HomeMy WebLinkAbout19971060 Ver 1_Complete File_19971205
~
A:\)~ \SS~o
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR p.o. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
December 5, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
.~112;3
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith, P.W.S
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: NATIONWIDE PERMIT 33 APPLICATION FOR BRIDGE NO.3 ON
SR 1547 OVER GOOSE CREEK, TIP NO B-2649.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued
December 13, 1996, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and
appendix A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction project. The
State Project No. is 8.2691501 and the Federal Aid Project No. is BRZ-1937(1).
Goose Creek contains populations of the Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona
decorata) which is a federally listed endangered species. A list of the environmental
commitments for this project, which include measures to minimize impacts to the
heelsplitter, are on page 1 of the project planning report and will be followed during
construction of this project. A pre-let survey for the mussel was performed
September 15, 1997 and the results are in the attached memo.
No wetlands will be impacted by this project, however, 0.03 acre of surface
waters will be impacted by construction of the bents. We anticipate that 401 General
Water Quality Certification No. 2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project,
and are providing a copy of the CE document to the North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
*
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Michael Wood at (919) 733-7844 extension 306.
~ d1
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: wi attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
wlo attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P .E., Roadway Design
Mr. Whit Webb, P.E., Program Development
Mr. R. L. Hill, P .E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, P .E., Planning & Environmental
i
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DNISION OF HIGHWAYS GARlAND B. GARRElT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
November 25, 1997
Memorandum To:
Michael Wood, Permit Specialist
From:
Tim Savidge, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit
Subject:
Preconstruction survey for the Carolina heel splitter at the Proposed
Bridge Replacement over Goose Creek on SR 1547, Union
County; TIP No. B-2647.
Reference:
1) June 05, 1996 Meeting minutes Memorandum from Phil Harris
2) August 21, 1995 Concurrence letter from USFWS for B-2647
The subject project involves replacement of the existing bridge over Goose Creek
on SR 1547 in Union County. The federally Endangered Carolina heelsplitter
(Lasmigona decorata) is known to occur in this stretch of Goose Creek. NCDOT
committed to the adoption of eight Environmental Commitments listed in Reference 1.
With the adherence to these commitments, it was concluded that the construction of this
project was "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" the Carolina heelsplitter. NCDOT received
concurrence from the USFWS with this conclusion (Ref. 2). One of the commitments
listed in Ref. 1 was to conduct a pre-construction survey for the Carolina heelsplitter in
the project footprint.
The project site was visited on September 15, 1997 by Tim Savidge and Mike
Wood from NCDOT Planning & Environmental Branch, John Alderman and Kate
Shalcross from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission and John Fridell from the
USFWS. Surveys for the Carolina heelsplitter were conducted from at point
approximately 200 yards downstream of the bridge to approximately 100 feet upstream.
Survey methodology involved wading and visual methods, both with a view bucket and
without. The survey group spread out across the width of the stream and worked
upstream towards the bridge. A total of 45 elliptio mussels (Elliptio spp.), 11 eastern
creekshell (Villosa delumbis)*, 3 Carolina creekshell (V vaughaniana)# and 2 notched
rainbow (V constricta)# were found in 1 hour of survey time. The Carolina heelsplitter
was not found in the vicinity of the bridge, however one live individual was found a
within 150 yards upstream of the bridge, as was one squawfoot mussel (Strophitus
undulatus)@. These mussels will not be impacted by the proposed action. The
*
~
Biological Conclusion of "Not Likely to Adversely Affect" concurred with in Reference
2, remains valid.
North Carolina Status
Endangered, Threatened and Special Concern species have legal protection status in
North Carolina under the State Endangered Species Act administered and enforced by the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission. However the level of protection given to
state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities.
# SC (Special Concern): "Any species of wild animal native or once-native to North
Carolina which is determined by the Wildlife Resources Commission to require
monitoring but which may be taken under regulations adopted under provisions of this
Article" (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes; 1987).
* SR (Significantly Rare): "Any species which has not been listed by the NCWRC as an
Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern species, but which exists in the state in
small numbers and has been determined by the NC Natural Heritage Program to need
monitoring.
@ T (Threatened): Any native or once-native species of wild animal which is likely to
become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range, or one that is designated as a threatened species pursuant
to the Endangered Species Act." (Article 25 of Chapter 113 of the General Statutes;
1987).
cc: Charles Bruton, Ph.D., Environmental Unit Head
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2647
File: Aquatic Issues
.
APPROVED:
?/1.6j95
D TE
/C/Z/9S
DATE' /
Union County
SR 1547
Bridge NO.3
Over Goose Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
JLe.w~
k Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
V Division Administrator, FHWA
Union County
SR 1547
Bridge No. 3
Over Goose Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
SEPTEMBER 1995
Document Prepared by Wang Engineering Company. Inc.
~~.(V \2, l~~
Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
~~
mes Wang, Ph.D., P.E.
Principal
:\"".u"""
~",,,, '" CAROL I"",
~.. r-.ft.'\.........../IJ'A ;",
~..:!Io..V " <.cSSJrJA;....,. ~
~ """".. ~,\.. 'vr~. ~
! l~ SEAL~' 1
S \ 7521 I 5
~ e. L" ~.. ~
-:., ...~4'GIN~\:..'. ~ i
".~ ~4? ..........~ ""~ ~....
~~"" 'ES S. ). "",....
"""'""',
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
~ .
( ~
l. Ga' rimes~E.. Unij Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
~~, ~-:nr
Phil Harris, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
Union County
SR 1547
Bridge No.3 Over Goose Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1547(1)
State Project No. 8.2692001
T.I.P. No. B-2647
Bridge No. 3 is included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 1996-
2002 Transportation Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
Impacts are anticipated as a result of this action. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion."
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Manaaement Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable. to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. An archaeological survey will be conducted in the area of potential effect of the project prior
to right-of-way acquisition.
3. NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of this project to minimize
impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata):
a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite.
b. Early reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas.
c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the
stream from construction.
d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be
installed using the drilled shaft method.
e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge
outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope.
f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT
Environmental Branch prior to construction.
h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge
construction.
4. Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
1
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge as shown in Figure 2.
It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft) and a
length of 48 meters (157 ft).
The grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge grade at
this location.
The proposed approach roadway will have a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft)
grassed shoulders for approximately 100 meters (328 ft) west of the bridge and 40 meters (130
ft) east of the bridge.
During construction, traffic will be detoured off-site as shown in Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $535,000 including $35,000 for right-of-way and
$500,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1996-
2002 Transportation Improvement Program, is $609,000 including $34,000 for right-of-way and
$575,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1547 is classified as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
Land use is primarily forest land and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the bridge. Bridge
NO.3 is located approximately 944 meters (3100 ft) from the confluence of Rocky River and
Goose Creek.
The Carolina heelsplitter, an endangered species, is known to occur in the project area. This is
the last stream in North Carolina supporting a viable population. The existing bridge is located
at the end of an 80 meter radius (22 degree) curve with a tangent alignment on either end of the
curve. The curve has a design speed of less than 50 kmh (30 mph). Chevron signs warning
drivers of the curve are posted on the west approach. No signs are posted on the east
approach. The existing approach from the west is in a cut section and from the east is in a fill
section. The vertical alignment is relatively flat.
Near the bridge, SR 1547 has a 6.0 meter (19,7 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft)
shoulders. THe roadway is approximately 5.2 meters (17 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 vehicles per day (vpd) for 1997 and 9QO vpd for the design
year 2017. The volumes include two percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and one percent
dual-tired vehicles (DT) . The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at
the project site.
The existing bridge was built in 1962 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of timber deck on
steel I-beams with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of timber caps and
piles with concrete footings and timber bulkheads.
2
The overall length of the bridge is 36.9 meters (121 ft). The dear roadway width is 7.4 meters
(24.4 ft). The posted weight limit is 12,712 kilograms (14 tons) for single vehides and 15,436
kilograms (17 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
Bridge NO.3 has a sufficiency rating of 36.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported on the bridge during the period from April 1, 1991 to March 31,
1994. Both accidents were single vehide, traveling at approximately 90 kmh (55 mph). Both
accidents involved loss of control of the vehicle
Aerial utility lines are located on the south side of SR 1547 in the project area. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low,
Union County School buses cross the bridge four times daily.
IV . ALTERNATIVES
Both alternatives studied for replacing Bridge NO.3 include a new bridge that will accommodate
a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side and an approach
roadway consisting of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders.
The recommended alternate will replace Bridge NO.3 on a 160 meter (11015') curve south of
and adjacent to the existing bridge. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). A design
exception will be required and traffic will be maintained by an off site detour.
An alternate to replace Bridge NO.3 approximately 15 meters (50 ft) south of its existing location
on a 335 radius (5 degree 15') curve with a maximum superelevation of 0.06 was considered.
The roadway grade of the new structure would be approximately the same as the existing
bridge. A design speed of 90 kilometers per hour (55 mph) would be provided. Traffic would
be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The approach work would be
approximately 160 meters (525 ft) west and 110 meters (360 ft) east of the proposed bridge.
During the Section 7 informal consultation field review on May 16,1995, this alternative was not
recommended due to possible impacts to the Carolina Heelsplitter.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1547.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
V. ESnMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternate studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
Structure Removal (existing)
Structure (proposed)
Roadway Approaches
Miscellaneous and Mobilization
Engineering and Contingencies
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities
TOTAL
(Recommended)
$ 15,200
243,670
65,530
100,600
75,000
35,000
$ 535,000
VI. TRAFFIC DETOUR
An eight month road closure period is anticipated. Traffic would be detoured on SR 1601. NC
218, and US 601, an approximate distance of 7.9 kilometers (4.9 miles). The detour roadway
and bridges are adequate to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to impacts to the Carolina heelsplitter that
would result from clearing the growth over the creek and constructing the detour structure.
The clearing and construction limits required for the construction of an on-site detour would
have the same impact on the Carolina heelsplitter as flattening the radius of the horizontal
curvature to 335 meters ( 5 degree 15' curve). Therefore, provision of an on-site detour is not
justifiable.
Construction will be scheduled to include the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 3 will be replaced adjacent to and south of the existing bridge on a curve with a
maximum radius of 160 meters (11 degree 45 minute curve) and with a maximum
superelevation of 0.06. The design speed will be 65 kmh (40 mph). Advisory posting will be
required on both approaches. A design exception will be required.
A 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement structure in
accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter (22 ft)
travelway with 1 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the structure.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meters (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
proposed approaches.
The Division Engineer concurs in the recommendation that the structure be replaced south of
and adjacent to the existing bridge.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 25 year design storm, the new structure is
recommended to have a length of approximately 48 meter (157 ft). The elevation of the new
4
structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement structure will
maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length and height may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VIII. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTION
A design exception for the design speed will be required due to the proposed horizontal
alignment. The recommended alternate provides a design speed of 65 kmh (40 mph) and
includes minimum approach work with traffic maintained by an off-site detour. The speed limit is
not posted but is assumed to be 90 kmh (55 mph) at the project site. An alternative to improve
the design speed to 90 kmh (55 mph) was considered. However, this altemative was not
recommended due to the known occurrence of the federally endangered Carolina heelsplitter at
this location.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area lies in Union County (Figure 1) north of Monroe, North
Carolina. The project site lies within the southwest portion of the Piedmont Physiographic
Province. Union County is a primarily agricultural but is rapidly becoming an industrial and
urban county with close ties to the Charlotte metropolitan area.
MethodoloQV
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
quadrangle map (Midland); NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200); Soil
Conservation Service (SCS) soil maps; United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
National Wetlands Inventory Map (Midland); USFWS list of protected and candidate species;
and N.C. Natural Heritage Programs (NC-NHP) database of uncommon species and unique
habitats. Research using these resources was conducted prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted within the proposed project limits by Resource Southeast
biologists on October 11, 1994. Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified
using a variety of observation techniques, including active searching, visual observations with
binoculars, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows).
Impact calculations were based on the worse case scenario using the full 24.4 meter (80 feet)
wide right-of-way limits and the width the replacement structure, the width of the stream for
aquatic impacts, and the length of the project approaches.
TODOaraDhv and Soils
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 137.0 meters (450.0 feet).
This portion of Union County contains soils from the Chewacla and Badin-Channery soil
complex. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained silt loams on 0 - 2 percent slopes usually
found in flood plains. The Badin-Channery complex is a well drained silty clay loam on 8 - 15
5
percent slopes often found on eroding uplands. The project study area can be characterized as
8 gently sloping, mostly wooded area with a fairty significant flood plain west of the bridge. The
confluence of Goose Creek and Duck Creek can be found several hundred meters up stream.
Blonc 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
relationship of these biotic components. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when
applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references to the
same species include the common name only.
Terrestrial Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated
and mixed hardwood forest. Dominant faunal components 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.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders and slopes along the bridge
approaches. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained
areas. Areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca SP,), ryegrass
(Lolium sp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), red clover (Trifolium pratense), plantain (Plantago
rugelit) and dandelion (Taraxacum officina/e). Irregularly maintained areas are vegetated by
some of the above as well as goldenrod (Solidago sp), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica), and greenbrier (Smilax sp.).
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and seeds)
to both living and dead faunal components. Whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), Virginia
opossum (Didelphis virginiana), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), several species of mice
(Peromyscus sp.), Northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Eastern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus
migratorius) are often attracted to these roadside habitats.
Mixed Hardwood Community
This forested community occurs on the moderate slopes along Goose Creek and the flood plain
upstream from the bridge. The dominant canopy trees in this area include river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanlca), American sycamore (Platanus oCcidentslis), box
elder (Acer negundo), tulip poplar (Uriodendron tullplfera), sweetgum (Uquidsmbar styracfflua),
slippery elm (Ulmus rubra), and scartet oak (Quercus coccinea). An understory of ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Comus florids), and other saplings could also be found in this
community. The herbaceous layer consists mainly of honeysuckle, greenbrier, muscadine
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), switch cane (Arundinaria
giantea), and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides). Animals previously listed may also
6
be found in this community along with raccoons (Procyon /oto", red-bellied woodpeckers
(Centurus caro/inus), and a variety of woodland birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
Palustrine Broad-leaved Community
Some jurisdictional wetland areas were found within the historic floodplain upstream of Bridge
NO.3. The Midland, NC National Wetlands Inventory Map identifies the floodplain area as
palustrine broad-leaved deciduous, and seasonally flooded (PF01 C). Vegetation in this area
includes American sycamore, tulip poplar, river birch, and ironwood. A Iow, natural levee along
portions of Goose Creek separates much of this floodplain from the stream. Soils within this
area ranged from dark gray (10YR 4/1) without mottles to dark grayish brown (10YR 4/2) with
brownish yellow (10YR 6/6) mottles. This levee allows floodwaters to pond in old stream
channels. This area exhibited evidence of scouring (coarse sand and cobbles in the old stream
channels) and wrack lines. Animals occurring in this floodplain wetland include those species
previously listed in the mixed hardwood forest community.
Aauatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project area exists within Goose Creek and its associated
bottomland hardwood forest wetland. Within the project area Goose Creek is approximately
12.0 meters (40.0 feet) wide and 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-3.0 feet) deep. On the day of
investigation the stream was slightly turbid with a moderate flow to the northeast. The stream
bottom is rocky with coarse sand deposits.
The stream banks are moderately to gently sloped, 1.0 to 3.0 meters (3.0-10.0 feet) high, and
vegetated with sycamore, river birch, and box elder. A number of old flood channels were
observed in the flood plain upstream from the bridge. Animals such as the belted kingfISher
(Megacery/e a/cyon). Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and Southern leopard
frog (Rana utricu/aria) may reside along the waters edge. Fishes such as the bluegill (Lepomis
macrochirus), creek chubs (Nocomis sp.) and darters (Etheostoma sp.) would be expected to
be found in Goose Creek. Macrolnvertebrates observed within the stream included dragonfly
larvae (Macromia and Gomphus sp.) and freshwater molluscs (Corbicu/a sp. and He/isoma sp.).
In addition, mayfly, caddisfly, and dipteran larvae would be expected to occur on and in the
substrate.
AnticiDated ImDacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terresttiallmpacts and aquatic impacts. Temporary impacts to downstream aquatic habitat from
increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of NCDOT's
Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
7
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
Bridge No.3
Replacement
1m acts
Roadclosure
Palustrine
Broad-leaved
Communit
o
Aquatic
Community
Combine
Totals
Terrestrial Communities
Of the three community types in the project area, the mixed hardwood community will receive
the greatest impact from the replacement, resulting in the loss of existing habitats and
displacement and mortality of faunal species in residence. The proposed bridge replacement
will result in the disturbance of 0.10 hectare (0.25 acre) to the mixed hardwood communities
and 0.10 (0.12) to the man-dominated community.
Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Goose Creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of stream bottom.
Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the use of NCDOT's "Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters., High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines, the
utilization of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion
and Sediment Control Program and other commitments as stated in Section I.
WATER RESOURCES
This section describes each water resource and its relationship to major water systems. The
proposed project lies within the Pee Dee River drainage basin.
Water Resource Characteristics
Goose Creek originates north of Matthews, NC and is a perennial tributary of the Rocky River
which flows into the Pee Dee River just south of Lake Tillery near Cedar Hill, NC. Goose Creek
f1ows~st to northeast through the proposed project area with a width at the bridge of
12.0 meters (40.0 feet). The depth of the stream in the project area was 0.3 to 1.0 meter (1.0-
3.0 feet). The creek substrate is rocky with coarse sand. Goose Creek has a Class Crating
from the NC Department of Environmental, Health and Natural Resources, Division of
Environmental Management, indicating the creek's suitability for fishing, fish propagation,
boating, wading or other uses requiring waters of lower quality,
The Division of Environmental Management, does not maintain a fish or macroinvertebrate
monitoring station on Goose Creek.
No waters classified as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or
waters designated as WS-I or WS-II are located within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study
8
area. No impacts to sensitive water resources of any kind will take place as a result of the
project construction.
AnticiDated ImDacts to Water Resources
Temporary impacts to water resources in the project area will result from sedimentation and
turbidity associated with in-stream support piles for a temporary bridge during project
construction. Short-term impacts to the streambed will be minimized by replacing Bridge No. 3
with a bridge instead of a culvert, and minimizing in-stream construction activities. Short term
impacts will be minimized by the implementations of NCDOrs Best Manaaement Practices for
Protection of Surface Water, as applicable. Long term Impacts to water resources are not
expected as a result of the proposed improvements.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation I and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR 32a.3-arnt ill a~ldallce with provisions of section 404 of the Clean Water
Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
ImDacts to Wetlands and Surface Waters
Non-tidal bottomland hardwood forested wetlands are located on the southeast quadrant of
Bridge No.3 and will not be impacted by replacing the existing bridge. These wetlands appear
to be associated with the historic floodplain of Goose Creek. Investigation into wetland
occurrence in the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland
Delineation Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on
jurisdictional surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.03 acre) of jurisdictional
surface water impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge NO.3.
Permits
It is anticipated that construction will be authorized as a Categorical Exclusion under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines and pursuant to Section 404 of the Clean Water Act
(CWA). Nationwide Permit No. 23 has been issued by the COE for Categorical Exclusion's due
to the expected minimal impacts. Also, Section 401 of the CWA requires that the state issue or
deny water quality certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a
discharge to the waters of the United States prior to issuance of COE permits. Nationwide
Permits 23 require a Pre-Discharge Notification (PDN) to the North Carolina Division of
Environmental Management before certification can be issued.
9
Mitiaation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However,
NCOOTs Best Manaaement Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented I as
applicable. to minimize adverse impacts,
A final determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals are in decline either due to natural forces or due to
their Inability to coexist with man. Rare and protected species listed for Union County, and any
likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in
the following sections.
Federallv Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification 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 United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists 2 federally protected species for
Union County as of Malcl.26, 1995. These species are Hsted in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALL V.PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR UNION COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
The Carolina heelsplltter is the southernmost mussel in the genus Lasmigona on the eastern
coast. It has a shell that is an ovate trapezoid and can reach a length of 118.0 mm (4.65 inches)
with a height of 68.0 mm (2.68 inches) and a width of 39.0 mm (1.54 inches). The dorsal
margin is straight and may end with a slight wing. The umbo is flattened. The beaks are
depressed and project a little above the hinge line with a double looped sculpture. The
unsculptured shell can have a yellowish, greenish or brownish periostracum with greenish or
blackish rays.
Historically the Carolina heelsplitter was recorded from the Abbeville District in South Carolina,
and around Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Sampling in 1988 (Kefert and Shelley)
produced specimens in Waxhaw Creek and Goose Creek in Union County, North Carolina. All
specimens were found in shaded areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs
along steep banks with a moderate current. All individuals were found in less than 1.0 meter
(3.3 feet) of water on substrates of soft mud, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel.
10
The Carolina heel.plltter has been found In the Goo.e Creek I Duck Creek drainage.
According to John Aldennan, Non-game Blologl.t with the North Carolina Wildlife
R.source. Comml..lon, Bridge No.3 cro.... an area of critical habitat for thl. specie..
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NOT LIKELY TO ADVERSELY AFFECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation conducted an informal Section 7 Consultation
May 16, 1995, with USFWS and NCWRC regarding possible impacts to the Carolina
heelsplitter. The NCDOT will implement the following measures in construction of the subject
project per the discussions:
a. High Quality Waters erosion control guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
Disposal of spoil material will be taken offsite.
b. Earty reforestation and seeding of any disturbed areas.
c. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow any debris or fluids to enter the
stream from construction.
d. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments. The piers will be
installed using the drilled shaft method.
e. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over rock rip-rap. No bridge
outlets will be located over the creek channel. The bridge will be on a 0.3 percent slope.
f. A pre-let survey will be performed at the bridge for occurrence of the Carolina
Heelsplitter.
g. Notification is required by the contractor of the construction initiation date to the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service, N. C. Wildlife Resource Commission and NCDOT
Environmental Branch prior to construction.
h. Land disturbing activities should not be in winter. Begin in late April for bridge
construction.
Based upon the proposed measures described above, it is concluded that construction of this
project is not likely to adversely affect the Carolina heelsplitter. USFWS concurred with this
biological conclusion (see reply in Appendix).
Schwelnltz's .unflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb approximately 1-2 meters (3.28-6.56
feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above
the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on the lower stem
and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and thick texture.
From September until frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with rather small heads of yellow
flowers. The nutlets are approximately 3.3-3.5 millimeters (0.13-0.14 inches) long and are
glabrous with rounded tips.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to the piedmont of the Carolinas, and occurs in clearings and
edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy clay loams with a high
11
, ,
gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the edge of upland
woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures.
1
Habitat exists In the project area for this species. All roadside margins and woodland
fringes were searched for the presence of Schwelnl1z's sunflower by a general fleld
survey on October 11,1994. No Individuals of this species were observed In or adjacent
to the study area. It can be concluded that the proposed project will not Impact this
Endangered species.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Federal Candidate
Federal Candidate species 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 proposed or listed
as Threatened of Endangered. Table 3 includes federal candidate species listed for Union
County and their state classifications. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), or Special Concem (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program list of
Rare Plant and Animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered
Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979,
TABLE 3
FEDERAL CANDIDATE SPECIES
UNION COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Habitat
(Common Name) Status Present
Dactyfothere peedeens;s W No
(Pee Dee ostracod)
Aster georg;anus C Yes
(Georgia aster)
Lotus pursh;anus var. helleri C No
(Heller's trefoil)
Isoetes v;rg;n;ca C Yes
(Virginia quillwort)
notes:
W denotes a watch list species that is believed to be rare and of conservation
concem, but not warranting active monitoring at this time. .
C denotes Candidate species which are considered by the State to be rare
and needing population monitoring.
12
-
Summary of Anticioated ImDacts
Habitat exists in the project area for the federally protected Carolina heelsplitter and
Schweinitz's sunflower. No individuals of Schwelnitz's sunflower were found during a habitat
search. The NCWRC has identified the Goose Creek drainage as critical habitat for the
Carolina heelsplitter. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database was reviewed,
and no other records exist for rare species or habitats in the project area.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No significant
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed altematives.
No adverse effect on pub1ic facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106
requires that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 26, 1995, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred
that there are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places located in the project's area of potentiaI' effect. A copy of the
SHPO letter is included in the Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 8, 1994, requested 'hat a comprehensive
survey be conducted by experienced archaeologist- prior to construction. A copy of the SHPO
memorandum is included in the Appendix. An archaeological survey of the proposed project
will be conducted prior to right-of-way acquisition. A report of survey results will be transmitted
by the FHWA to the SHPO for review and comment.
13
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to SCS, the proposed project will impact 0.31 hectare (0.76 acre) of soils defined as
prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
131,203 hectares (324,037 acres) of prime or important soils found in Union County. The
impact rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, indicates that the site's assessment and relative valve score is 80.2 out of a possible
260. A score higher than 160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
The project is located in Union County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The projects impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 20.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the
North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed
no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100 year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project. The project is a Federal . Categorical Exclusion. due
to its limited scope and lack of significant environmental consequences.
14
REFERENCES
Burt, W.H. and RP. Grossenheider. 1952. A Field Guide to Mammals. Houghton Mifflin
Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Conant, R, and J.T. Collins. 1958. A Field Guide to Reptiles and Amphibians of Eastern
sndCentral North America. Houghton Mifflin Publishing, Boston, Massachusetts.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. Prepared for the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
United States Department of the Interior, Washington DC.
Delorit, RJ. 1970. An Illustrated Taxonomy Manual of Weed Seeds. Agronomy Publications,
River Falls, Wisconsin.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. U.S. Anny Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual,
Technical Report Y-87-1. U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg,
Mississippi.
Farrand, J., Jr. 1993. Audubon Society Guide to Animal Tracks of North America. Chanticleer
Press, New York, New York.
Keferl, E.P., RM. Shelley. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and the Carolina Elktoe (Alasmidonta robusta). U.S.
Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Newcomb, l. 1977. Newcomb's Wildflower Guide. Little, Brown and Company, Boston,
Massachusetts.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, North Carolina.
Robbins, C.S., B. Bruun and H.S. Zim. 1966. A Guide to Field Identification of Birds of North
America. Western Publishing, Racine, Wisconsin.
Sutton, A. and M. Sutton. 1985. Eastern Forests. Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New
York.
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. 1993. Soil Survey of
Union County, North Carolina. North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station, Raleigh, North
Carolina.
Weakley, A.S. 1993 (9/27/94 update). Natural Heritage Program List of Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Raleigh, North Carolina.
Whitaker, J.O., Jr. 1980. The Audubon Society Field Guide to North American Mammals.
Alfred Knopf Publishing, New York, New York.
15
~
I
I
~
Whll. ~
,
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
...
J
--i
"
,.
..
"
..
,
~ NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF
? '\:
* ~ TRANSPORTATION
\~ DMSION OF HIGHWAYS
~ ~. PLANNING AND ENVIRIONMENTAL
..... ...G BRANCH
BRIDGE NO.3
UNION COUNTY
B-2647
3/95 SCALE = 1 :60 000 FIG. 1
0 (kilometers) 1
I I
I
UNION COUNTY
BRIDGEINO. 3
6-2647
I
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1547
LOO~ING JEST
ON SR \1547
AT 220 CURVE
I
I
I
I
I I
I
I I I
\ I I
II I I
\ I I! I
UP~1~EAM SIDE
qF BRIDGE # 3
I
I
I
I
I
I
I I
I I
I
I
FIGURE 3
1\
II
I~W~~.M~~.rH~~~ ~M~~
I~L.';:;/J.;:;/-..J"Q ",,,,"'oJ
6t!ww -- -.
Memo
Page 2
December 6, 1994
intolerant aquatic species and is listed as DPMTW at
this site. We also stock this section of the river
yearly with catchable-sized trout. Downstream we have
found the Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveneliana),
federally listed endangered (E) and the blotchside
logperch (Psrcina bureoni), state listed endangered,
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 6 Fisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, (704) 652-4360, on this project.
3. B-2608, Cabarrus County, on SR 1132 over Rocky River,
At this site, Rocky River has a wide forested
floodplain some of which may be wetlands, This section
of Rocky River has excellent in-stream cover with a
rocky substrate, deep pools and nice riffles providing
excellent fish habitat. There are no known threatened
or endangered fauna at this site. We recommend that
the bridge be replaced on-site with road closure. No
in-water work should be performed in April or May.
Also, no in-stream cover should be removed including
the old gr~nite bridge abutment located upstream from
the bridge. We also recommend that NCDOT survey for
wetlands and maintain standard sedimentation and
erosion controls throughout the project. If possible,
we ask that NCDOT provide a safe parking area for
fishermen as this area is currently heavily used for
bank fishing.
4. B-2817, Cleveland County, on SR 2245 over Kings Creek,
We have no recent fishe~y data at this site and no
threaten~d or endangered fauna is expected to occur in
this vicinity. We recommend close coordination with
our Distr~ct 8 Fisheries Biologist I Chris Goudreau,
(704) 652-4360, on this project.
5. B-2821, Davidson County, on NC 150 over Fryes Creek.
Fryes Creek is a small stream with a sandy substrate
and has poor fishery habitat. We do noe oppose a
culvert at this location. However, the culvert should
be placed one foot below the natural stream bed and
have a "dry" box to allow wildlife passage.
6. B-2822, Davidson County, on SR 1743 over Abbotts Creek.
Abbotts Creek is a small stream with a fair fishery.
There are no known threatened or endangered fauna at
this site, We have no specific recommendations at this
time.
~C~~C,HCP,FALLS LAKE
TEL:919-528-9839
Dee Ob'~4
l~:~V NO.UUe P.08
Memo
Page 3
December 6, 1994
7. B.2647, union County, on SR 1547 over Duck Creek. This
may actually be on Goose Creek. Goose Creek is a small
stream with good pools and riffles I rocky substrate and
excellent in-stream cover. There appears to be quality
bottomland hardwood wetlands on both sides of the
stream. Goose Creek is excellent fish and wildlife
habitat and serves as habitat for the Carolin~
heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) which is federally
listed endangered (E). We recommend that NCDOT hold an
on-sit~ visit with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
and NCWRC personnel to discuss this project.
8. B-2833, Guilford County, on SR 1556 over East Prong
Deep River. The scream at this location is too small
to be of fishing significance; however, it is a
tributary to the water supply for High Point. We
recommend that NCDOT survey for wetlands at this
location. This stream likely serves as an important
wildlife corridor, therefore, we prefer that this
bridge be replaced with a spanni~g structure.
9. 8-2857, Randolph County, on SR 1928 over Muddy Creek.
This stream provides a fair fishery for sunfish and
c~tfish. We prefer that the bridge be replaced with a
spanning structure.
10. B-2858, Randolph County, on SR 2830 over Rlc!lland
Creek. This stream is too small at this location to be
of fishing significance.
11. B-2865, Rowan County, on SR 1526 over Grants Creek.
Grants Creek is medium sized stream with long pools.
The stream is surrounded by wooded lowlands I possibly
wetlands. We request that NCDOT survey fer wetlands.
We recommend that the bridge be replaced on-site with
road closure. We also request that there be no in-
water work in April or May.
12. B-2867, Stanley County, on SR 1917 over
Norfolk/Southern Railroad. No comment.
13. B-2874, Wilkes County, on SR 1122 over Warrior Creek.
Big Warrior Creek is a warmwater stream approximately
25 feet wide and has a substrate of silt, sand, gravel,
cobble, boulders and bedrock. We recommend standard
soil and erosion control measures be used at this site.
14. B-3089, Yancey County, on Ne 80 over North Toe River
and Seaboard Railroad. This section of the North Toe
River contains many pollution intolerant species.
Downstream in the Toe River the Appalachian elk~oe
~LW~L,HL~,~HLL~ LHK~
1~L.;'::l.l.'::l-~~l:l-~O.J:'
LIe\" vv ;;>"'t
J. _' . ..,'v I'U. vvv r. U~
Memo
Page 4
December 6, 1994
(Alasrnidonta raveneliana) I federally listed endangered
(E) effective 12/23/94, has been found. Approximately
2 miles downstream of the project the blotchside
logperch (Percina burtoni)I state listed endangered,
has been found near the mouth of the South Toe River.
We recommend sedimentation and erosion controls for
High Quality Waters (HQW) be employed to protect the
listed species downstream. We also recommend close
coordination with our District 8 Pisheries Biologist,
Chris Goudreau, (704) 652-4360, on this project.
15. B-3175, Guilford County, on SR 1695 over US 421 and
Southern Railroad. No comment.
In addition to any specific comments above I the NCWRC
expects the NCDOT to routinely minimize adverse impacts to
fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge
replacements, The NCDOT should install and maintain
sedimentation control measures throughout. the life of the
project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or
entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with
spanning structures of some type I as opposed to pipe or bex
culvert8, is recommended in all cases. Spanning structures
allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat
fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David
Cox, Highway Project Coordinator, at (919) 528-9886, Thank
you for the opportunity to review and comment on these
projects .
cc: Shari Bryant I District 5 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District e Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District i Fisheries Biologist
Randy Wilson, Nongame/Endangered Species Section Mgr.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B, Hunt. Jr.. Governor
Jonathan B. Howes. Secretary
A. Preston Howard. Jr.. P.E.. Director
November 30, 1994
ir~.~
- - -
- --
DEHNR
MEMORANDUM
FROM:
Melba McGee, Legislative Affairs
Monica swihar~Water Quality Planning
Project Review 195-0298; Scoping Comments - NC DOT
Group VII Bridge Replacement Proje~ts
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental
Management requests that the following topics be considered in
the Planning and Environmental Studies (Categorical Exclusions)
prepared on the subject project:
SUBJECT:
TO:
A. Identify the stream classifications of the streams
potentially impacted by the bridge replacements. The stream
classifications should be current.
B. Identify the linear feet of stream channelizations/
relocations. If the original stream banks were vegetated,
it is requested that the channelized/relocated stream banks
be revegetated.
C. Will permanent spill catch basins be utilized? OEM requests
that these catch basins be placed at all water supply stream
cr9ssin9s. Identify the responsible party for maintenance.
D. Identify the stormwater controls (permanent and temporary)
to be employed.
E. Please ensure that sediment and erosion and control measures
are not placed in wetlands.
F. Wetland Impacts
1) Identify the federal manual used for identifying and
delineating jurisdictional wetlands.
2) Have wetlands been avoided as much as possible?
3) Have wetland impacts been minimized?
4) Discuss wetland impacts by plant communities affected.
5) Discuss the quality of wetlands impacted.
6) Summarize the total wetland impacts.
7) List the 401 General Certification numbers requested
from OEM.
P.O. Box 29535, Rdeigh. North CaoUna 27626-0535 Telephone 919-733-7015 FAX 919-733-2496
An EQual Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 5O't recycled/ 10% posf-consumer paper
Melba McGee
November 30, 1994
Page 2
G. Will borrow locations be in wetlands? Borrow/waste areas
should avoid wetlands to the maximum extent practicable.
Prior to approval of any borrow/waste site in a wetland, the
contractor shall obtain a 401 Certification from OEM.
H. Did NCDOT utilize the existing bridge alignments as much as
possible? Why not (if applicable)?