19930151 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

' DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
•?,' .?+,I BOX 1890
PO. WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO April 9, 1993
Regulatory Branch
Action ID. 199301335 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
Mr. Jack Ward R
State of North Carolina APR 2
Department of Transportation
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201 WA WD LAtV ORnlln 7
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference your application dated February 18, 1993, for Department of the
Army authorization to construct a bridge on a new location over Cribs Creek in
son County, North Carolina (Sate Project No. 8.2650901, TIP No. B-2001).
--+ .
Specifically, the North Carolina Department of Transportation plans to replace
Bridge #207 on SR 1610 on a new location approximately 300 feet upstream
(south) of the existing location. We understand that the Federal Highway
Administration has determined that this project is not- cxpactad to have a
significant impact on the human environment and has classified this project as
a Categorical Exclusion.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits.
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the Office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
Your work is authorized by this nationwide permit provided it is
accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed conditions and provided
you receive a Section 401 water quality certification from the North Carolina
Division of Environmental Management and, in the coastal area, a consistency
determination from the North Carolina Division of Coastal Management. You
should contact Mr. John Dorney, telephone [phone], regarding water
quality certification, and Mr. Steve Benton, telephone [phone],
regarding consistency determination. This nationwide permit does not relieve
you of the responsibility to obtain other required State or local approval.
-2-
This verification will be valid for 2 years from the date of this letter
unless the nationwide authorization is modified, reissued, or revoked. Also,
this verification will remain valid for the 2 years if, during that period,
the nationwide permit authorization is reissued without modification or the
activity complies with any subsequent modification of the nationwide permit
authorization. If during the 2 years, the nationwide permit authorization
expires or is suspended or revoked, or is modified, such that the activity
would no longer comply with the terms and conditions of the nationwide permit,
activities which have commenced (i.e., are under construction) or are under
contract to commence in reliance upon the nationwide permit will remain
authorized provided the activity is completed within 12 months of the date of
the nationwide permit's expiration, modification or revocation, unless
discretionary authority has been exercised on a case-by-case basis to modify,
suspend, or revoke the authorization.
Questions or comments may be addressed to Mr. Scott McLendon, Wilmington
Field Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health-and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
,14r. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687

r ? r
-73
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JnnnES Q. HUNT. )rt. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HUNT
GOVCRNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 2.7611-5201 SECREFARY
February 18, 1993
7, R!
District Engineer "A
l
Army Corps of Engineers 2'
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402 "- WETLANDSGROUP i
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Anson County, Replacement of Bridge No. 207 over
Cribs Creek on SR 1610, Federal Aid Project BRZ-
1610(1), State Project No. 8.2650901, TIP No.
B-2001.
Attached for your information are three copies of the
project planning report for the subject project. The project
is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"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 November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
`? rb
... '0.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
B. J. O Quinn, PE
As 1 nt Bran h Manager
Planning and nvironmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE-Wilmington
,oMf: John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
Mr. Doug Huggett, Planning and Environmental Branch
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J.D. Goins, PE, Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Leigh Cobb, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
.t

46
Anson County
SR 1610
Bridge No. 207 over Cribs Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1610(1)
State Project 8.2650901
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2001
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
l 93
TE
'Planning and Environmental Branch,
NCDOT
?Z
A_TE Nicholas Graf P.E.
'Division Administrator, FHWA
( t
Anson County
SR 1610
Bridge No. 207 over Cribs Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1610(1)
State Project 8.2650901
T.I.P. I.D. NO. B-2001
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
October, 1992
Documentation Prepar
Jamp-16 M Greenhil , P.E.
Project Manager ,
For North Carolina Dep
Ron Elmore, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit

""Itself 00
•••••.? .... Rp y.,?,.
k6iss/4
• e SEAL
i 12919
'?"'• 9i?? NCI NE?Q.' ??,,'•
AM. Gg
of Transportation
Wang Engineering Company:
Project Manager
Anson County
SR 1610
Bridge No. 207 over Cribs Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1610(1)
State Project 8.2650901
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2001
Bridge No. 207 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. The
project is not expected to have a significant impact on the human
environment and has been classified by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 207 should be replaced on new location
approximately 300 feet upstream (south) of the existing location
as shown by Alternate 1 in Figure 2.
The recommended width of the new bridge is 26 feet. The
cross section on the structure will consist of a 22-foot travel-
way with 2-foot shoulders.
Approximately 1350 feet of new roadway approaches will be
required. The approach roadway should consist of a 22-foot
pavement with 4-foot shoulders.
Preliminary hydraulic studies indicate that a bridge 95 feet
in length should be provided. The elevation of the new structure
should be approximately 1 foot higher than the floor elevation of
the existing bridge. This will provide a bridge and roadway
above the 25-year design storm frequency.
During construction of the replacement bridge, traffic will
be maintained on the existing bridge.
The estimated cost of construction, based on current prices,
is $412,000 including right of way and utility relocation costs.
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999
Transportation Improvement Program, is $146,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to
avoid or minimize environmental impacts. No special or unique
environmental commitments are necessary. "Best Management
Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will be utilized to minimize any
possible impacts.
The State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that
a comprehensive archaeological survey is needed for this project.
This survey will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1610 (Cedar Grove Church Road) is classified as a rural
local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1610 has a 20-foot
pavement with 4-foot shoulders (see Figure 3). Vertical
alignment is rolling. Horizontal alignment of the structure and
west approach is tangent. There is an approximate 40 degree curve
on the east approach to the bridge. The structure deck is
located 8 feet above the stream bed. No posted speed limit was
observed in the vicinity of this bridge.
Land use in the immediate vicinity of the bridge is
primarily scattered rural-residential and agricultural.
Known utilities in the vicinity of the bridge include above-
ground electric lines. These lines are located north of the east
approach and are not in conflict with the proposed project.
The traffic volume for the anticipated construction year of
1995 is projected to be 300 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
expected to increase to approximately 600 VPD by the year 2015.
The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer
(TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
The existing bridge, as shown in Figure 3, was constructed
in 1959. The single-span superstructure consists of a paved
timber deck on steel beams. The substructure is composed of
concrete abutments.
Overall length of the bridge is 53 feet. Clear roadway
width is 19.6 feet. The posted weight limit is 5 tons with no
trucks or buses permitted.
Bridge No. 207 has a sufficiency rating of 19.7 compared to
a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Three accidents were reported on or near Bridge No. 207
during the three year period from January 1, 1989 to December 31,
1991. None were related to the existing bridge or roadway
conditions. However, with the proposed installation of guardrail
on the bridge approaches and improved horizontal alignment of the
recommended alternative, the potential for future accidents at
this site should decrease.
No school buses cross the studied bridge.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternative methods of replacing Bridge No. 207 were
studied. In each alternative, a bridge 95 feet long with a deck
width of 26 feet would be provided. This structure will
accommodate two 11-foot lanes with 2-foot shoulders. For drainage
of the surface, the minimum grade on the structure should be
0.3%. The approach should consist of a 22-foot travelway with 4-
foot shoulders. On both alternatives, the proposed bridge and
roadway will be raised approximately 1 foot to provide a facility
that will be above the 25-year design storm frequency.
The alternatives studied are as follows (see Figure 2):
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the
bridge on new location approximately 300 feet south
(upstream) of the existing structure. Improvements to the
alignment of the bridge approaches include approximately
1350 feet of new pavement. The existing structure would be
used for maintenance of traffic during the construction
period. The design speed for this alternative is 60 mph.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the
existing roadway alignment. Improvement to the alignment of
the bridge approaches includes approximately 350 feet of new
pavement. During the construction period, traffic would be
maintained on existing routes with a road closure at the
bridge site as shown in Figue 1. Design speed for this
alternate is 20 mph.
Early consideration was given to an alternative realignment
location approximately 100 feet south of the existing bridge.
This shorter alternative was not pursued because Cribs Creek
divides into two distinctive branches at this location. (See
photo on Figure 3.) While the length of approach construction
would be substantially reduced along such an alignment, undesir-
able aspects would include a stream channel revision or a length-
ly, highly skewed structure over the creek. Because of the
apparent environmental and design advantages of relocating farth-
er south to avoid the stream crossing complications, Alternate 1
was chosen as the best "relocation" route for further study.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic
service provided by SR 1610.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to
its age and deteriorated condition.
Alternatives discussed in this section and shown on Figure 2
are based on functional plans prepared on an uncontrolled photo
map. All distances and directions are approximate. Final
construction plans will be based on detailed survey information
and may slightly vary from the alternatives presented here.
3
t
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the studied alternatives are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Engineering &
Contingencies
Right of Way &
Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternate 1
$136,800
193,200
45,000
37,000
Alternate 2
150,480
89,520
35,000
26,500
$301,500
Total $412,000
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED
Bridge No. 207 should be replaced on new location
approximately 300 feet south (upstream) of its existing location
as shown by Alternate No. 1 in Figure 2.
The recommended improvements will include about 1350 feet of
new roadway approaches. This includes 750 feet on the west
approach and 600 feet on the east approach. A 22-foot wide
pavement with 4-foot shoulders should be provided on the
approaches. A 26-foot clear roadway width is recommended on the
replacement structure. The cross section on the structure will
consist of a 22-foot travelway with 2-foot shoulders. For surface
drainage, the minimum grade on the new bridge should be 0.3%.
The design speed for the new alignment is 60 mph.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
Based on preliminary hydraulic studies, it is recommended
that the new structure be a bridge approximately 95 feet long. It
is anticipated the elevation of the new bridge and roadway will
be approximately 1 foot higher than the existing elevation in
order to provide an improved overall level of service due to less
frequent flooding of the roadway. The raised roadway will provide
a facility above the 25-year design storm frequency. The length
and height may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by future hydraulic studies.
The Division Engineer concurs with the recommendation that
Bridge No. 207 be replaced on new location. (See letter in the
Appendix.)
4
Alternate No. 2 was not favored due to poor horizontal
alignment.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge and approaches will result in
safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical
exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant 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 existing or planned
land use and/or zoning regulations. No change in land use is
expected to result from construction of this project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated
and no families or businesses will require relocation. Right of
way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect
social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
This project does not involve any Section 4(f) properties.
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.
The project is located west of Cedar Hill in Anson County in
the lowlands of the Piedmont physiographic province of the
Appalachian Highlands. The study area is located in a rural
setting of farm fields and scattered residential sites. Farming
is a major industry in this predominantly rural county.
NOISE & AIR QUALITY
The project is located within the Sandhills Air Quality
Control Region. The ambient air quality for Anson County has
been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air
Quality Standards. Since this project is located in an area
where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of
Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 770 do not
apply to this project.
No receptors are located in the immediate project area.
Hence, its impact on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant. Noise levels could increase during construction
5
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 for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the
assessment requirements of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations
(CFR), Part 770 and 772 and no additional reports are required.
NATURAL RESOURCES
Plant Life
Along the north side of SR 1610 actively grazed pastures
come within 50' to 150' of Cribs Creek on both its east and west
sides. Mature wooded areas are therefore limited to the borders
along the creek. Early successional plants occupy the disturbed
edges of the woods and the cut-over power line right-of-way
passing through the woods.
Classified as Piedmont Alluvial Forest, this forest contains
a community of mixed alluvial hardwoods / Carpinus caroliniana /
Ligustrum sinense / mixed vines. This community includes the
following plants:
Canopy Trees: Sugarberry - Celtis laevigata
Red ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica var.
subinteaerrima
Black walnut - Juglans nigra
Shagbark hickory - Carva ovata
Mockernut hickory - Carya tomentosa
Bastard white oak - Quercus augustrina
Shrubs: Privet - Ligustrum sinense
Dogwood - Cornus ammomum
Vines: Fox grape - Vitis lambrusca
Pigeon grape - Vitis cinerea
Virginia creeper - Parthenocissus guinquefolia
Greenbriars - Smilax spp.
In the ecotones between the woods and pastures, as well as
the power line right-of-way and roadsides, the following plants
occur:
Shrubs: Privet - Ligustrum sinense
Blackberry - Rubus arautus
Vines: Poison ivy - Toxicodendron radicans
Trumpet vine - Campsis radicans
Herbs: Bearsfoot - Polymia uvedalia
Pokeweed - Phytolacca americana
Wingstem - Verbesina occidentalis
Johnson grass - Sorghum halepense
Bitterweed - Helenium amarum
Wild petunia - Ruellia caroliniensis
6
Only Alternate No. 2, which calls for replacing this bridge
in its existing location, would cause disturbance north of SR
1610, and that would be minimal.
Alternate No. 1 is proposed to run south of SR 1610. Moving
from east to west, the first 400' of this new route would pass
through what is now a corn field. The next 250' passes through
the alluvial forest along Cribs Creek, and the final 400' passes
through a pasture to rejoin SR 1610. The only plant community of
concern along this proposed route is the Piedmont Alluvial Forest
bordering the creek. This forested area can best be described
overall as a mixed alluvial hardwoods / mixed subcanopy hardwoods
/ Ligustrum sinense community. Plants found in this community
include the following:
Canopy Trees:
Sugarberry - Celtis laevigatus
sweet gum - Liquidambar styraciflua
Red ash - Fraxinus pennsylvanica var.
Sycamore - Platanus occidentalis
Bitternut hickory - Carya cordiformis
Shagbark hickory - Carya ovata
Water oak - Ouercus nigra
Subcanopy Trees:
Ironwood
Red maple
Box elder
Mulberry
Red cedar
Paw paw -
Carpinus caroliniana
- Acer rubrum
- Acer negundo
Morus rubra
- Juniperus virginiana
Asimina triloba
Shrubs:
Privet - Ligustrum sinense
Silky dogwood - Cornus ammomum
Elderberry - Sambucus canadensis
Vines:
Fox grape - Vitis lambrusca
Pigeon grape - Vitis cinerea
Poison ivy - Toxicodendron radicans
Greenbriars - Smilax rotundifolia
Smilax smallii
subintegerrina
Herbs: (sparse except along edges)
Knotweed - Polyaonum punctatum
St. John's wort - Hypericum sp.
Heal-all - Prunella vulgaris
Wild lettuce - Lactuca canadensis
Violets - Viola spp.
Jewelweed - Impatiens capensis
Clearweed - Pilea pumila
Avens - Geum canadense
Honewort - Cryptotaenia canadensis
Christmas fern - Polystichum acrosticoides
7
Queen Anne's lace - Daucus carota
Hedge nettle - Stachys latidens
Plantains - Plantaao ruaelii
Plantaao aristata
Cardinal flower - Lobelia cardinalis
The minimal removal of vegetation associated with the
construction of approaches should have a negligible impact to
fauna utilizing the area because it represents only a tiny
fraction of the available habitat.
Animal Life
The combination of mature trees, thickets, and fields
provides a variety of habitat for wildlife, however, the
fragmentation of habitats by previous human activities imposes
limitations.
Some mammals which may be found here are:
White-tailed deer - Odocoileus virginianus virginianus
(tracks seen)
Opossum - Didelphis virginiana virginiana
Short-tailed shrew - Blarina brevicauda
Carolina short-tailed shrew - Blarina carolinensis
Eastern cottontail - Sylvilagus floridanus mallurus
Eastern chipmunk - Tamias striatus striatus
Eastern harvest mouse - Reithrodontomys humulis humulis
Gray fox - Urocyon c. cinereoargenteus
Raccoon - Procyon lotor lotor
Mink - Mustela vision
Striped skunk - Mephitis mephitis elongata
A variety of birds frequent this area. The following were
seen or heard:
Red-shouldered hawk - Buteo lineatus
Cardinal - Richmondena cardinalis
Cliff swallow - Petrochelidon pyrrhonota
(nests under bridge)
Turkey vulture - Cathartes dura
Common crow - Corvus brachyrhynchos
Hairy woodpecker - Dendrocopos villosus
Various reptiles and amphibians would also be found in the
area. Examples include the following:
Marbled salamander - Ambystoma opacum
Three-lined salamander - Eurycea auttolineata
Pickerel frog - Rana palustris (seen)
Eastern box turtle - Terrapene carolina
Worm snake - Carphophis amoenus
Rat snake - Elaphe obsoleta
Queen snake - Regina septemvittata
Eastern garter snake - Thamnophis sirtalis
8
Small pools along the largely dry creek bed contain many
small fishes, crayfish, diving beetles and water striders.
Bright green damsel flies flitted along creek banks.
Most of the wildlife found here would move away from a
construction site. However, further fragmentation of habitat,
especially if the new bridge blocks wildlife passage along the
creek bank, would probably further reduce populations. The major
concern would be control of sedimentation and prevention of wet
contact with the water of the stream.
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soils
The eastern end of the proposed routes will pass over Badin
Channery silt loam, 8-15 percent slopes. This moderately deep,
well-drained soil is on uplands. It has formed in residium from
Carolina slates. The surface layer is loamy with 15 to 35
percent channers mixed in. The subsoil is clayey and loamy with
some channers mixed in. Permeability is moderate. Available
water capacity is moderate to low. Shrink-swell potential is
moderate. Bedrock is within a depth of 2011-40". The seasonal
high water table is below 61.
The western end of the proposed route passes over Goldston
Channery silt loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes. This moderately
steep, shallow, well-drained to excessively drained soil is on
side slopes that are highly dissected by intermittent
drainageways. Permeability is moderately rapid. Available water
capacity is low. Depth to seasonal high water table greater than
6 feet. Surface run-off is rapid. Shrink-swell potential is
low. Water erosion hazard is severe. Depth to a bedrock of
fractured slate rock is only 1011-20".
The middle 400' of the proposed route runs over Chewacla
loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded. These are very
deep, somewhat poorly drained soils on flood plains. They have
formed in loamy alluvial deposits. They have a loamy surface
layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and available water
capacity is high. Shrink-swell potential is low. The seasonal
high water table is at a depth of about one foot. This soil is
subject to frequent flooding.
This soil may have hydric inclusions of Wehadkee soil in
depressions adjoining upland side slopes. The 1991 list of
hydric soils in Anson County gives Chewacla Loam a hydric code of
one (1)--this indicates soils classified as hydric only because
of saturation for a significant period during the growing season.
The vegetation code is also one (1)--this indicates hydric soils
that support woody vegetation under natural conditions.
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
9
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important
farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service
(SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed
project will impact farmland soils and to complete Form AD-1006,
Farmland Conversion Impact Rating.
Inasmuch as the SCS did not respond within the 45 days, in
accordance with SCS Regulation (7 CFR 658.4(a)), the Farmland
Protection Policy Act does not apply to this project.
Water Resources
Cribs Creek is a tributary to the Rocky River at river mile
point 16. About nine miles from mouth to origin, Cribs Creek has
an average width of 8'. This is a small Piedmont stream that
provides good fishing for redbreast sunfish near its confluence
with Rocky River.
The field work on this stream was conducted in July during a
very dry period. The flow in the stream was barely discernible,
and much of the stream bed was covered by a layer of dry, loose
rubble of slate rock. There were small occasional pools along
the stream bed.
On the east side of Cribs Creek, a 51-6' vertical bank rises
above the stream bed. Some channeling may have been used in the
past to protect the adjacent field from flooding. High water
marks on trees were visible as much as 12' above the level of the
stream bed. On the west side, a 41 bank rises to a narrow
terrace backed by another 31-4' bank which gradually slopes
upward to the adjoining pasture.
A small cattle pond has been constructed in the pasture west
of Cribs Creek. Alternate 1 will cross this pasture and will
come between the cattle pond and the main part of the pasture.
The current stream classification for Cribs Creek is Class C
which is suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) data was
available for this creek. However, the small pools examined were
alive with small fishes, tadpoles, water striders, and diving
beetles.
The N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) reports that
the Carolina Darter, a North Carolina Special Concern Species,
has been collected from Cribs Creek. Also, NCWRC reports that
several listed or proposed fresh water mussels have been reported
from nearby Rocky River tributaries and may also occur in Cribs
Creek. The NCWRC further states, "Many of the aquatic species
would be adversely affected by sedimentation of the stream bed at
or below the construction site.
10
Possible stream impacts will be restricted to some limited
sediment debris during construction and after project completion.
Likely adverse impacts can be minimized through the employment of
silt basins, berms, silt curtains, and other erosion control
measures required of the contractor and specified in the State
approved Erosion and Sedimentation Control Program. To avoid
adding to the silt load and degradation of this stream, "Best
Management Practices" (33 CFR 330.6) will also be implemented.
No channel changes, channel fills, or alteration of drainage
patterns are foreseen. Care should be taken to assure that any
fill used does not interfere with the normal stream flow and is
kept well away from the bed of this flood-prone stream.
With proper implementation of the Department's sediment and
erosion control measures and "Best Management Practices", overall
environmental stream impacts are expected to be negligible as a
result of this project.
The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is
shown in Figure 4.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the flood-
plain area. Any shift in alignment would result in a crossing of
about the same magnitude. The floodplain in the adjacent area of
the crossing is rural/wooded and agricultural. The amount of
floodplain and floodway to be affected is not considered to be
significant and no modification of the floodway is anticipated.
All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any possible
harm.
JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
Wetlands
Even though Chewacla loam found along Cribs Creek is
frequently flooded and may have hydric inclusions of Wehadke
soil, none of these inclusions appear to occur along the route
that Alternate No. 1 would follow. At this site the floodplain
appears to drain readily. No low depressions containing obligate
wetland plants were found in the study area. Some facultative-
wet plants do occur, but the majority of the plants are
classified as facultative as would be expected in low alluvial
woods. No true wetland appears to occur in the area likely to be
disturbed by the new bridge construction.
Protected Species
The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP), the
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), and the
U.S. Department of Interior Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
were contacted to obtain current lists of protected species known
to inhabit Anson County. Also, an on-site survey was conducted by
carefully walking through the entire area to search for protected
species or suitable habitat.
11
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered
(E) and Threatened (T) are protected under provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. Federal Candidate (C)
species have also been listed, but are not provided protection
under this Act. No survey was conducted to determine the
presence of candidate species.
Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) - (E)
Length 3011-31"; wingspan 72-90". A large blackish eagle with
white head, white tail, and a long, heary yellow bill. Young
birds lack the white head and tail and resemble adult Golden
Eagles, but have pale wing linings and a more massive bill.
Range: Formerly bred throughout most of North America, but
now restricted as a breeding bird to Alaska, parts of northern
and eastern Canada, northern U.S., and Florida. In winter, along
almost any body of water, especially the larger rivers in the
interior of the continent.
Habitat: Lakes, rivers, marshes, and seacoasts.
This small creek does not contain suitable habitat for bald
eagles. This project will not impact on this endangered species.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - (E)
A bluebird-sized woodpecker (8" long). Cap and nape black;
large white cheek patch; back barred black-and-white; white below
with black spots on the sides and flanks. Male has small red spot
behind eye.
Range: Maryland and Kentucky to southeastern United States
and west to eastern Texas. Although widespread in the southeast,
it is local and restricted to mature pine woods.
Habitat: Pine forests, especially mature yellow and longleaf
pines.
The forests near Cribs Creek are hardwoods - not pine.
Therefore, habitat for this bird does not exist in the vicinity
of this project. This woodpecker will not be impacted by this
project.
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - (E)
A primitive bony fish with a prolonged shovel-shape snout
under which is a sucker-like mouth with thick lips. Small opening
between eye and upper corner of opercle; caudal peduncle heavy
and not entirely covered by bony plates; lower lip with 2
slightly papillose lobes, none on upper lips. Bony plates between
pelvic and anal fins in one row of 1-4 plates; dorsal rays less
than 45. Space between dorsal and lateral rows of plates
containing many rows of minute plates or spicules. Front of anal
fin below front of dorsal fin and 1/2 as long as dorsal fin;
dorsal rays about 41; anal rays about 22; about 8-11 dorsal
plates and 22-33 lateral plates.
Range: Atlantic coast from Florida to Cape Cod. (Stocked in
large inland lakes in N.C.)
Habitat: Anadromous. Along Atlantic coast but enters
freshwater to spawn. Stocked in some large inland lakes in N.C.
and uses feeder streams for spawning.
12
Cribs Creek is too small to support populations of shortnose
sturgeon or provide good spawning habitat. This project will not
impact this species directly, but sedimentation should be
strictly controlled to prevent damage to potential spawning areas
in adjoining Rocky River.
Candidate Species
Bog spicebush (Lindera subcoriacea) - (C)
Puck's orpine (Sedum pusillum) - (C)
None of the species listed by the USFWS were found or would
be expected to occur in the habitats available at this site. The
NCNHP had no records of any of the Federally listed species being
reported from this site. No federally listed or candidate species
will be impacted by this project.
State Protected Species
The NCNHP office has no records of any state-protected
species being reported from the Cribs Creek area. However, the
NCWRC reports that a N.C. special concern species has been
collected from Cribs Creek.
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis collis) - (SC)
This darter characteristically has no interorbital pores,
only 1 anal spine, and the margin of the preopercle is usually
smooth. The infraorbital canal is interrupted with only 4-5
pores. There are 9 preoperculomandibular pores, 6 branchiostegal
rays, and a coronal pore. The supratemporal canal may be
interrupted or uninterrupted. The parietal region is unscaled;
the breast is unscaled. The nape is unscaled or partly scaled.
The opercle and cheek are partly to fully scaled. The belly may
be fully scaled or unscaled along a median strip.
The side of the body is mottled with brown, the dorsum is
dark, and the venter is white to light yellow with no
melanophores on the female and scattered melanophores on the
male. The pored lateral line forms a light lateral stripe.
Range: Found in Atlantic Piedmont streams, this particular
subspecies is found in streams in the Peedee and Santee River
systems in North and South Carolina.
Habitat: This darter is found in sluggish stream backwaters
or pools with a substrate of mud or dedritus.
The small pools in the vicinity of this project site were
examined but no Carolina darters were found. This project will
not impact this darter.
PERMITS
It is anticipated that an individual permit will not be
required from the Corps of Engineers since the Nationwide Section
404 permit provisions are applicable and the provisions of
330.5(b) and 330.6 will be followed.
13
CULTURAL RESOURCES
The "Area of Potential Effect" of this project on cultural
resources has been delineated and is shown on Figure 2.
There are no historic architectural resources in the
vicinity of the project that are eligible for inclusion in the
National Register of Historic Places. The State Historic
Preservation officer was consulted and concurred with the above
statement. (See letter in Appendix.)
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the
project boundaries. However, since the project area has never
been systematically surveyed, the State Historic Preservation
Officer has recommended that a comprehensive archaeological
survey be conducted to identify the presence and significance of
archaeological remains that may be damaged or destroyed by the
proposed project. This survey will accomplished prior to
construction.
VIII. CONCLUSION
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that
with proper implementation of the Department's erosion and
sediment control measures and "Best Management Practices" no
serious adverse environmental effects will result from the
implementation of this project.
14
Rocky
River Chi 1605
b 1911
1.0 ` 1943
A
.8 1600
603 1-?
o.
_A. . n ?? •

ibooL17 ?
n ?
2
1 1624 0
ass ib
NE ,O s?'?l 1935 J Q o
• ? . Y •
1609 1621 •S
9
NSpN , COUNTY
Cp
Wighhnans wTy
,A' , x?Ch.
o?
p 1610 U 6 161
1454 14 6 ? U 2.
.? \ CID .4
1608 1612
.4 .A !Poplar prings/ s 8
Ch.
1610 ?
sit
1610 , fo G 1612
X438 - ; 1611 1600 f. 1619
1 ?
•? iti
2 5 if
Aumsville •3 1.0 1654 1 1614 •-?
613 1.3
1452 Red Hill
d 1456 1? q 1.3 a 1673 N. ?•s Ch.
?" I ? E., 1618

i

STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
SR 1610, BRIDGE NO. 207
OVER CRIBS CREEK
ANSON COUNTY
B-2001
7j92 1 mile 11 FIG. 1
to
N
O
O
a
z
U)
O
z
n
0
yE
O tTJ
£ N
ay
7d
d a
b
W 'C
:V 7d
H Q
da
Q n
rh x
Ar w'.
"+7
H
O
vo
Cri
W
x cn
Oy
3
xa
7d 'd
b
H r?
C7 O
?a
r? n
.. x

r
0
0
ya
H
z
x
hd
y
7d
tT1
a
x
0
H
d
G')
t=i

31
y
a
H
d
t=J
c
H

s

u r

100-YEAR FLOODPL
/All

PROJECT SITE
R-2nn1
27( ?
,,-
C
? t
j I \ ?
J1 v? 1 I
3697 -T.
1
"IV A,
It, I
B-2001
" BRIDGE
N0. 207
// ?- ' ' ' ?\ -p/, ANSON COUNTY
FIGURE 4
SCALE IN FEET
1000 0 1000 i C to
R
„a SiATp o
aw.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
716 WEST MAIN STREET
ALBEMARLE, N. C. 28001
SEPTEMBER 15, 1992
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
MEMORANDUM TO: MR. JEFF WILLIAMS, P. E.
PROJECT ENGINEER
FROM: J. D. GOINS, P. E.
DIVISION ENGINEER
SUBJECT: PRELIMINARY DRAFT CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
DOCUMENTS FOR T. I. P. IDS. B-2001 & B-2106
WE HAVE REVIEWED THE SUBJECT DOCUMENTS AND ARE IN CONCURRENCE WITH THE
RECOMMENDED ALTERNATES.
AWW:ST
CC: MS. LEIGH COBB - PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer

0
LEO' North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
June 24, 1992
Ms.'Ruby D. Pharr
Environmental Consultant
111 York Street
Morganton, NC 28655
SUBJECT: Request for special concerns regarding fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of 11 bridges to be •,_-;
by the NCDOT
Dear Ms. Pharr:
This correspondence responds to a request by you for any
special concerns the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) has regarding fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity
of each of 11 bridges. The North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace these bridges with new
structures.
We have the following comments on these projects:
ALLEGHANY COUNTY j U,? u.•? ??
Bridge #11 on NC ,113 over PinevBranch: This stream is a
tributary to (Piney Fork,) which ids Designated Public Mountain
Trout Water. PinevBranch may support wild brown trout. A
state listed snail may also occur within a wa ershed. -
ANSON COUNTY
1) Bridge #199 on SR 1600 over Richardson Creek: This is a'
large stream with significant warmwater fish habitat.
Species of particular concern include a listed fish
(Carolina darter, Special Concern) and several listed-or
proposed freshwater mussels, all of which have been reported
from nearby Rocky River tributaries. Many of these aquatic
species would be adversely affected by sedimentation of the
stream bed at or below the construction site.
2) Bridge #207 on SR 1610 over Cribs Creek: Although this is a
smaller tributary than the previous site, similar concerns
s
Memo Page 2 June 24, 1992
exist regarding fish and mussel habitat. The Carolina
darter has been collected from Cribs Creek.
NOTE: Both of these bridge sites presently involve sharp
road curves in the immediate vicinity of the existing
structures. For purposes of improving safety, NCDOT may
propose relocation of these bridges up- or downstream, using
existing bridges as on-site detours. Additional aquatic and
riparian habitat affected by such operations should be
included in the study area.
BURKE COUNTY
1) Bridge #210 on SR 1647 over Drowning Creek: No special
concer a.s.
2) Bridge #102 on SR 1438 over Johns River: This stream
supports an excellent smallmouth bass fishery in the
vicinity of the bridge replacement. A federal candidate
mussel species is also known from the Johns River system.
CALDWELL COUNTY
1) Bridge #5 on SR 1178 over Lower Creek: No special concerns.
2) Bridge #106 on SR 1142 over Lower Creek: No special
concerns.
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Bridge #213 on SR 1512 over First Broad River: No special
concerns regarding fishery resources. A state threatened
mussel has been reported from the First Broad River
watershed. -
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Bridge #126 on US 64 over Clinchfield Railroad: No special
concerns.
SURRY COUNTY
Bridge 164 on SR 2233 over Fisher River:_ No special
concerns.
WATAUGA COUNTY
Bridge 298 on SR 1580 over Watauga River: The stream is
Designated Public Mountain Trout Water in the vicinity of
the bridge and provides excellent fishing for brown trout.
Fishing pressure is heavy in this area. A state listed
endangered mussel occurs in the Watauga River system.
Memo Page 3 June 24, 1992
Although we have no special concerns in the vicinity of
several of-these projects, -the NCWRC expects tfie?f?D to_
routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish -and wildlife re-'sources
intie vicinity of-bridge replacements The NCDOT should install
anT maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life
of eachproject and-prevent wet-concrete-ffom contacting water
flowing in ointo-these streams.
While no special wildlife concerns exist for any of these
bridge sites, replacement of bridges with spanning structures of
some t-y-pe_, as opposed pipe culverts, is recommended in all
cases-.. Spaning structures allow-wildlife passage along
streambanks`; i'edu _population fragmentation anve icle-
related mortality at highway crossings.
For additional information regarding endangered or
threatened species in the vicinity of these construction sites,
please contact Randy Wilson, Nongame and Endangered Wildlife
Section Manager, at [phone]. If you need further
assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact David Yow, Highway Project
Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to
review and comment on this project.
Sin erely,
Dennis L. Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DLS/lp
cc: Stephanie Goudreau, Mt. Region Habitat Biologist
Chris Goudreau, District 8 Fisheries Biologist
Joe Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
David Yow, NCWRC Highway Coordinator
Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
John Alderman, Piedmont Region Nongame Project Leader
?U oly
a3
Y w...
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James G. Martin, Governor
Patric Dorsey, Secretary
July 16, 1992
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Section 106 Consultation on Consultant
Bridge Projects
Dear Mr. Graf:
rg JUL 201992
DI V /S/O'y OF
t) Cf GITWAYS r
RESEAPG???
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
Thank you for your letter of June 15, 1992, concerning twenty-two bridge replacement
projects.
On June 8, 1992, Robin Stancil of our staff met with North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) staff and project consultants for a meeting concerning the bridge
replacements. NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the
meeting and for our use afterwards. Based upon our review of the photographs and the
information discussed at the meeting, our preliminary comments regarding these bridge
replacements are attached for each project.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categoricai
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
concerns.
Our comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator,
at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
Attachments
cc: _J• Ward 109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
B. Church
T. Padgett
i

Replace Bridge No. 207 on SR 1610 over Cribbs Creek,
Anson County, B-2001, 8.2650901, ER 92-8532
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
We recommend that a comprehensive survey be conducted by an experienced
archaeologist to identify the presence and significance of archaeological remains
that may be damaged or destroyed by the proposed project. Potential effects on
unknown resources should be assessed prior to the initiation of construction
activities.
July 16, 1992