), various
species of mice (Peramvscus spp.), eastern garter snake (Tharrinaphis sirtalis}, and
American toad (Bu, fa americanus}.
3.1.2 Floodplain Forest
This community occurs slang the banks and flaodplain of Ferrells Creek. Canopy species
include green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), red maple (Ater ruhrum), sweetgurn
(Liguidambar styracifIua), river birch {Betula nigra}, American. beech (Fagus
~randifalia}, and northern red oak (Quercus ruhra}. The understary includes ironwood
(Carpinus caraliniantY) and box elder (Ater regards). Vines include Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy {Tsxicadenrlran rudicans), and greenbriar. Herbaceous species
include Japanese grass {Micrsstegium virriineum}, spring beauty (Claytania virginica),
raft rush (Juncos ~~usus}, and wild geranium Geranium ma~culatum}. The hardwood
Au~usi 20(12
9

Nc~fiura! ~esnur~es °t"echr~fcr~! R~part
~%err~lls Creek. C~"huthum Caunty~ North Carvtirkea
community extends upslope outside of the floadplain with minor changes in the
vegetation assemblage.
This community is classified a~s a PiedmontlLtaw Mountain Alluvial Forest, as described
lay Schafale and Weakley (1990}. The TNC classification is most likely 1.B.2.N.d.l 10
Fra.~cinus p~nrtsytvanica -Acct ruhrurrt Temporarily Flooded Forest Alliance.
Catalina wren (Thryrrthnrus ludvvicianu,~}, American crow, northern cardinal {Cardiruxtis
cardintxlis}, Carolina chickadee (Faros curr~tinensis), and tufted titmouse (Faros bicvlvr}
were heard or observed here. Other animals that may be found here are upland chorus
frog (1'seceriacris triscriata fcriarum}, southern copperhead (A~kistrvdrm ccrntnrtrix
cvntvr7rix}, northern watersnake (Nervclia sipedrrn sipcdvn), eastern mole (Scatvpus
aettraticur}, and golden mouse (C7chrcrtvrrxy~:r nuttatti).
3.2 Aquatic Communities
Within the project area, Ferrells Creek is amid-gradient, second-order stream. The bed
material consists mostly of sand and gravel. Un the day of the site visit, the water was
slightly turbid due to recent rain events. The riparian community is deciduous trees and
shrubs, and is described in Section 3.1.v.
According to communication with Shari Bryant, District S Biologist far the North
Catalina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC}, Ferrells Creek supports a
significant sunfish population and was sampled by DWQ in 1998, at Bridge Na. 88.
During this survey the following species were collected: white sucker (Castvstvmus
cvmmercvni}, creek chubsucker (Lryrraizvn rthtvn,~us}, redbreast sunfish (Lcpvmis
auritis}, green sunfish CLepvmis cyaneltus}, pumpkinseed (L~pvmis gibbasus}, warmouth
(L.epomis gutvsus}, blue gill {Lepvmis mrxcrvchirus}, largemouth bass (Micrvpterus
satmvides}, satinfin shiner (Cyprinetta anatvstana}, whitefin shiner (Cyprin~tta nivett},
white shiner (Luxitus atbcvtus}, bluehead chub (Nacvmis deptvicephatus}, golden shiner
(Natemiganvus crysvteueas}, spattail shiner (Nvtrvpis hudsanius}, sandbar shiner
(Nvtrvpis scepticus}, speckled killil^ish {Fundutus rathbunr`}, snail bullhead (Ameiunus
brunn~us}, tessellated. darter (Eth~vstvma vtmsredi}, ma~uitofish {Gambusia iurlbravki).
Before the NCWRC can recommend construction moratorium dates, the actual plans far
this project must be reviewed by the Habitat Conservation Division biologists, but
tentative moratorium dates are recommended between April l and June l5. These dates
will protect spawning habitat. far most, if not. all, the species found in the stream.
3.3 Sammary of Anticlpat~ed Impacts
Project constnaction will have various impacts to the previously described terrestrial and
aquatic communities. Any construction activities in ar near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies potential
impacts to the natural communities within the project area in terms of the area impa~~ted
August 2gf12
10

Natural Resources ~'echnical ~Zepnrt
Ferr~lls Creek, Chat7uxm Crruraty, North Gprolina
and the plants and animals affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered
here slang with recommendations to mininuze ar eliminate impacts.
3.3.I Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial cammunities in the project area will be impacted permanently by proje~;t
construction from clearing and paving, Estimated impacts are based an the length of the
alternate and the entire study corridor width. Alternate 1 is ~ feet ~1g.3 rn~ wide and 4lQ
feet (i 25.0 m} lang.
Table 1 describes the potential impacts to terrestrial cammunities by habitat type.
$ecause impacts arc based an the entire study corridor width, the actual loss of habitat
will likely be less than the estimate.
fable 1. Estimated Area of Impact to Terrestrial Communities
Area of Impact in Acres {Hectares)
Alternative 1
Communit Permanent
Maintained Roadside O.16 ~1~.0?}
Flcx~d lain Forest 0,2t~ t}.t}g)
Total irn ct 0.36 Q.1.4
instruction of natural. cammunities slang the project alignment will result. in the lass of
foraging habitats far the various animal species that utilize the area. Animal species will
be displaced into surrounding cammunities. Adult birds, mamnuds, and some reptiles are
mobile enough to avoid mortality during construction. 'Young animals and less mobile
species, such as many amphibians, may suffer direct loss during construction. The plants
and animals that are fauna in the upland cammunities are generally common throughout
central North Carolina,
Impacts to terrestrial cammunities, particularly in locations having steep to moderate
slopes, can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy sediment loads as a
consequence of erasion, Canstructian impacts may not be restricted to the cammunities in
which the construction activity occurs, but may also affect downstream cammunities.
Efforts should be made to ensure that na sediment leaves the canstructian site.
3.3.2 Aquatic Communities
impacts to aquatic cammunities include fluctuations in water temperatures as a re.5ult of
the loss of riparian vegetation. Shelter and food resources, both in the aquatic and
terrestrial portions of these organisms' life cycles, will be affacted by lasses in the
terrestrial communities, fine lass of aquatic plants and animals will affect tcxrestrial fauna
which rely an them as a food source.
August 2IXla
ll

Naturr~t Resources 7"euhrricat Rkpurr
___ Ferretts Crrek, Chatham County, North Carattrta
Temporary and permanent impacts to aquatic organisms may result from increased
sedimentation. Aquatic invertebrates may drift downstream during canstructian and
recalanize the disturbed area ante it has been stabilized. Sediments have the potential to
affect fish and other aquatic life in several ways, including the slagging and abrading of
gills and ether respiratory surfaces, affecting the habitat by scouring and filling of peals
and riffles, altering water chemistry, and smothering different life stages. Increased
sedimentation. may cause decreased light penetration through an increase in turbidity.
Wet concrete, which can be taxis to aquatic life, should net come into contact with
surface water during bridge construction. Potential adverse effects can be mininuzed
through. the irnplernentatian of NCDt~T Best M~nugernent Practices far Pratectir~n of
Surface Waters.
4.0 JUI~TSU-ICTI~ONAL TO~'IC5
This section provides inventories and impact analyses far two federal and state regulatory
issues: "Waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the bread category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR § 325.3 and in accordance with previsions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344}. These waters are regulated by the U.S. Army
Carps of Engineers (USAGE). Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill. material
into surface waters ar wetlands falls under these provisions.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
The Bynum, NC I~iWI map shows a palustrine -forested -broadleaf deciduous
temporarily flooded wetland 20U feet (61.0 m) wide on the west side of Ferreils Creek.
within the proposed project area. However, during the Feld survey no jurisdictional
wetlands were found within the promised project area. A small jurisdictional wetland is
located immediately south of the project area. an the west flaodplain. This wetland will
not be impact~l by the proposed project. FerrelIs Creek meets the definition of surface
waters. It is therefore classified as Waters of the United States, and is a jurisdictional
perennial stream. The channel is 1b feet {4.q m) wide within the project area.
4.1,2 Bridge Demolition
Demolition and removal of a highway bridge aver Waters of the United States requires a
pernut Pram the U.S, Army Carps of Engineers if dt~pping components of the bridge into
the water is the only practical means of demolition. Effective g12U/99, this permit is
included with the permit far bridge reconstruction. The permit application henceforth
August 2012
12

Naturcxt R~~sourc~s Tectrrricat t2e~ort
F`err~tts {:'reek, C`haxtt~cxm C'aunty, North Carr~ttna
will require disclosure of demolition methods and potential impacts to the body of water
in the planning document far the bridge reconstruction.
Section 402-2 "Removal of Existing Structures" of NCDOT's Standard Specifications far
Roads and Structures stipulates chat ``excavated materials shall not be deposited....in
rivers, streams, ar im~undments," and "the dropping of parts or components of
structures into any body of water will not be permitted unless there is no other practical
method of removal.. The removal from the water of any part or component of a structure
shall be done so as to keep any resulting siltation to a minimum." To meee these
specifications, NCDOT shall adhere to Best Management Practices for the Protection of
Surface "Waters, as supplemented with Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition
and Removal.
In addition, all in-stream work shall be classified into one of three categories as follows:
Case l} In-water work is limited to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters ar threatened and/or endangered species, except far the
removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. The work is carefully
coordinated with the responsible agency to protect the Outstanding Resource Water or
T&E species,
Case ~} l'~o work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish
migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3} Na special restrictions other than. those outlined in Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters and supplements added by the Bridge Demolition
document, dated 9/~O199.
Ferrells Creek in the vicinity of the proposed project is a WS-N IVSW water, It is not
known to provide habitat for aquatic species on the federal list of threatened and
endangered species, however, it is associated with fish migration, spawning or larval
recruitment. For these reasons, Case 2 applies to the proposed replacement of fridge No.
88 over Ferrells Creek. However, if the project is found to either "Not Likely to
Adversely Affect" or "Effect" the Cape Fear Shiner, then Case l will apply to in-stream
bridge demolition and removal activities.
The bridge is composed of an asphalt wearing surface on a timber deck an steel I-beams,
All substructure and bents are timber. The asphalt surface will be removed prior to
demolition without dropping into Waters of the U.S. All other steel and timber
components will be removed without dropping into Waters of the U.S. Thus, no
temporary fill in waters is anticipated for this bridge demolition. Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed.
The streambed in the project area is nearly all sand and gravel. Therefore, conditions in
the stream do not raise sediment concerns and a turbidity curtain is not recommended.
August 2pt1~2
13

Ncatr~rc~l Resaurcer 1'ec~hrtitat Re~~~rt
Ferrelts Creek, Chr~tha~rt Cc~uneb, North C'arc~tirta
4.1.3 ~ornmary of Anticipated Impacts
No wetlands were identified within the project area. Project canseructian cannot be
accomplished without infringing can surface waters. Anticipated surface watersmpacts fall
under the jurisdiction of the USACE and the DWQ. 'within the project area, Ferrells
Creek is 16 feet (4.9 m) wide. Assuming a study corridor of 30 feet (91 m) far each side
of the bridge, the construction of the new bridge vain impact 60 linear feet (1 ~.~ m) of
stream, and a total area of 960 sq feet 039.2 sq m} of surface waters.
4.1.4 Permits
Impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated fram the proposed project. Permits
and certifications fram various state and federal agencies may be required prior to
construction activities.
Construction is likely to be authorized by Nationwide Permit {NWP) Na. 23, as
promulgated under 61 FR 2020, 2082; January 15, 2002. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded, ar financed in whale ar in part, by
another Federal agency ar department where that agency or department has determined
that, pursuant to the Council on Environmental t~uality Regulations far Implementing the
Prcx;edural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act:
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded fram enviranrnentai
dacumentatian because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect an the human
environment; and
* the C?ffice of the Chief Engineer has been furnished native of the agency's ar
department's application far the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification Na. 3361 ar waiver
thereof, froth the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR} prior to
issuance of the NWP 23. Section 441 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue
ar deny water certification for any federally permitted ar licensed activity that results in a
discharge into Waters of the U.S. Final permit decision rests with the USACE.
4.1.5 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each. of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines ail appropriate and practical possibilities of averting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
August 2gp2
l4

Natural R~srrurcca T~chnic~al Rrnr~rt
Ferr~lts Creek, Ciuxthum Ccru»ty, North C'crralirn
(MOA} between the Environmental Protection Agency {EPA) and COE, in determining
"appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should
be~ appropriate tc~ the scope and degree of thane impacts and practical in terms of casts,
existing technology and logistics in :light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the, United States. implementation of these steps will be
required through project madi~catians and permit conditions. Practical means to
minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project
include:
~ Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, RC}W widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths
• installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction
~ Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection, of
surface waters and wetlands
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
~ Judicious pesticide and herbicide usage
• Possible use of turbidity curtains during construction of permanent bridge bents
• implementation of a proposed tentative in-stream construction moratorium from April
1 co June l S in order to minimize impacts on fish migration, spawning, and larval
recruitment into nursery areas
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts that remain after all appropriate and. practicable minimization has been required.
Cornpensatary 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 {r.e., compensatory an-site mitigation).
Because this project will likely be authorized under a. Nationwide Permit, mitigation far
impacts to surface waters may ar may not be required by the USAGE. In accordance with
the Division of Water Quality Wetland Rules [i5A NCAC ZH .0506 {h)] "Fill or
alteration of more than one acre of wetlands will require compensatory mitigation; and
fill ar alteration. of more than 1 SO Linear feet of streams may require compensatory
mitigation.." Written approval of the final mitigation plan is required from NCDWQ
before the regulatory agency issues a Water duality Certification. Furthermore, in
accordance with 67 FR 2020; 2092; January 1 S, 2002, the US Army Corps of Engineers
requires compensatory mitigation when necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the
aquatic environment are minimal. The size and type of proposed project impact and
function and value of the impacted aquatic resource are factors considered in determining
acceptability of appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation. Final
compensatory stream mitigation requirements will be determined by the US Army Corps
August 2CXI2
15

Natural Rescrt~rces Technical Ite~trart
F'crrells C"reelr, ~'hathara Caunty,lVrarth C;~cralina
of .Engineers under the statutory provisions of CWA §4CW and the January 15, 20012 Final
Nance of Issuance of Nationwide Permits.
A total of faU linear feet (18.3 m) of Ferrells Creek are located within the study camidar
for the proposed project. If the final length of stream impact is greater than 150 linear
feet (45.6 m), compensatory mitigation may be reduired. The environmental regulatory
agencies will ultimately provide final permit and compensatory mitigation decisions for
the project.
There are no wetland impacts assc3ciated with this praject. Although impacts to Ferrells
Creek are. probably unavoidable, impacts to the jurisdictional wetland immediately
outside the praject right-of--way can be avoided by maintaining the existing Alternative 1
alignment.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Same populations of plants and animals are declining either as a result of natural farces
or their difficulty competing with humans for resources. Rare and protected species listed
far Chatham County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
praject construction, are discussed in the fallowing sections,
4.2.1. Species Under Federal Protection
Plants and animals with a federal classification. of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered CFE}, and Praised Threatened (PT) are pmtected under provisions
of Section ?and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended.
The USFW5 lists 4 species under federal protection for Chatham County as of 3/22101
(USFWS 2001.}, These species are listed in Table 2.
Table 2. Species Under Federal Protection in Chatham County
~ Common Name Scientific Name Federal
Status
Vertebrates
Bald ea le Haliaeetus leucace bolus T
Ca Fear shiner Natro is mekistacholas E
Red-cockaded wood ker Picoides borealis E
Vascular Plants
H rella Ptillmnium »~dosum E
Notes: E

T Endangered-A species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened-A species that is likely to become an endangered
species within the foreseeable future throughout all ar a
si ficant portion of its range.
August 211D2
16

Natural R~sctr~rr~s %"~c~hni~c•a~l Re~nrt
I`~rrells C;r~e~k, Chrittulm C"r~ur~ty, Nrrrl~ C;arr~lirw
A brief description of the characteristics and habitat requirewent~~ of each species follows,
along with a conclusion regarding potential project impact.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus {bald eagle} _ Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date First Listed:l'l~Sarch i 1, 1967 {Endangered
Date Dawn Listed: 3uly ~1~, 1.995 {Threatened)
The bald eagle is a lame raptor with a wingspan reaching 7 feet {2.1 w}. Adults have
a dark brawn body with a pure white heats. and tail, whereas the juvenile plumage is
chocolate brown to blackish with white wattling on the tail, belly and underwings.
Adult plumage is fully acquired by the fifth ar sixth year.
T"he bald eagle is primarily awsr~ciated with coasts, rivers, and lakes, usually nesting
near large bodies of water where it feeds. It preys primarily an fish, but will feed an
birds, manunals, turtles, and carrion when fish are unavailable.
In the southeast, the nesting and breeding season runs from September to December.
Large nests up to 6 feet {2 m) across and weighing hundreds of pounds are
constructed from large sticks, weeds, cornstalks, grasses, and sod. Preferred nesting
sites are usually within one-half mile of water, have an open view of the surrounding
area, and are in the largest living tree, usually a pine ar cypress. Excessive human
activity may exclude an otherwise suitable site from use. Wintering areas generally
have the same characteristics as nesting sites, but may be farther from shares.
The bald eagle ranges throughout all of North America. Breeding sites in the
southeast are concentrated in Florida, coastal South Carolina, and coastal Louisiana,
and sporadically heated elsewhere.
Biological canclusian: Na Effect
The USFWS has issued Habitat Management Guidelines far the Bald Eagle in the
Southeast Region. The project site lies approximately Q.5 miles (U.8 k} from. the
Rocky River, which could provide potential foraging habitat far the Bald Eagle.
Therefore the project site would fall within the secondary management zone for any
nest located along the Rocky River. No Bald Eagle nests, or suitable nesting areas
were located along the River. Furthermore, na large conifers or other trees suitable
for a large nest were noted in the project area, Ferrells Creek is also too small to
support suitable eagle foraging habitat. ~ search of the NHP database found no
occurrence of this animal within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that the
project will not impact this protected species.
Au~usr 2D02
17

Natural Rest~urces Tec°hnic~at Re~c~rt
1'~errells Creek, Chatham Caun~-, 1Vcrrtir Carr~lina
Notraps mekistoehatas(Cape Fear shiner}
Vertebrate Family: Cyprinidae
Federally Listed: 1987
Endangered
'I`he Cape Fear shiner is a small, pale, silvery yellow fish, rarely exceeding 2 in (S
cm) in length, with a black band running rclong its sides. The fins are yellowish and
somewhat pointed. The upper lip is black, and. the lower lip bears a thin black bar
along its margin. The Cape Fear shiner, unlike mast ether members of the large
genus ~Notrc~pis, feeds extensively on plant material, and its digestive tract is
modified for this diet by having an elongated, convoluted intestine (USFWS 1991).
The species is generally associated with clean streams having a substrate of gravel,
cobble, and boulder substrates and has been observed to inhabit. slow pools, riffles,
and slow runs. Side channels and pools with water of good quality and relatively low
silt loads are also needed, In these habitats, the species is typically associated with
schools of weber related species, but. it is never the numerically dominant species.
Juveniles are often found in slackwater, among large rack outcrops in midstream., and.
in flooded side channels and pools (Pottern and Huish 1985).
Critical Habitat Designation:
Habitat is considered an important comment in the conservation of endangered
species and is opts-requisite to eventual recovery. A geographic area containing
essential. habitat needed for the conservation and recovery of an endangered species
is critical habitat. These areas are determined by the USFWS and the location of the
critical habitat is published in the Federal Registry. The designated critical habitat is
identified as follows: Approximately 4.1 miles ref the Rocky River from North
Catalina State Highway 9q2 Bridge downstream to Chatham County Road 1010
.Bridge; and approximately t1.S river mile of Bear Creek, from Chatham County Road
2156 Bridge downstream to the Rocky Raver, then downstream in the Rocky River
(approximately 4. ~ tiver miles) to the Deep River, then downstream in the I?eep
River (approximately 2.6 river miles) to a point 0.3 river mile below the Moncure,
North Carolina, U,S. Gealogical Survey, Gaging Station. Constituent elements
include clean streams with gravel, cobble, and boulder substrates with pawls, r%~Zes,
shallow runs and slackwater areas with large ruck outcrops and side channels and
pools with water of gaud quality with relatively low silt loads. The Haw River is not
designated as critical habitat.
Biological Conclusion: ~" ~ Unr+esalved A
The substrate of Ferrells Creek has sand and gravel substrate, low to medium
sediment loads, and appears to have fair quality waters. A search of the NHP records
found no occurrence of this species within the project. vicinity. The Cape Fear shiner
has been documented in the Haw River approximately 2,8 miles (4.5 km)
downstream of the Ferrells Creep.. confluence. Fisheries biologists from NCI~'1' are
Au~usr 2~2
l8

iVQturut 1Z~.rc~urres Terhf~ic,~at Rej~cart
t+"err~lts ~'r~e~k, Cturt/uanr Cat~nty, North C~ratirttx
downstream of the Ferrells Creek confluence. Fisheries biologists from NCDOT are
aware of Gape Fear Shiner populations occurring in the Haw River approximately
one mile upstream of the Ferreils CreeklHaw River confluence. Since the project site
occurs only 0.4 miles from this confluence, the Cape Fear Shiner may migrate into
the project site to spawn. .Project construction activities may impact the stream's
aquatic communities downstream of the proposed construction site. Consequently,
NCDC~T will conduct more a thorough Cape Fear Shiner survey in Ferrells Creek.
Picaides bare+~lrs {Red-cockaded wcx~dpecker} Endangered
Family: Picidae
Federally Listed: 197{3
The red-cockaded wc3odpecker is a small to medium sized bird 7.~ to 7.9 inches { 2.8
to 20 cm} long with a wingspan of 14 to 15 inches {35 to 38 cm}. The back and top
of the head are black. The cheek is white. Numerous small white sprats arranged in
horizontal rows give gladder-back. appearance. The chest is dull white with small
black. spots on the side. Males and females look mike except males have a small red
streak above the cheek.
Among woodpeckers, the red-cockaded has an advanced racial system. They live in
a group termed a clan. The clan may have from two to nine birds, but never more
than one breeding pair. The other adults are usually males and are called helpers.
The helpers are usually the sons of the breeding male and can be from l to 3 years
old. The helpers assist in incubating eggs, feeding young, nicking new cavities, anti
defending the clan's area from other red-cockaded wcadpeekers.
.Roosting cavities are excavated in living pines, and usually in these which are
infected with a fungus producing red-heat disease. A clan nests and roosts in a
group of cavity trees called a colony. The colony may have one or two cavity trees to
more than 12. Ir- must colonies, all the cavity trees are within a circle about 1,500 ft
{450 m} wide. C7pen stands of pines with c minimum age of 80 to l20 years provide
suitable nesting habitat. Longleaf pines (Pines iaalustris} are the most commonly
used, but other species of southern pine are also acceptable. Dense stands of pines,
or stands that have a dense hardwood understory are avoided. Foraging habitat is
provided in pine and pine hardwood stands ~U years or older with foraging
preference for pine to ees 10 inches {25 cm,) car larger in diameter. The woodpeckers
diet consists mainly of insects which includes ants, beetles, wood-baring insects, and
caterpillars.
Biolog#cal Conclusion: Na Effert
No suitable habitat exists in the pmject area for the red-cockaded woodpecker. The
project area does not have the open mature stand of pines that the red-cc~kadcd
woodpecker needs. A search of the N1=1P database found no occurrence of this bird
August 2tX12
19

tVr~tr~ral l~esoter~es 7`e~•h~nr`c~rad Re~art
F~rrcdds Creek. CJuith~m C'rxuntl-, dVc',rth Car~dirda
~tiilimnium nodvxttm {Harperella}
Family: Apiaceae
Federally Listed: I ~?f~g
F;ndantered
Harperella is an annual herb that grows to a height of C to ~6 inches {0.2 to l.q m}.
The leaves are hallow, quill-like structures. The small, white flowers occur in heads,
ar umbels, not unlike thaw of Queen Anne's lace {l~auc°us er~rrrtra}. It is found in
panel and riverine habitats. Flowering begins in May in the panel habitats, late June ar
July in the riverine habitats, and continues until frost. Seed set is apparently profuse
and populations in ic~calized areas can achieve a high density and number of
individuals each year.
Harperella appears to prefer periodically disturbed sites. It typically occurs in two
habitat types: {1) tacky or gravel shoals and margins of clear, swift-flawing stream
sections; and {2} edges of intermittent pineland panels in the coastal plain. It does not
compete well with other species without periodic disturbance.
Major factors contributing to the. endangered status of this plant are its tolerance and
passible requirement of a very specific and unusual water regime. This includes
moderately intensive spring floods, which may reduce ar elinvnate competing
vegetation. Hatperella is readily eliminated from its habitat by alterations of the
water regime resulting from impoundments, water withdrawal, and drainage ar
deepening of ponds. tither factors such as siltation, pollution, and shoreline
development also threaten harperella populations.
Bial+trgical Conclusion: No Effect
Na habitat exists in the project area far harperella. The banks and sandbars of
Ferrells Creek are well vegetated and the stream does not have clear margins ar rocky
shoals. A search of the NHP database and a search of the stream. in the project area at
the time of the field evaluation found na occurrence of this plant within the project
vicinity. It can be concluded that. the project. will not impact this endangered species.
4.2.2 Federal Species of Ca»cern and State Status
Federal Species of Concern {FSC} are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally ptopased or listed as Threatened ar Endangered. "Table 3 includes FSC species
listed far Chatham County and their state classifications. tJrganisms which are listed as
Endangered (E}, Threatened {T}, ar Special Concern (SC} an the North Carolina Natural
Heritage Program list of Rare Flant and Animal Species are afforded state protection
under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Catalina Plant Protection and
Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to state-listed species
does not apply to NCDQT activities.
August X0132
2{3

11~aturat Xprc7urces Tc~ehnr`cat tt'~~crrt
Ferretts Creek, Chatham Count, tVr,rth C;txrvCirta
Table 3. ~"ederal Species of Concern in Gh~atham County
..~ ___ ___ ____ ._M~_ ~ ..._
Comm<yn Name ~ ___~~ ._ ...
' ,~icientilc Name ..~.,..._..._. .,._
State _ ~~ ~..~
Habitat
Statas present

x~__. _.._~ ~. e_.__ _.___ ______.__._._ _ _ro Vertebrates
..~~,. .~ .,~ _ ..~ ._.
Bachman`s ~arrow._..w Arrru~ i~iila__aestz~~alis ._.. SC N
Carolina darter eastern l~i~dmant pc~p
,~_w_. ~_ ~ ..~.__
,.....~.~. ~ F.thcc~stc~ma c~c~llts~o~2_ ._~_____ _.___,__. ~__~C ~ Y

m .. _. _ ...
~Carotina redhorse _.__ _ ___r...__
- Mc~xostatna s . ._~_ ~_.,.,._..,._._... _....~ ~~ i_... ~'
Invertebrates
.._ __ °s ._~ _~ _. __.._
Atlant-c ~gtoe
w........ .. ~ .. .. ... ........_... _,_ ..... _.._,.~.. __ .
Fusc'aru~itt rnU.cnni
€
T ~

....yr_ .... ,..
,
N

.,,.._,..__,.........__..~._..~.H
Brook fic~ater Atasmidc~nta ~>arit;ctsa T j Y i

~i 5eptima'~c clubta~l dra~on~ty ,___ ~.. _ .~.
~ Gv»tphus s~~tarrttz__ _ ~~ _r__
SR ? ______._.__~;
Y
..
'fellow fern mtascel
,___ ___,_____~___.p _ _...,_ Lcrtn szlas crtrae~sa
. ._L~...._._.:.._. ......__.. _. T
_ .~. Y
~._.~
_~_~____
_~._.. _. _..~. ~.~. ~,....~.~...___ __
* yVascular Plants
~. ..~ _..____T____ ~ __ ~_~____
.._ ___.._~.e ~.~~.x_...
~._ . _,...~.__~__.
Vir inia uillwort Lsac~t~s vir inictx +~ i I~
Sources: Amoroso, ed„ 2C~2; L,eGrand, Hall. and Finnegan, 2f>BI
Key: T = Threatened, E =Endangered, S C =Special Concern, C =Candidate, SR = Sign ilzcantly
Rare
*=Historic record. The species was last observed in the county more than SO years ago.
No FSC species were observed during the site visit, and none are recorded at NHP as
occurring within ~ miles (3.2 km} of the project area.
August ZIXI2
21

Natural R~saurces ~'~~hnicaC Repnrt
F~rrclts Greek. Chatham C`taunty, Nortls C.arr~lina
REFERENCES
American f~rnithologist's i.lnion. "Birds of North Ar~nerica.'~ Thy A.O. t1, 'heck-list of
N~~rth American Birds Seventh Edition. http:/~'www.aou.ortaou/t~irdlist.html#tin~. July
2Cy01).
Amoroso, I.L., ed. 2002. Natural Her•ita~e Pro~rarri List trf the Rag Plant Species of
Ntrrth Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, North Carolina Department of Environment and. Natural Resources. Raleigh.,
North Carolina.
Conant, R., and Collins, I. T. 1 ~'~ I . Roger Tory Peterson Field Guides. A F"field Guide to
Reptiles and Amphibirxns. Eastern arid' Central North America. Third Edition. Houghton
Mifflin Company, New "York, New York.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. I,aRoe. 1979. Classification ref Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United ,Stags. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of
Biological Services, FWStUBS-79!31.. U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, DC.
Daniel, R.B., Buol, S.W., Kleiss, H.I., and Ditzler, C.A. 1999. Technical Bulletin 314-
Soil Systems in North Carolina. North Carolina State University, Soil. Science
Department.
Environmental Laboratory. 1957, I:T.S. Arrr:}° Carps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual, Technical Report Y-t~7-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment. Station,
Vicksburg, Mississippi.
LeGrand, H.E., 3r., S.P. Hall., ~.T. Finnegan.
Rare Animal Species of North Carolina.
Division of Parks and Recreation, North
Natural Resources. Raleigh, North Carolina.
2001. Natural Heritage. Program List of the
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Carolina Department of Environment and
North Carolina Department of Environment. and Natural Resources (NCDENR}. Benthic
Macroinvertebrates Data by River Basin.
http;!/www.esl7.enr.state.nc.us/BAUwww/benthicbasins.htrnl {27 Mar 2tltl2).
NCDENR. "Permits Database an Mainframe Computer." Water Quality Section, Division
of Water Quality (2 Feb. 2002}.
NCDENR. "Water Quality Stream Classifications for Streams in North Carolina." Water
duality Section. http:llh2o.enr.state.nc.uslwghome.html (2 Feb. 2{!02)
North Carolina t7ffice of State Budget, Planning, and Management. "State
Demographics." http;/Iwww.ospl.state,nc,us/demogl {2 Feb 2002)
August ~QCI~
22

tVaturaX R~saurres 7'~~;hnicat Il~pr~rt
F"errell~~ Cr~~k, Chatturm Cntcnty, tyortk Carolina
Pattern, G.B., and M.T. Huish. 19$6. Supplement to the Status Survey of the Cape Fear
Shiner (Notrapis mekirtochnlas). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Contract Na. 1.4-I6-
{~49-1522. 11 pp.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and ~.~. Bert. 1968. Manual of the ~as~ular Flora of the
Carolinas. The University ref North Carolina Press, Chad Hill, Narth Carolina.
Rohde, F.C., R.B. Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. ].994. Freshwater Fishes t~f the
Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and L)ela~ware. University of North Carolina Press,
Chapel Hill, Narth Carolina.
Schafale, M.P. and. A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of
Narth Carolina, Third Appro~imatinn. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program,
Division of Parks and Recreation, NCDENR, Raleigh, NC.
United States Fish and Wildlife Service, 2002. "Endagered, Threatened, and Candidate
Species and Federal Species of Concern, by County, in North Carolina". Asheville, NC.
Weakley A.S., K.D. Patterson, S. I,andaal, M, Pyne and others, compilers, 1995.
Internatioruzl Classi~catior~ of Ecological Communities. Terrestrial Ve~etatian of tie
Southeastern CTrrited States. The Nature Conservancy, Southeast Regional C?ffice,
Southern Conservation Science Department: Chapel Hill, NC.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carvlr'nas,
Virginia, and Maryland. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North
Carolina,
August 2tJ~2
~~

INTEF~'I'TENT C~i~~,.NNEL ~ . `~~
E'VALUATIOI~I' ~"C}~l;M
ACTIC?N ID APPLICANT 1~fAME =„~~ ~; ~ I}ATE ~'" a~ I -~% ,~
PROPQSED C~iA.MrIEI, WORK {i.e., culvert, reiacation, etc.}
wAr~RSOD~~R I~ASr~ ~ ~ ~' ~' e,.Q `~' C`',„~,,-!,~ _ Ct~cn~I~ttt:rn __~_1r~,~t~...w~ ~,c.ut.
R~crsrr W~'ATFi:ER cormzrtol~ls __~~: ~!'1 ~ ~ ~~ ~k ~ a,~ t,~,,s~ °~
F SP M' Ubservatian Comments or Des~iptian
FuhlShellfish/Cntstaceana Present
Benthic Maas lnvettebrates
Amphibians Present!$reeding
`~ _
K A3gat AndfOr Fungus {water quality fonction)
Wildlife Channel Ust {i.e. tracks, fe~.ts, shells, othtrs} ~„ y
`~ Fedexally Fmtecmtl Species Present (Duconfinue}
Ri~ktelPaot Structure
Stable Streambanks
Channel Substrate
i.e, vel cobble rack, coatse sand
,~, Riparian Canopy Frescrtt tSP St}96 cl~sun:}
Undercut Bankstinstream Habitat Structure
Flow Tn Channel
~i Wetlands Adjacent Ta/Contig. Wide Channel (Diaconanue}

Persistent FaalslSaturated Hattarn
iur~e tluau S t. t
~~lCx.~"~..vt
5eepsiClroundwaker Discharge {7une through Sept.} IU~t'~+~:Gl
Adjacent Flcadplaln Present
Wrack MaGesiai or Dri#t Lines
Hydrophytic Vegetation intadjacent to channel
Iutpartant 'Ta Domestic Water Suppiy? Y
Does Channel Appear Qn A Quad Or Suits Map? ` lit Approx, Drainage Arta:
! t l 1
~eteT~,jIYat10L1;
Perennial Channel {sue) ~ Importaslt Channel: LF PRQJECT MGR. Initials
Tnttrmittent Channel (~~) Unimportant Channel: LF
Ephemeral Ghanziel tna jd) (attach map indicating location of irttportant/unimgartant channel}
Ditch Through Upland {na jd}
Evaluator's Signature;
{i€ a r than C.C1.E. p jeer txtanager}
l it ! l 1 ! I ,_ _. r
P=Present SP=Stongly Present NF-~-~Iot Present 1 I/4f98

., ~ ..
pATA PC3RM
R©UT1NE WETLAN© pETERMINATtt~N
{1987 CQE Wetlands De}ineation Manual}
ProjectlSite: __ `""~ 5/2 ~ ~ ~ c~~'~' ~~l!r'~~' {i''. Date: ~'"' ~ 1~- ~.
Applicsltnt/Qwner~ t~~7' County: f.~~~'m
lnveS'tiQatM: rC j,~t't St8t8: /~~t'i
Oo Normal Circumstances exist an the site? Na Community l0: ~~~
is the site signi~icantiy disturbed {Atypca{ Situation}? Yes ~+9' Transact iD:
is the area a potential Problem Area? Yes Plat ID: ~,
{If needed, explain an reverse,}
YEGETATIC7N
q t r m c t r
_1.
~G..
~~ .LL_:,..=..
r
7. 1 ~ ~ jl:rars ~~
Rarcent of Dominant Spaoiee that sre tIBL, FACW ar FAC
(sxoludinp FAG-t.
Remarks:
S~ominent Plant SFecie~ ,~~,~,ir tum _indicatpr
v-
10.
11.
2~
13.
14,
t $.

NYQRt?lt~CiY
,,,,_„ R~orded Oaa tt?aacr~s in Rsmarite}: Wetlarxt ttydroio{py Indicators:
_ Stream. tales, or TWa Gauga F ' t~'aators:
nn~
_ Aariai Photo~rapta s~[ irwndatod
_ atMr
~No Rsoorded Oats Avaitabte Sa~rated in Upper 12 Inches
Water Marks
.~
Orih Linea
..r.
~ 5sdh+tsnt E~epoaita
~
Fietd 0liserwdon:: _ Orainape Pattan+a in Wedarx#s
~''}
~ Ssaor-dsry lndloators !2 nr rrtora required?:
Depth of Surfaoe Yllater: I,f ~`
Gn,) O~diz+Nd Root Ghannats in Upper 12 Inches
~
f~ _
Wrtsr-Stained Leaves
Ospth to Frae Water in Fit: {-~ Cn.! Osu-
~
q~ Nau~ra#
Teut
Ospth to Saturatedoil: ___~,ti^.~ ,,,,_, athar tEx~si+~ in Ransarka~
Remarks:

T ~
V V'~117
Map Unit N~r+e
iSeriss end Phase}: DrsineQe Clsss:
F+etd ~sarvstiana
Taxonomy tSubgroup}. Confirm Mapped TypeT Yes No
P~p~ils Descntttion:
Depth Matrix Color Moats Colon Mcttie Texture, Concretion:,
in h s Hori;an {MunZelt Moist? i`Munseil Moist} Abundance Contrast 3iructure, ejg,

..-1 {(''~` C, r a ~ ~i ~ ~ V f~! ~G~ ~j.~ 1 4~1e7e!!1 L f.'UW"V
tiydrtc Soil Irxiicatare
Histosc
~ Cancnsttons
~
_ Histic t5pipedar4 _ HiQh tarpanic Content in Surface Layer in Sandy Soils
_,_, Sutfidic Odar _ Orperac StroaicinQ in Sandy Soils
_.... Aquic Moisture Regime Listed on Loea{ Hydric Soils fiat
~
RsducinQ Conditions
~Gleyed or Low-Chroma Colors listed on Nadan~N Hydria Soils L}st
Qth
t
i
i
R
tE
k
!
sr
n
xp
n
emsr
e
s
_.
Remarks:
WEtLAND DETERMINATtQN

x
r
:~t
r~r
i
C~
0
m
co