19950972 Ver 1_Complete File_19950911

.r , . N
?. SUrt
a Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
September 13, 1995
Regulatory Branch
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Wilmington Field Office
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
' tiV
e
LARS
SUBJECT: Alamance County, Replacement of Bridge No. 2 over Travis Creek on
SR 1529, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1529(2), State Project 8.2471601,
T.I.P. No. B-2801.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge No. 2 will be replaced at the existing
location with a new bridge 41 meters (136 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet)
wide. During construction, traffic will be detoured to existing secondary
roads. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any
jurisdictional wetland communities.
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 Appendix A (B-23). 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. 2745 (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.
9
September 13, 1995
Page 2
If you have any questions or need additional information please call
Ms. Alice N. Gordon at 733-3141 Ext. 314.
rF/anklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: W/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. J. T. Watkins, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
.r . . %
Alamance County
SR 1529
Bridge No. 2 Over Travis Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1529(2)
State Project 8.2471601
T.I.P. No. B-2801
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
-711 -7 9
ATE H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE icholas L. Graf, PE
givision Administrator, FHWA

Alamance County
SR 1529
Bridge No. 2 Over Travis Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1529(2)
State Project 8.2471601
T.I.P. No. B-2801
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July 1995
• ??OR?H•CAR??iy'••
Documentation Prepared By: ?.••OEESS/p?;•.?9
MA Engineering Consultants, Inc. SEAL
19732 ?
Shihchen (David) Fuh, Ph.D, PE
Project Manager
for North Carolina Department of Transportation
/--.. G.' ?6 ,
J.A. Bissett, Jr., PE, Uni H a
Consultant Engineering Unit

Stacy Y. Bald*inl
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit

Alamance County
SR 1529
Bridge No. 2 Over Travis Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1529(2)
State Project 8.2471601
T.I.P. No. B-2801
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be implemented
to avoid or minimize environmental impacts, including implementation of stringent erosion and
sedimentation control measures during construction.
Design plans will be forwarded to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office for continued
review of potential impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the
proposed project's area of potential effect.
Alamance County
SR 1529
Bridge No. 2 Over Travis Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1529(2)
State Project 8.2471601
T.I.P. No. B-2801
Bridge No. 2 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in
Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal
"Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
For the Summary of Environmental Commitments, see page i.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 2 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The
recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge 41 meters (136 feet) long and 9.2 meters
(30 feet) wide. This structure will provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) travel lanes with 1.0-meter (3-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher than the
existing grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to provide two 3.6-
meter (12-foot) travel lanes, and 2.4-meter (8- foot) unpaved shoulders on each side throughout the
project limits.
A temporary off-site detour (see Figure 2A) will be used to maintain traffic during the construction
period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $645,185. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement Program, is $426,000 ($380,000-construction;
$46,000-right-of-way).

III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the western portion of Alamance County, approximately 3 kilometers (2
miles) southeast of Ossipee, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is rural residential in nature.
SR 1529 is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification System and is not a
Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1529 has a 6.1-meter (20-foot) pavement width with 1.5-meter (5-
foot shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat across the bridge and
gradually increases before and after the bridge. The existing bridge is located on a tangent which
extends approximately 15 meters (50 feet) in both directions from the structure. The roadway is
situated approximately 7 meters (23 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 1800 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 3500 VPD by
the year 2018.. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and.2% dual-
tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 90 kilometers per hour (55 miles per hour) in the
project area.
Bridge No. 2 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams. The
substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles with concrete sills. The existing bridge (see
Figure 3) was constructed in 1956.
The overall length of the structure is 37 meters (121 feet). The clear roadway width is 7.5 meters
(24.6 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 12 metric tons (13 tons) for single vehicles and
15 metric tons (16 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 2 has a sufficiency rating of 21.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure. The
existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines parallel the
existing bridge on the downstream side of the roadway throughout the project area.
One accident resulting in a non-fatal injury has been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 2 during
the period from April 1991 to March 1994. The accident was a single vehicle incident which can be
attributed to icy conditions.
Four school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 2 were studied. Each alternative consists of the
replacement of the bridge in its existing location with a bridge 41 meters (136 feet) long and 9.2
meters (30 feet) wide.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway
alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 150 meters
(500 feet) to the east and 150 meters (500 feet) to the west. A temporary off-site detour will be
provided during the construction period. The ofd site detour will be 5.6 kilometers (3.5 miles) in
length (see Figure 2A). The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per
hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it has less impact on the environment and is less costly
than Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 - involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for approximately 150 meters (500 feet)
to the east and 150 meters (500 feet) to the west. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during
the construction period east (downstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will
consist of a bridge 24 meters (78 feet) long and 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide, located about 12 meters
(40 feet) east of the existing structure. The design speed of this alternative is 100 kilometers per hour
(60 miles per hour).
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not acceptable
due to the traffic service provided by SR 1529.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation Division 7 concurs that an off-site detour will be
the best alternative during bridge replacement.
The Alamance County Manager indicates that maintenance of traffic off-site during the construction
period is acceptable.
The Alamance County School Superintendent indicates that the maintenance of traffic off-site during
the construction period is acceptable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
3
4
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended) Alternative 2
Alternative 1
Structure $ 318,240 $ 318,240
Roadway Approaches 149,165 167,884
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 512,281
Structural Removal 23,595 23,595
Engineering and Contingencies 84,000 179,000
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities 70,185 87,000
Total S645,185 $ 1,288,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 2 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a
new structure having a length of approximately 41 meters (136 feet). Improvements to the existing
approaches will be necessary for a distance of about 150 meters (500 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side will be
provided on the approaches (see Figure 4). A 9.2-meter (30-foot) clear width is recommended on
the replacement structure in accordance with the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation Bridge Policy. SR 1529 is classified as a rural local; therefore, criteria for a rural local
was used for the bridge replacement. This will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway with 1.0-
meter (3-foot) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles
per hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic off-site is acceptable because of low traffic
volumes using SR 1529 and the short length of additional travel required along existing secondary
roads.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length of
approximately'41 meters (136 feet). The bridge will have a 0.3% minimum slope in order to facilitate
drainage. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately 0.6 meters (2 feet) higher than
that of the existing bridge so that there will be no increase to the existing 100-year floodplain
elevation. The length and height of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrologic studies.
4
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on October 19, 1994 to verify documented information and gather
field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred by a proposed bridge
replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to 1) search for
State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or prime-quality
communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats; 4) identify wetlands; and 5)
provide information to assess (and minimize adverse) environmental effects of the proposed bridge
replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Three distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project.
Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics
of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Mixed Upland Forest:
Mixed Upland Forest (Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest - Piedmont Subtype) are on sloping areas
adjacent to the existing bridge. The canopy is composed of sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), northern red oak (Quercus rubra), hickory (Carya spp.), riverbirch
(Betula pigra), black oak (Quercus velutina), and white oak (Quercus alba). Sub-canopy trees
include the canopy species plus black cherry (Pnnnis serotina), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida),
red mulberry (Morus rubra), sassafras (Sassafras albidcan), and boxelder (Ater negundo). The
shrub/sapling layer is composed of black oak and sassafras. The herb/vine/grass layer is composed
of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), poison
ivy (Toxicodendron radicaps), cane (Arundinaria gigantea), grape (Vitis spp.), trumpet creeper
(Campsis radicaps) and grasses (Poaceae).
Urban/Disturbed:
This community classification includes disturbed roadside and residential and bridge margins in the
vicinity of the project. This area is characterized primarily by invasive grasses, vines, and herbs
including: Japanese honeysuckle, trumpet creeper, wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia), plantain
(Plantago spp.), and grasses. The shrub layer is composed of smooth sumac (Rhus glabra).
5
Agricultural:
Agricultural land is found north of the existing bridge. The agricultural land includes soils which are
not currently cultivated. Shrubs present include raspberry (Rebus spp.). Herbs and grasses present
include plantain, wild garlic (Allium vieeale), aster (Aster spp.), and dominated by broomsedge
(Andropogon virginiczus).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of a combination of mixed forest edges, rural countryside, agricultural, and
residential development. Clearing and conversion of tracts of land for agricultural and residential uses
has eliminated much cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby the project
area. Even so, remaining natural plant communities in the area, particularly the forested area and
adjacent to Travis Creek and associated ecotones, do serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering
Travis Creek has all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds,
reptiles, and amphibians.
Sighting or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, nests, etc.) were noted for the following species of
mammal, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Mammals likely to inhabit the area include deer
(Odocoileus virginianus) and grey squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
The observed bird species are typical of rural piedmont setting where a patchwork of habitat types
are available. Species encountered in the forested areas and nearby Travis Creek include Carolina
wren (Thryothorus hidovicianus), eastern wood pewee (Contopus virens), mourning dove (Zenaida
macroura), and common crow (Cowes brachyrhynchos).
Reptiles and amphibians typical of these communities include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis
sirtalis), Carolina anole (Aeolis carolinensis), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), pickerel frog
(Rana palustris), and Fowler's Toad (Bufo ii,oodhousei).
Aquatic:
Travis Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish. Aquatic invertebrates
observed included mayflies (Ephemeroptera) and caddisflies (Trichoptera). A number of fish were
observed including eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), and shiners (Notropis spp.). Creek
chub (Semotilus atromaculatus) are also likely to occur in the creek.
Travis Creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians and
aquatic reptiles such as the eastern newt (Notophthahnus viridesceirs), northern dusky salamander
(Desmognathus fiiscus), frogs (Rana spp.), green frog (Rana clan itans), eastern mud turtle
(Kinostertron subrubrum), and several snake species.
6
Physical Resources
Soil
Alamance County is located within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Topography is
characterized by rolling and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the
immediate project area range from 174 meters (570 feet) along the creek bottom to 180 meters (590
feet) along the agricultural and forested upland areas.
Northern Alamance County is underlain by the mixed Felsic and Mafic system. The mixed Felsic
intrusive rocks include granite gneiss and mica schist and Mafic intrusive rocks include gabbro and
diorite. Local changes in subsurface geology are common, and large, homogeneous masses of a
single rock type are rare.
Soils in the project vicinity include Buncombe loamy fine sand, Cecil sandy loam, Helena sandy loam,
and Worshaw sandy loam. Buncombe loamy fine sand lie on natural stream levees. Buncombe loamy
fine sand is not listed as a hydric soil. Cecil sandy loam and Helena sandy loam soils are thin surface
soils on eroded sloping surfaces. Worshaw sandy loam soils are found in low lying areas adjacent to
creeks. Worshaw sandy loam soils are poorly drained and frequently flooded. Worshaw sandy loam
soils are hydric or have hydric soils as a major component.
Water
Bridge No. 2 crosses Travis Creek approximately 9.7 kilometers (6 miles) downstream of its origin
near Gibbsonville, North Carolina. Travis Creek flows east for 0.6 kilometers (0.4 miles) into the
Haw River which is part of the Cape Fear River Basin.
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (NCDNRCD 1993).
Travis Creek is Class C NSW stream, indicating suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture, and a supplemental classification for nutrient
sensitive waters which require limitations on nutrient inputs.
The North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES) report lists one source (Shields Mobile Home Park) within four miles
upstream of the proposed crossing.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for benthic macroinvertebrates. Certain organisms
are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality. Good water quality is associated with high taxa
7
richness (the number of different types of organisms) and the presence of many intolerant species.
Water quality degradation gradually eliminates the more sensitive species and leads to a community
structure quite different from that in an unstressed waterbody. BMAN information is not available
for the immediate project area.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of the Travis Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
Stream Characteristics and Ecological Classifications
Characteristic Description
Substrate Gravel, boulder
Current Flow Moderate
Channel Width 7.2 meters (24 feet)
Water Depth 15 centimeters (0.5 feet) to 30 centimeters (1 feet)
Water Color Clear
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Sweetgum, sycamore, northern red oak, hickory,
river birch, white oak
Wetlands None
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United States" as defined
in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section
404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Wetland communities are identified using the criteria
specified in the 1987 "US Army Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual". For an area to
be considered a "wetland", the following three specifications must be met: 1) presence of hydric soils
(low soil chroma values); 2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation; and 3) evidence of hydrology at
or near the soil surface for a portion (5 percent or greater duration) of the growing season.
Based on this three-parameter approach, there are no jurisdictional wetlands within the project right-
of-way. Construction of the proposed project will have no impacts on any jurisdictional wetland
communities.
8
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Species with federal classifications of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are protected under the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (1978, 1979, 1982, and 1988 Amendments).
Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. As of March 25, 1995, the United States Fish and Wildlife Service lists no federally
protected species for Alamance County.
Biological Conclusion: Construction of this project will not adversely impact any federally protected
plant or animal species.
Federal Candidate Species:
There is one C2 federal candidate species listed for Alamance County. The sweet pinesap
(Monotropsis odorata) has a state status of candidate and suitable habitat is found within the study
area.
Candidate 2 (C2) species are defined as taxa for which there is some evidence of vulnerability, but
for which there is not enough data to warrant a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, or Proposed Threatened at this time. This species is mentioned here for information
purposes, should it become federally protected in the future. Specific surveys for this species were
not conducted, nor was this species observed during the site visit.
State Listed Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special
Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.).
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no known populations of the state listed
species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) of the project site.
9
Impacts
Impacts on plant communities are reflective of the relative abundance of each system present in the
study area. It should be noted that estimated impacts were derived using the entire proposed right-of-
way. Project construction often does not require the entire right-of-way and therefore actual impacts
may be less. Table 2 summarizes potential plant community impacts which could result from the
proposed bridge replacement
TABLE 2
Impacts to Plant Communities for Alternative I in Hectares (Acres)
Plant Communities Permanent Impact
Mixed Upland Forest 0.11 (0.26)
Agricultural 0.04 (0.09)
Urban/Disturbed 0.08 (0.21)
TOTAL 0.23 (0.56)
Note: Permanent Impacts are based on a 24-meter (80-foot) corridor of the alignment.
Impacts to plant communities as a result of bridge replacement are restricted to narrow strips adjacent
to the existing bridge and roadway segments. Alternative I is not expected to result in substantial
adverse impacts to plant communities. Bridge and approach improvements occur primarily within
disturbed right-of-way limits, agricultural, and mixed forest edges which currently do not support
substantial communities.
The proposed action will not result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial plant or
animal habitat. Habitat affected by the proposed action include Urban/Disturbed, Agricultural, and
Hardwood Forested areas. The Urban/Disturbed area is utilized by opportunistic plant species such
as Japanese honeysuckle and mobile species such as rodents, lizards and snakes that can recover
quickly from construction impacts. The hardwood forest areas bordering the Travis Creek will
receive disturbances next to the existing bridge area. The Travis Creek should continue to provide
adequate habitat areas for mammals, reptiles, birds, amphibians and fish.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation will utilize the best management practices for the
proposed action to limit affects on the aquatic ecosystem. The disturbance of the creek bed and
sedimentation from the banks could affect aquatic life (fish, mollusks, and benthic invertebrates) both
at the project site as well as down stream reaches.
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities, which may
increase sedimentation and turbidity. Impacts will be minimized by the use of best management
practices, including implementation of stringent erosion and sedimentation control measures during
construction.
10
Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements. The
new bridge will maintain the present flow to protect stream integrity. Increased runoff from roadway
surfaces will be partially mitigated by providing for vegetated road shoulders and limited use of
ditching where ever possible.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E. 1344), a permit
will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters
of the United States". Since the project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This permit
authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically
excluded" from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions
which neither individually or cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. However, final
permit decisions are left to the discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is issued for any activity which
may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. Erosion and sedimentation
control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to minimize unnecessary
impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management Practices will also be implemented.
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area restored,
to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will
result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack
of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land
use,is expected to result from the construction of the project.
11
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition will be
limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
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.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easements from any land protected
under Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of
1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for
Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a
federally funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the
National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an
opportunity to comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the
Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation provided
documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic Preservation
Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of Potential Effect (APE), depicted
in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates
that no National Register-listed or eligible properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places
within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to architectural resources, is
required.
David Brook, the Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer in response to a scoping letter about
Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen bridges), (CH 95-E-4220-0305), responded in a
memorandum dated December 19, 1994, that:
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity. However,
we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet recorded resources
without a project location. As soon as a location and detailed project information
(including new right-of-way, approach work, detour structures) is available, please
forward it to us so we may complete our review.
When available, design plans will be forwarded to the NCSHPO for continued review of potential
impacts to unrecorded archaeological sites which may be located within the proposed project's area
of potential effect.
12
J
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The Farmland
Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to consider the potential
impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction projects. All work will be done
within the existing right-of-way. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of
prime, unique, or important farmland acreage.
The project is located in Alamance County, which has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 is not applicable, because the proposed
project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on
the air quality of this attainment area.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, the impact on noise levels and
air quality will not be substantial. 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 State Implementation Plans for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for noise analysis of Title 23 CFR Part 772
and for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy
Act.
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.
Alamance County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain
area to be affected is not significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result
in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be taken to minimize any
possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no structures located within the limits of the 100-year
floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental effects
will result from implementation of the project.
13
W OF
TAL
BRANCH
Alamance County
SR-1529 over Prong of Haw River
Bridge #2
B-2801 FIGURE
miles
1576
1371
J AJtama 0-
67
\
1 560 HA W i
1 .a
f? 7
1563
10 1 35A Oss I pe c
1 ?
0 1
A
110•
_ rajP 155
I
?
I 1([1 Cr
o - \ Alamance County
6 SR-1529 over Prong of Haw River
o Bridge #2
B-2801
LLSt t)n.on- 2
139) + 1R,dQe
i
? b
lsev 1se7 ?
- 1SV2 ? 100,
1667
'y .1587 1600 ?1,/
t 169A . 106) l 1603 \?I 171.
` lee 6 1eo) < 1
/0 3 \ .. I
1 3V3 > .? y 160
_ r
i3v4 > `? 1607
,7 ti 3 1603 v m 1
t
1602 rA?n / o
r' 1604 .2 1605
tr
? 1SOe ??
13v3 ? ? ?
e
o ilvo
L5 -? 1593 BRIDGE NO. ..2
1330 ` `\ CIT}•
° LAKF_
s>o eor 7 749
[~Jx,?'A +r 1791
MvKC,Anl -1
P4
-- ^ CS \ vw ?t1NINC.)
ALTERNATIVE 1 =98 "a°cdcl
(RECOMMENDED) GLEN RAVEN - fAU
97 ; Wr41Nc J
OFF-SITE DETOUR ° POP 2.I55 1300
< TAU o t ?` y
r 1 FAU
1107
O
J "A (J .6 - 97 ?w
?•? 1.0 f H ( 100 7 7 f
/Op' .• ~ ETON OIIEGE 'r U fAU U 7 Q 70 70
1 ?V..C ? 7
_j 2.877 a,..... s2 1 2
rl...POP
ttE f .
BURLINGTON
t,:; f4
% i 1 ` 67 POP. 37.266 J
r I
r
8891 c r'"11' t,•'3 '? r... z...
f v
976 J ?:C
?o 6. 6
5 r, ?„ 3
E3
t?S 9 f. ;. ?_ ? FAU 3 S l p Mf1
D `....?.. ? ~ 100 87 ? fAU
,Aoeo J ?
tr L _ / P /
n v t9 \
1706 1 7 < .` S FAP ,
L
9
Ir .7 fAU ?' ..5 .I
I wo
'° t GRAHAM +•
1203 t] ---J- - - - -:<'? ::i..- POP 8.674 m f
2 1 1 t1 1 43 .t `?
FN 1165
,SAORO J y1 14 \i 3 / ,
65 1168 , / 2 ^il
11.9 \
80CA Cr
nQ'<
?, 19 FIGURE 2A
1140
R,,rf.t?o Icy,
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
FIGURE 3
I
o

z
ul
uj
? u
Z
N
°

Lu

u
<

a
cn
F- Cn
F- n 3
=
zi
Z
?' cli
u
O
Z

O Q p O tV
U on :

C? O V C: , CD
O co 00
(n (n OZZ , "
G p` ° Ci
r
d a xN
OZV
?
F- >
0 ;
cli
o
? Qrn
cl. co N

e
In
t

J J
z z
O O
I - I-
W
w
(n U)
_
D
U (, w
L,J O 4i
C O O ° v `
om
X - 0 9
n
. 0
a o >>
Q
CL
w
a- 1=
Q n- ?
c+y fV
>

J
J y
'_
U U cu
CL a a
>- co
C?
W
a?
? O

N
C'7
w O O V1
M ? Q
t
CL a
L 5 v
o -:3
D L O
N
(n cn 'D
!' F- c > `
ca ca =3
J d F-
11 II II
to to
Y J O_ F-

w

o
Z f...
tit Z
w
F-
?
x
d Z
>.
?y
O
d a
o ?
w
d
7?
0 rx

OFQ..w
a
aaO 0
?.
o U
pK
V
O oN
U
o
M j
o
.
xU) Z: L) m 4)
0 X00
r
a
? ? ? ? .b N
?a cw
I
o r O
o ?
?
n m
zF- >
a0
N
vl

n

- U
M ?
CV
H
vi
Z
O
Z
O
U

W
?

^
W a
o Q
r u U
c N
? ?

M

Fr v 'L7 b b

CD 0 0
Q }' C) O O
' U -
N m

Q ?
? ? II 11 II
V' 00 00
Q
rn rn o
z
O
H
U

w

w
r ZONE B
i
i
r?
w5
F Alamance County
SR-1529 over Prong of Haw River
Bridge #2
i B-2801
Y ?'??rrs ? pphit .
RM128`
xRM129 589 '
ZONE B
ZONE Al 5 . i
y.,
`a -ZONE B
FLOODING EFFECT
FROM HAW RIVER
Y ; U --ZONEAI5
f b t;' (EL 588)
- DSS/PFF
ZONE ?I
B 100 YEAR FLOOD LIMIT
ZONE B
586 ZONE C
BRIDGE NO. 2
unna?nrd spa a„? ZONE BE?}?'
ZONE B
?,+rtJ •' ?a? yw "ss?? t?. a ?'h,4 v11 ^.? 't-.. '
/ 58 y v
' S
ZONE B`
ZONE B
ZONE C
ZONEA9
588 ZONE - -- -
B
589
'-ONE B RM FI 1! ?i / {
ll lis l? ?? t
s
0
?- ZONE C
4, ; ? SCALE: 1" = 1000'
° ZONE C
.ONE B
?` ?? I E 7 O N F R FIGURE 6
APPENDIX
G007
EI VF
'Almtt na C auntg r NOV 2 1 1994
OFFICE OF THE COUNTY MANAGER TG
124 WEST ELM STREET Z DIV!SIC'"d CF
GRAHAM, NORTH CAROUNA 27253
ROBERT C. SMITH
COUNTY MANAGER
November 14, 1994
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
312
910
I am writing in response to your request for comments on TIP Projects B-2801 and
B-2802. In regard to Project B-2801, I am unaware of any undue hardship that the
closing of SR 1529 (Durham Street Ext.) at the bridge will cause for either
Alamance County Emergency Medical Services or the fire departments that serve the
area.
In regard to Project B-2802, Alamance County Emergency Medical Services has
expressed concern that the closing of SR 1530 (Burch Bridge Road) at the bridge
could significantly lengthen their response time to emergency calls to residents
of the area. The closing of SR 1530 (Burch Bridge Road) will cause a major
inconvenience to the residents north of this bridge replacement. Residents in
the following subdivisions will be affected: Indian Valley Country Club, British
Acres, Birchwood, Kernodle Acres and Green Acres.
The fire departments responsible for serving the area in relation to Project B-
2802 did not express concern about a significant lengthening of response time if
this route is closed while the bridge is being replaced. I would request that
you examine the possibility of keeping this route open during the replacement of
this bridge.
I am also requesting that Alamance County be notified of the closing of these
facilities prior to any construction so that appropriate steps may be taken to
route emergency vehicles during the bridge replacement projects. If you have any
questions concerning my comments regarding Alamance County Emergency Medical
Services and Project B-2802, please contact Mr. John Breitmeier at (910) 570-
6795.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on these projects.
Sincerely,
4 "'10
Robert C. Smith
Alamance County Manager
RCS:trp
cc: John Breitmeier
+., Recycled Paper
1"4F
sy
SIAJI
?; 11'vs (20
DEC 2 2 1994
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
` v; ibVA , .
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Arc Histo Pv
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price,
December 19, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Ftistohc?'Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group VII Bridge Replacement Projects (fifteen
bridges), Multicounty, CH 95-E-4220-0305
We have received information concerning the above project from the State
Clearinghouse.
We have reviewed the list of fifteen bridges planned for replacement. With the
exception of B-2830, Greene County on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek on which
we commented at a "meeting of the minds" in 1994, we have no record of having
seen these proposed projects.
Given our lack of staff in the Survey and Planning Branch to review the potential
impacts of these replacements on historic buildings, we are unable to respond to
your request for comments at this time. We suggest you direct your consultants,
MA Engineering, to make an appointment with Renee Gledhill-Earley to check our
maps and files or have her review aerial photographs or maps of the project areas.
Our comments with regard to archaeological resources are as follows:
Bridge 23 on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek, B-2830, Greene County, ER 94-
8699
There are no recorded archaeological sites within the immediate project vicinity,
although the area south of the existing bridge contains a very high probability for
the presence of prehistoric resources. It is likely that we will recommend an
archaeological survey for this project, but we are unable to complete our review
without project details and location. Please forward them as soon as they are
available.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??
v
H. F. Vick
December 19, 1994, Page 2
Bridge 109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek, B-2852, Orange "County
Archaeological site 31OR438** is likely to be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement project. This historic period mill dam is located across New Hope
Church north of SR 1734. We recommend that the project area be surveyed and
site 31 OR438 * * be tested and evaluated for its National Register eligibility if it is
to be affected by the project.
Bridge 2 on SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek, B-2850, Nash County
Bridge 14 on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek, B-2828, Granville County
Bridge 13 on SR 1530 over Haw River, B-2802, Alamance County
Bridge 289 on SR 1152 over Swift Creek, B-2871, Wake County
Bridge 2 on SR 1529 over Haw River, B-2801, Alamance County
There are no recorded archaeological sites located in the project vicinity.
However, we are unable to assess the project's potential effects upon as yet
unrecorded resources without a project location. As soon as a location and
detailed project information (including new right-of-way, approach work, detour
structures) is available, please forward it to us so we may complete our review.
Bridge 37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek, B-1336, Richmond County
Bridge 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek, B-2595, New Hanover County
Bridge 27 on NC 904 over Scipped Swamp, B-2807, Brunswick County
Bridge 37 on US 13 over South River, B-2819, Cumberland and Sampson Counties
Bridge 82 on SR 1456 over Deep River, B-2849, Moore County
Bridge 45 on NC 211 over Raft Swamp, B-2860, Robeson County
Bridge 61 on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp, B-2863, Robeson County
Bridge 32 on SR 1433 and SR 1310 over Lumber River, B-2866, Robeson and
Scotland Counties
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend
that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above 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.
DB:slw
cc: State Clearinghouse
B. Church
T. Padgett
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr., Director
February 21, 1995
MEMORANDUM
TO: Barbara Church
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation 'n
Q, '
FROM: Renee Gledhill-Earley
Environmental RevievvJJ"" oordinator
Historic Preservation Office
SUBJECT: Concurrence Forms
Attached are the fully executed concurrence forms for properties not eligible for
the National Register of Historic Places for the following projects:
Alamance County, B-2801; Federal Aid BRZ-1529(2), Replace Bridge No. 2
on SR 1529 over Prong of Haw River
Alamance County, B-2802, Federal Aid BRSTP-1530(1), Replace Bridge No.
13 on SR 1530 over Haw River
Brunswick County, B-2807, Federal Aid BRSTP-904(2), Replace Bridge No.
27 on NC 904 over Scippio Swamp
Cumberland County, B-2819, Federal Aid BRSTP-13(3), Replace Bridge No.
37 on US 13 over South River
Granville County, B-2828, Federal Aid BRZ-1609(1), Replace Bridge No. 14
on SR 1609 over Fishing Creek
Greene County, B-2830, Federal Aid BRSTP-123(1), Replace Bridge No. 123
on NC 123 over Contentnea Creek
More County, B-2849, Federal Aid, BRZ-1456(3), Replace Bridge No. 82 on
SR 1456 over Deep River
Nash County, B-2850, Federal Aid BRZ-1003(13), Replace Bridge No. 2 on
SR 1003 over Pig Basket Creek
New Hanover County, B-2595, Federal Aid BRSTP-1100(5), Replace Bridge
No. 15 on SR 1100 over Barnards Creek
GQ
109 East Jon.s Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-N07 N /
Q
b. ?
Barbara Church
February 21, 1995, Page 2
Orange County, B-2852, Federal Aid BRSTP-1734(2), Replace Bridge No.
109 on SR 1734 over New Hope Creek
Richmond County, B-1336, Federal Aid BRSTP-6491(2), Replace Bridge No.
37 on NC 73 over Big Mountain Creek
Robeson County, B-2860, Federal Aid BRSTP-21 1(1), Replace Bridge No. 45
on NC 211 over Raft Swamp
Robeson County, B-2863, Federal Aid BRZ-1935(1), Replace Bridge No. 61
on SR 1935 over Ten Mile Swamp
Scotland County, B-2866, Federal Aid BRSTP-1433(1), Replace Bridge No.
32 on SR 1433 over Lumber River
Wake County, B-2871, Federal Aid BRSTP-1152(2), Replace Bride No. 289
on SR 1 152 over Swift Creek
Please distribute to the appropriate engineer and to Federal Highway
Administration. We have kept copies for our files.
RGE:slw
Attachments
L .r
TIP n
15- 2801 Federal Aid n V-1- - 1529 (2) _ County kLAMArJGE
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description
Wcao-E SR.tOGI; ?lo• 2 otJ SR- 1y2? o?ER- PR-o??Cr of NAW V4%/F-
9-On JA-v1U `V,1 u0, Ih?? , representatives of the

North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session consultation
Other
All parties present agreed

Signed:
2-2. T S-
Date
Representative, NCDOT
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as are
considered not eligible for the National Register and no further evaluation of thertt-ts necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effect.

wA-lor the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency
Z
'.??.?%???? 9l-
Representative, SHPO Date
t
Preservation Officer
Da
S
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.