19950116 Ver 1_Complete File_19950206

1
.,_. S, I
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 27, 1995
RECEIVED
FEB 0 6 Ift
District Engineer ENV?tpNl ENTAI SCIENCES
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RRAhK N
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
Subject: Union County - Replacement of Bridge No. 178 on
SR 1104 over Waxhaw Creek; State Project No.
8.2691601; T.I.P. No. B-2643
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate req sing an Individual
Permit but propose to proceed under Nati wide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23 issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. pr visions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these gulations 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.
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone].
Since ely? ,
J. 'Quin , P.E.
Ass st nager,
Planning and Environmental Branch
NO

BJO/clb
Attachment
cc: Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
Eric Galamb, DEHNR, DEM
John Parker, DEHNR, DCM/Permit Coordinator
Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
A.L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
John L. Smith, Jr., P.E., Structure Design
Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
B.G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Philip Harris, Planning & Environmental
Davis Moore, Planning & Environmental
Union County
SR 1104
Bridge No. 178 over Waxhaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1104(5)
State Project No. 8.2691601
T.I.P. No. B-2643
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
A
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
tzr.Ff
DATE
Union County
SR 1104
Bridge No. 178 over Waxhaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1104(5)
State Project No. 8.2691601
T.I.P. No. B-2643
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November, 1994
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
CAR-
o?t
i e
e e w'
ee.s. V i 1`e?e°? '?w1•
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. it Gri s, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit
. 4U';-?'\. &', "'u
Phil Har s
Project Planning Engineer
Union County
SR 1104
Bridge No. 178 over Waxhaw Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1104(5)
State Project No. 8.2691601
T.I.P. No. B-2643
Bridge No. 178 is included in the NCDOT 1995-2001 Transportation Improvement 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
1. Disturbed areas will be permanently reseeded at the earliest possible time.
2. High Quality Waters (HQW) Erosion Guidelines will be followed throughout construction.
3. A three-span bridge structure will be used to cross the stream channel; however, there will
be no new construction in the stream channel.
4. The existing structure will be removed so as not to allow debris to enter the stream.
5. Existing piles and abutments will be cut down to the substrate. The approaches to the
existing abutments will be cut back to 2:1 and reseeded.
6. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles and abutments and when driving new
piles.
7. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain landward over a rock rip-rap ditch. No
outlets will be located over the creek channel.
8. All piles will be driven and not drilled.
9. Piles for interior bents will be driven prior to placing approach fill.
10. Silt basins will be constructed at all four comers of the new bridge during construction.
11. The survey requirement for the Carolina heelsplitter was omitted since no instream
activity is involved with the proposed action.
1
12. The USFWS and the NCWRC will have an opportunity to review the plans prior to
construction. Immediately before bridge construction is to begin, the contractor shall
contact both agencies for notification of the construction initiation date.
13. No construction work will be done between December 1 and May 31.
14. Detailed hydraulic studies will be performed during the final design stages to determine
bridge length and height necessary to accommodate peak flow.
2
H. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 178 will be replaced approximately 60 meters (200 ft) west of its existing location
as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced with a new bridge having a clear roadway width of 8.6
meters (28 ft) and a length of 24 meters (80 ft). The structure will provide a 6.6 meter (22 ft)
travelway and 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders on each side. The minimum grade on the structure will
be 0.2 percent.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 0.6 meters (2 ft) higher than the
existing bridge grade at this location.
The approach roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed
shoulders for approximately 220 meters (720 ft) on each side of the bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $480,500 including $30,500 for right-of-way and
$450,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the NCDOT 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program, is $531,000 including $31,000 for right-of-way and
$500,000 for construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1104 is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. This
local route serves a rural area of Union County approximately 8 kilometers (5 mi) south of
Waxhaw. Land use is primarily hardwood forests or successional vegetation in the immediate
vicinity of the bridge. The roadway approaches pass through forests, agricultural lands, and some
residential areas.
Near the bridge, SR 1104 has a 5.8 meter (19 ft) pavement width with 1.8 meter (6 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge. The horizontal alignment is tangent on
the bridge with a 70 meter radius (25 degree) curve approximately 60 meters (200 ft) long on the
north approach. The south approach is tangent throughout the project limits. The roadway is
situated approximately 5.8 meters (19 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 700 vehicles per day (VPD) for 1996 and 1300 VPD for the
design year 2016. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and three
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour).
3
The existing bridge was built in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure consists of two creosote
timber joist approach spans and one steel I-beam main span. Bridge deck construction is a
creosote timber floor deck with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of creosote
timber pile end bents with bulkheads and two interior timber pile bents.
The overall length of the bridge is 21.6 meters (71 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19
ft). The posted weight limit is 9071.9 kilograms (10 tons) for single vehicles and 15,422.1
kilograms (17 tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 178 has a sufficiency rating of 28.9, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Four accidents were reported at the bridge during the period from June 1, 1990 to May 31, 1993.
Two accidents involved vehicles being run off of the roadway by vehicles traveling in the
opposite direction. One accident involved the driver losing control of the vehicle during a
rainstorm. The fourth accident involved a northbound vehicle leaving the roadway and
overturning. All four accidents occurred in the vicinity of the curve on the north approach to the
bridge.
Utilities at this site include underground telephone and aerial power along the east side of SR
1104. The telephone goes aerial as it crosses the stream. The power line crosses the roadway
just north of the bridge.
School buses cross the bridge two times daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative alignments were studied for replacing Bridge No. 178. Each alternate consists
of a bridge 24 meters long (80 ft) with a clear roadway width of 8.6 meters (28 ft). This
structure width will accommodate a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders
on each side. The approach roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter
(6 ft) grassed shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge approximately 85 meters (280 ft) west of its existing
alignment. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The roadway
grade of the new structure would be approximately 0.6 meters (2 ft) higher than the existing
bridge grade at this location. A design speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour)
would be provided.
4
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge approximately 60 meters (200 ft) west
of its existing location. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
The roadway grade of the new structure would be approximately 0.6 meters (2 ft) higher than the
existing bridge grade at this location. A design speed of 100 kilometers per hour (60 miles per
hour) would be provided.
Alternate C: involves replacing the bridge in its existing location with either a temporary, on-site
detour or an off-site detour. Based on a benefit-cost ratio of 4.7, an off-site detour is not
feasible. The roadway grade of the new structure would be approximately 0.6 meters (2 ft)
higher than the existing bridge grade at this location. A design speed of 40 kilometers per hour
(25 miles per hour) would be provided, requiring a design exception for the horizontal alignment
on the north approach.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1104.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal $ 8,640 $ 8,640 $ 8,640
Structure 105,367 105,367 105,367
Roadway Approaches 270,993 217,993 105,993
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 95,000 58,000 40,000
Engineering and Contingencies 70,000 60,000 40,000
Right of Way/Const. Easements/LTtil. 39,500 30,500 31,500
TOTAL $589,500 $480,500 $331,500
Detour Structures and Approaches --- --- 175,000
TOTAL WITH TEMPORARY --- --- $506,500
ON-SITE DETOUR
5
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 178 will be replaced by a new structure approximately 24 meters (80 ft) in length and
approximately 60 meters (200 ft) west of its existing location. Alternate B is recommended
because it allows for maintenance of traffic on the existing bridge, provides a 100 kilometers per
hour (60 miles per hour) design speed, and eliminates the 70 meter (25 degree) radius curve north
of the existing bridge.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.8 meter (6 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
approaches. An 8.6 meter (28 ft) clear roadway width is recommended on the replacement
structure in accordance with the current NCDOT Bridge Policy. This will provide a 6.6 meter
(22 ft) travelway with 1.0 meter (3 ft) shoulders across the structure. The design speed is 100
kilometers per hour (60 miles per hour).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to have a length
of approximately 24 meters (80 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation of the new structure will
be raised approximately 0.6 meter (2 ft). The length and height may be increased or decreased
as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydraulic studies.
The Division Office concurs with the recommended improvements.
VII. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Van Wyck, N.C.),
National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service soils information (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1992), and 1992 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished by the
NCDOT.
The site was visited on October 21, 1993. Plant and animal communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately 75 meters (250 ft) in width, symmetrical
to the existing alignment and the new alignment alternatives. However, impact calculations were
based on potential encroachment 18 meters (60 ft) each side of the centerline along the existing
route and 36 meters (120 ft) along new alignment alternatives. Special concerns were evaluated
including potential habitat for protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in
Waxhaw Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter
6
approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980;
Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (N. C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM) 1989, 1993).
Ecological classifications based on recreational fishing potential was determined by utilizing Fish
(1968). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Listings of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Union County were
requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of
field studies. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing this investigation.
Physiography and Soils
Union County is situated in the central Piedmont plateau. Topography is characterized by rolling
and hilly relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area
range from over 159 meters (530 ft) along upland ridges to approximately 150 meters (500 ft)
along creek bottoms (U.S. Geological Survey Van Wyck quadrangle). The project site is in the
Carolina Slate Belt and is underlain by metamorphosed mafic, granitic, or volcanic rocks.
Soils in the project area are dominated by the presence of the Cecil gravely sandy loam on 8 to
15 percent slopes and Cecil gravelly sandy clay loam on 2 to 8 percent slopes. Chewacla silt
loam is found along. Waxhaw Creek. This soil is frequently flooded and may contain inclusions
of hydric soils or wet spots.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
Waxhaw Creek is a small creek originating approximately 12.8 kilometers (8 mi) northeast of the
Bridge No. 178 crossing. From the bridge crossing, the creek flows south-westward
approximately 13 kilometers (8 mi) and empties into the Catawba River. The creek is part of
the Catawba River Drainage Basin.
Best Usage Classifications and Water Quality
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 (DEM 1993).
A best usage classification of C has been assigned to this segment of Waxhaw Creek (DEM
1993). The designation C denotes that appropriate uses are aquatic life propagation and survival,
7
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area. There are no point source dischargers
within the project area (DEM 1989).
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989). The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. There is one
BMAN sampling stations located approximately 3.2 kilometers (2 mi) downstream from the
bridge site where the quality was rated fair (DEM 1989).
Stream Characteristics
Waxhaw Creek is approximately 7.9 meters (25 ft) wide and 10 centimeters (4 in) deep. The
creek is confined within steep banks, but leaves its banks during floods. Many trees and
branches litter the stream channel. Currently, the main body of the channel is bridged. Flow is
slow to moderate and the substrate is sand and mud.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. HQW Erosion Guidelines will be followed throughout
construction to avoid and minimize short term impacts to surface waters. Long-term impacts to
water resources are not expected as a result of proposed improvements.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four different plant communities are found in this project area: upland hardwood forest, mesic
hardwood forest, successional, and urban/disturbed. Upland hardwoods and mesic hardwoods
appear to be little modified from their natural state. The open successional community results
from a variety of human disturbances and the urban/disturbed communities result from mowing
and management that has been performed along the roadsides. Specific communities exhibit
variations dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography,
human use, etc.).
Upland Hardwood Forest
Upland hardwood forest occur along some of the roadsides and in a zone above the creekside
vegetation. The canopy dominants are white oak (Ouercus alba), willow oak (O. phellos), tulip
8
poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), hickory (Carya sp.) and loblolly pine (Pinus teada). The
subcanopy contains younger trees of those in the canopy in addition to slippery elm (Uhnus
rubra), dogwood (Cornus florida), water oak (Q. nigra), American beech (Fagus grandifolia) and
sugar maple (Ater saccharum). The herbaceous layer includes vines such as Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and grape (Vitus rotundifolia), herbs and panic grasses (Panicum
spp.).
Mesic Hardwood Forest
The terraces along Waxhaw Creek support mesic hardwood forest cover. The canopy is
dominated by swamp chestnut oak (Quercus michauxii), sugar maple, ash-leaved maple (A.
negundo), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis) and American beech. The subcanopy is composed
of cottonwood (Populus sp.), slippery elm and ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana). Shrubs include
ash-leaved maple, viburnum (Viburnum sp.) and tree seedlings. Herbs include poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), false nettle (Boehmeria cylindrica), sedges (Carex sp.) and some cane
(Arundinaria gigantea).
Successional
This disturbed community is found on the north side of the highway to the east of the bridge.
Human disturbance and manipulation of a forested area results in this community type. Eastern
red cedar (Juniperus viginiana) is the most common tree. Loblolly pine, winged sumac (Rhus
copillina), blackberry (Rubus spp.) and dogwood are scattered throughout. Herbs include
lespedeza (Lespedeza sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, asters (Aster spp.), goldenrods (Solidago spp.)
and thoroughworts (Eupatorium spp.).
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes vegetation along roadside margins and residential home
sites. Grasses and herbs are common, and landscape plantings are found around homesites.
Mowing and management prevent successional vegetation development.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
Proposed construction is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to the plant
communities in the project vicinity. Potential plant community impacts which could result from
the proposed bridge replacement are summarized as follows:
9
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Hectares (Acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY
Upland Hardwood
Mesic Hardwood
Successional
Urban/Disturbed
TOTAL IMPACTS
ESTIMATED IMPACT
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
0.49(l.21) 0.45 (1.11) 0.47 (1.16)
0.36 (0.89) 0.27 (0.67) 0.23 (0.57)
0.48 (1.19) 0.44(l.09) 0.28 (0.69)
0.13 0.32 0.29 0.72 0.40 0.99
1.46 (3.61) 1.45 (3.59) 1.38 (3.41)
New alignment alternatives (Alternate A and B) will result in slightly greater impacts to natural
communities when compared to on-site replacement (Alternate C). Only minor variations in
impacts were noted between the two new alignments alternatives due to the close proximity of
the alignments. Primary impacts will be concentrated within upland and mesic forested
communities bordering the alignments and in a successional community bordering the present
highway. However, overall loss of habitat and community diversity as a result of bridge
replacement is considered minimal.
Wildlife
Terrestrial
Diversity in plant community types and the remote location of the project area would provide
wildlife species with the basic necessities of food, water and cover to support them. A number
of mammal species are anticipated to be found here including gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis),
white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), eastern cottontail (Syvilagus
Jloridanus), raccoon (Procyon lotor) and opossum (Didelphis virginiana).
In addition to the spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) and squirrel tree frog (Hyla squirella) observed
on the site, several other species of reptiles and amphibians such as American toad (Bufo
americanus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) and five-
lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) would be expected to frequent the woodlands and creekside.
10
Seasonal avifaunal abundance is dependent on the quality and diversity of area plant
communities. Avian species noted include red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
Carolina chickadee (Pares carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor), Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), downy woodpecker (Picoides villosus), northern mockingbird (Minus
polyglotis) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Other expected birds include, red-tailed
hawk (Buteo janaicensis), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), American robin (Turdus
nigratorius) and song sparrow (Melospiza melodia).
Aquatic
Waxhaw Creek is a slow to moderate flowing stream with an ecological classification of
largemouth bass for recreational fishing (Fish 1968). This well-shaded stream with moderately
deep pools supports good fishing for largemouth bass, sunfish, catfish and carp (Fish 1968).
Minnows were observed during the field investigation. In addition to these, other small fish such
as chubs and shiners would be expected. Amphibians such as eastern newts (Notophthahnas
viridescens) and spotted salamander (Ambystona naculatun:) along with many invertebrate
aquatic animals would also be expected. The Asian clam (Corbicula fluninea) was found in
relative abundance, both alive and dead. No mussel shells were observed.
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Bridge replacement is not expected to pose a significant threat to or loss of known terrestrial or
aquatic animal populations. Some resident terrestrial species such as passerine birds, squirrel,
cottontail and raccoon adapt fairly readily to short-term, minor changes. Some temporary
displacements in feeding areas or cover may occur but new habitat will result from project
activities. Infringement on Waxhaw Creek within the project area will likely have some
temporary, short-term impacts on subterranean and stream-dwelling organisms. Potential down-
stream impacts to aquatic habitat from increased sedimentation during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of the HQW Erosion Guidelines.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
11
Based on this three parameter approach, there are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Stream terraces bordering Waxhaw Creek contain well-defined embankments and lack the flood
hydrology necessary for wetland function. In addition, soils in the project area (Chewacla Series)
are considered non-hydric in nature.
However, surface waters within the embankments of Waxhaw Creek are subject to jurisdictional
consideration under Section 404 as "Waters of the United States (33 CFR 328.3). Bridge
replacement is expected to eliminate the need for direct encroachment into Waxhaw Creek.
Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. (23) has been issued by the COE for federal agency projects
which are assumed to have minimal impacts. Several other NWPs are available for use including
NWP No. 26 for above headwater impacts and NWP No. 14 for minor road crossings. In
addition, minor impacts due to bridging and associated approach improvements are allowed under
General Bridge Permit (GP) No. 031 issued by the COE Wilmington District.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a nationwide
or general permit. NWP No. 23 and No. 14 and GP No. 031 require prior notification by DEM
before certification can be issued. NWP No. 26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are
greater than 1.3 hectares (0.33 acre).
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, 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 that 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 environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the COE.
Miti nation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991).
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T) or Proposed Threatened and Proposed
Endangered (PT and PE) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973 (16 U.S.C.
1531 et seq.). Candidate species (C,C2) do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The following federally protected and candidate species
are listed for Union County as of January 19, 1992:
12
----------------------------- ---------------------------------------------.
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR UNION COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name
-------- Habitat
----------------- Status
-----
-------------------------------------
Helianthus schiveinitzii ------------------------------------
Schweinitz's sunflower Yes E
Lasmigona decorates Carolina heelsplitter Yes E
Aster georgianus Georgia aster No C2
Isoetes virginica Virginia quillwort No C2
Lotus helleri Carolina prairie-trefoil No C2
Dactylothera peedeensis
------------------------------------ Pee Dee crayfish ostracod
------------------------------------------- No
------------------ C2
-------
Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems originating from
a crown and supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical "sunflowers", is
discernible in the field from other members of its genus by the presence of a tuberous root
system, tomentose to pilose leaf undersides, and harsh upper stems which arch upward in a
candelabra-like fashion (Kral 1983). Flowering occurs from September to frost. The species
thrives in full sun characteristic of relic piedmont prairies, successional fields, forest ecotonal
margins, and forest openings.
An on-site survey to determine presence or absence of the species was undertaken on October
21, 1993. All roadside margins and ecotonal fringes were visually evaluated. No sightings of
the plant were noted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Carolina heelsplitter is a freshwater mollusk with an ovate trapezoidal shell measuring
approximately 78 millimeters (3 in) long by 43 millimeters (1.75 in) high by 27 millimeters (1
in) thick. The unsculptured shell can have a yellowish, greenish, or brownish covering, and can
show greenish or blackish rays (Keferl 1990). The range of the Carolina heelsplitter is restricted
to small sections of Waxhaw Creek, Goose Creek, Lynches River and Flat Creek where it is
found in mud, muddy-sand or muddy-gravel substrates along stable, shaded banks. Carolina
heelsplitters made up less than 5 percent of the mulluskan population at all sites examined by
Keferl (Keferl 1991).
The Carolina heelsplitter has been found at several locations on Waxhaw Creek. In 9.45 hours
of a quantitative search of Waxhaw Creek by Keferl (Keferl 1991), two living specimens were
found; one was at the SR 1117 bridge on July 13, 1990, and the other at the SR 1126 bridge on
September 15, 1990 (Keferl 1991). These two specimens comprised less than 1 percent of the
living freshwater mollusk specimens observed. The nearest known collection location is over
6 kilometers (4 mi) upstream from the SR 1104 bridge site.
13
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
In a letter dated January 31, 1994, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that
the bridge was neither listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor
located in or adjacent to any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO had no comment on the project with regard to historic structures.
The SHPO determined that there are no known archaeological sites in the area and it is unlikely
that any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places
will be affected by the project construction. Therefore, no archaeological investigation is
recommended in connection with this project. A copy of the SHPO letter is included in the
Appendix. No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representative to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the U.S. Soil
Conservation Service (SCS). The SCS was asked to determine whether the proposed project will
impact farmland soils and if necessary, to complete Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating. The completed form is included in the Appendix.
15
.
An onsite survey was conducted on October 21, 1993 for this species with negative results. The
stream corridor from 100 meters (330 ft) east of the existing bridge to 100 meters (330 ft) west
of the Alternative C alignment were examined by visually looking for shells, examining raccoon
middens, searching under muddy banks at the water line, probing into pools, and turning over
rocks on the bottom. The Asian clam (Corbicula fluminea) was found in relative abundance,
both alive and dead. No mussel shells were observed.
Since the project lies within a NCWRC Proposed Critical Area, it is likely that the Carolina
heelsplitter occurs within the project area. The NCDOT and FHWA have conducted informal
Section 7 Consultation(s) with the USFWS with regards to design minimization factors. Based
on adherence to the environmental commitments included on pages 1 and 2 of this document, the
USFWS believes that this project is not likely to affect the Carolina heelsplitter and Section 7
of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) has been satisfied.
A copy of the USFWS letter is included in the Appendix.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
State Protected Species
Species of mammals, birds, reptiles, amphibians, and plants listed 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.). The following species is listed for this area of Union County:
State listed:
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis) - SC
NCNHP records indicate that the Carolina darter has been found at this location. No other
federal or state listed species is known to occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project site.
Based on field surveys and a review of available information, impacts to one Federal and one
State listed species could possibly be expected as a result of this project.
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 a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
14
V ?._ 1
According to the SCS, the proposed project will impact 1.54 hectares (3.8 ac) of soils defined
as prime and statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the
131,133 hectares (324,037) of prime or important soils found in Union County. The impact
rating determined through completion of Form AD-1006 indicates that the site's assessment and
relative value score is 135.6 out of a possible 260. A higher score would indicate that mitigation
should be considered.
It can be concluded that the project's impact on farmland, as defined by the SCS, is minimal and
therefore, no mitigation is proposed.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Mooresville Regional Office
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Union County
has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. This
project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project will not increase or decrease traffic volumes and no receptors are located in the
immediate project vicinity. Therefore, its impacts on noise levels and air quality will be
insignificant.
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 Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Union County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program, but there is no
study at this site. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be
significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will
be taken to minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
16
r ..
REFERENCES
Cooper, J. E., Robinson, S. S. and Funderburg, J. B. 1977. Endangered and Threatened Plants
and Animals of North Carolina. Report to the North Carolina State Museum of Natural History,
Raleigh N.C.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual. Tech.
Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Broad River Basin, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1988. Water Quality Progress in North
Carolina, Report no. 88-02 (305B). Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources,
Raleigh, N.C.
Department of Natural Resources and Community Development (DNR). 1985. Geologic Map
of North Carolina. N.C. Geological Survey.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Hamel, P.E., H.E. LeGrand, Jr., M.R. Lannartz, and S.A. Gauthreaux, Jr. 1982. Bird Habitat
Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. 5E-22.
Keferl, E. P. 1990. in A Report on the Conservation Status of North Carolina's Freshwater and
Terrestrial Molluscan Fauna. The Scientific Council on Freshwater and Terrestrial Mollusks.
Keferl, E. P. 1991. A Status Survey for the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmgona decorata), a
Freshwater Mussel Endemic to the Carolinas. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish a n d
Wildlife Service and North Carolina Wildlife Commission.
Keferl, E. P. and R. M. Shelley. 1988. The Final Report on a Status Survey of the Carolina
Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe, Alasniidonta robusta. U.S. Department
of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service and North Carolina State Museum of Natural Science.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.
17
LeGrand, H. E. Jr. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
Martof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R. and Harrison III, J.R. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
Page, R.W. and L.S. Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of Agreement between the EPA and the
DOE concerning the determination of mitigation under the Clean Water Act, Section 404 (b)(1)
guidelines. Washington, D.C. 6 p.
Potter, E. F., Parnell, J. F. and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas, The University of
North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N.C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1991. Hydric Soils of the United States. In
cooperation with the National Technical Committee for Hydric Soils, USDA Soil Conservation
Service.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey information provided by the Union
County SCS office, North Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Weakley, A. S. 1990. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North
Carolina, North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Division
of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh N.C.
Weakley, A. S. 1993. Guide to the Flora of the Carolinas and Virginia. Working draft of
November, 1993. N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, Raleigh,
N.C.
Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F. and Biggs, W. C. Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia,
and Maryland, UNC Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
aAb2643.cat
18
4

C ' 1107 Air
'
1 1 00
I --1--1 - 1113 1246

Jo rrs-Townsend 4`?
• r
{
-? 1106 Airport
?o
1104
O
1105
ANDREW 1233 f
O
JACKSON 1177
MEMORIAL
BRIDGE NO. 178
• 236
1103 :
• .? 1237
4110 , 1113
1178 J
•
• .ra
: 1239 *A
d? .L235
i
• r.
r ..123s 1106
•
103 ' 1104 1100 1114
2 • 1100
•
• ?? 101
• 1100
• 1104
m ?? aa® of • aaaai'v aa® o
r
34°50'
i i ...¦¦¦¦..¦.¦¦.¦¦.¦¦.¦¦.¦¦¦
1 1 , Hwk
? ? ? Id alrYleM ?
ewe
I" •+ I
+$•?lling 601 Unionville
II
indlan Id 10 11 1
Troll ?13
n Wed?latonBakers *Monroe+ ?
- o
6 w - d WInQa1e4 Marsnrnlle
? ? 15 ? I
Mine to
'
1Waemaw4 Sprints 17 '.
1 1 601
a 9 d 1 I .•1
a H !0611A ---
1117
X, 1-2
Gfi 5
FV`
1114 if '
¦ o
, NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF IIIGIIWATS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BILANCII
0
BRIDGE NO. 178
UNION. COUNTY
B-2643
12/93 SCALE = I: GO 000 FIG@ I
0 1 2
(Kilometer-S)
BRIDGE N0.178
UNION COUNTY
B-2643
I
LOOKING NORTH
,I

SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Date u r tta d? g4wnon Heou.st
A RT 1 fro he cornwe•el by - ede zl Age,Tcy) . f
Name Of arolett Feaeral A ency Involved
8-.?(P4.3. >3R?cGE No. 174Z d&J
Proposes Una Use County And Stara
V UNIO?J 0,G

)JI?
Ufi714
F{IC-If10 A
oats Requ t Recatved 9y SCS
aRT It (To be completed by SCSI ?j Zora 9- C Wts
Yes NO Acres Irngattd Average Finn Site
Does the site contain prime. unique. statewide or local important farmland? ...
O 4c
? M6 A14 / (
o
(If no. the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional pans of this form).
Amount Of Farmland As OtNnrd in PPA
major Croo(tl Farnsabla Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Ants: 3 8 3 lg 3 % CL3.1 Acres: 3 2 4 O 3?. A -J9'.2
G

Name at Land Evaluation System Used man" at Local We Au=ment System Eval
uauon Re'tumcd ay SCS
Date ? land
l w`
, =M 1..E. /V o IVL-.
LA-VI }
n
i
.
>RT 111 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Sita A te an
Alternanve S
Site a Site C Site O
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 4 tR-, 5 3
S. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectiy
4 4. 3
4.
.
C. Total Acres In Site
%RT IV (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland

4 O
1 O.
3 ' a 3
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
0 o k
0
O .O O
.
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt Unit To Be Converted
15
9 ? G.
.
0. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. lurisdicrion Nfittt Same Or Higher Relative Value 5
ART V (To be completed by SCSI Land Evaluation Criterion
.._.____.._I•._nae_-,.._-4 -r-a.r'..., 'r.A/4-s/wnf0raICOPoints)
64,
4RT V 1 (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
to Assessment Criteria Mese criteria are explained in 7 CFR 6W.51b1 Points
1. Area In Nanurban Use
'7_ Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
Distance From Urban Builtuo Area
8_ Distance To Urban Sucoort Services
7. Sze Of Present Farm Unit Compared To
B. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9 Availabiiity Of Farm Suooart Services
tn_ (In-Farm Investments
11. Effeca Of Canversion On Farm Si
12. Comoatibility With Existing Agri
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
?ore Servieaet
20
2-D
2 -2-0

- 1 15-
10 /O

160 } -J6 - 7o 70
%RT Vil (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
Total Sits Assessment (From Part VI above era loci 160
seta assesrmenrl
TOTAL POINTS (Tonal of above l lines! 260
to Selected: Otto Of $dectian
bo, ? 6s,? G 7r
136-iG 135-?r 137r5?
A Loa1 Site Asaosstntttt Used'
Ycs ? No ?
awn For Setealon:

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt. Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 31, 1994
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
4911 Waters Edge Drive
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Replace Bridge No. 178 on SR 1 104 over Waxhaw
Creek, Union County, B-2643, ER 94-8111, CH 94-E-
0000-0490
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse,
as well as your letter of December 29, 1993.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this structure is not
located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is neither listed in nor eligible for
listing in the National Register as an individual property. We, therefore, have no comment
on the project with regard to historic structures.
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.
Sjncerely,
Dav?Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw %
cc: State Clearinghouse
N. Graf
H. F. Vick _
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Strcet • RaLigh, North Carolina 27601-2807

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 178 on SR 1104 over Waxhaw
Creek, Union County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2643,
SCH Project No. 94-0490.
Biologists on the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC) staff have the following preliminary comments on the
replacement of Bridge No. 178 on Waxhaw Creek in Union County.
Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
amended; 1 NCAC 25).
Waxhaw Creek is small shaded stream, approximately 32 feet
wide, with moderately deep pools. This stream has good fish
habitat with a good fish diversity. Species found in Waxhaw
Creek include largemouth bass, sunfish, catfish, and crappie.
This stream is also in the critical habitat area of the Carolina
heelsplitter, an endangered freshwater mussel.
Due to the presence of a federally listed species,
consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service may be
required. We would appreciate the opportunity to provide input
to or be included in interagency consultations. NCWRC will make
recommendations for the project and advise the NCDOT of the
possible impacts when more information becomes available.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
requests NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures
throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
.

Memo Page 2 January 27, 1994
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement
of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to
pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning
structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing
habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David Cox,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
cc: Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
January 27, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall
SUBJECT: Scoping -- Bridge Replacement, Waxhaw Creek, Union
County
REFERENCE: 94-0490
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a record for the
Carolina darter (Etheostoma collis), state-listed as Special
Concern, from Waxhaw Creek at this bridge crossing. More
significant, one of only three known populations of the Carolina
heelsplitter mussel (Lasmigona decorata), federally listed as
Threatened, occurs in Waxhaw Creek, although so far this species
has only been recorded upstream from the project site.
Due to the potential presence of the heelsplitter, we recommend
that a survey be conducted by a qualified biologist to determine
whether it occurs within the project area. If found, the US Fish
and Wildlife Service should be consulted about possible ways to
avoid impacts to this species. To minimize the impacts on the
Carolina darter we recommend the following:
1. Follow all best management practices for the control of
siltation and runoff from the project site. In-stream
silt fences should be employed if any construction or
substrate-disturbing activities takes place within the
stream itself.
2. Replace the bridge with a similar structure supported by
pilings or abutments rather than with either box or pipe
culverts, which may impede movements by aquatic as well
as non-aquatic animals. If culverts must be used, their
bases should be sunk below the level of the streambed and
then covered with substrate that matches what naturally
occurs in the stream.
Gtato of North Cr, 11na -
j)jr!%•tmpjt of Emircnman% Haalth, and Natural ttatl;ourcaa
E,JTERG0VERNL1ENTAL REV(Ew - PROJECT COMMENTS
Ioview)ng Office:/1;.;r
Project Uurnb: r. Due Date:
9A/-A 4/ 9 )
After roview of this project It has been daterrtined that the EHNR p3rrnit(s) artdJor approvals Indicated may noed to ba obtained in
ordor for this project to comply with North Carolina Law.
rd' thaie units should ba cddressad to the R.Wona! Office indicatod on the ravorzo of th3 torn.
puesttons nips rnw W
All rpplieatiorls, Information and puidolinas rotative to thase plans and p3rmits cm aynilable from 11113 =M3
Normal Process*
fu g ional Office. Time
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOWREMENTS tstatutory time
limit)
Permit to construct a operate wastewater treatment Application Co days before begin construction or award of D, days
f=ilet", towef system eelonsions, a rawer construction contracts On-Wte inspection. PostrVicztIon
systems not diacharging into state surface waters. tachnicz! conforenca usual (fl0 days)
NPOES • pammn to discharge Into surface water P%Vor Application tin days before begin activity. On•aite i lipcttion. 00.120 days
?- parmn to operate and construct wastewater facilities Pre-application conference usual. Additionally. obtain permit to
1
J discharging into state surface waters. construct wastewaier treatment tocility-granted after NPOES aspty (NiA)
time. 30 days after nxaipt of ptns or issue of fIPDES
pafmil-whicf e z is tamer.
x days
Water 6133 Permit Pro-rpplicction Ccnn" confamnce vaulty r?ctsaary
(UTA)
7 days
wall Construction Permit Complete application must be ratoimrsd 0-4 perm" t:sma:d
prior to the installation of a wall.
(15 days)
Application copy must be served on czch Cfpcent ri;znzn property 55 days
Dredge and Fill Permit owner. On-site inspection. Pre-application conferonco ususl. Filling
may require Easement to Fill from N.C. Department of 00 days)
ACministratmon and Federal Dredge aYmd FIJI Pormll.
Permit to construct i operate Air Pollution Abatement 60 days
? facilities and/or Emission Sources as per 1SA NCAC 21M NIA (90 days)
Any open burning associated with subterl proposal
D must be in compliance with 15A NCAC 2D.0520.
Demolition or renovations of structures containing
60 days
asbestos material must be in compliance with 15A
NCAC 2D 0525 which requires notification and removal WtA
prior to demolition. Contact Asbestos Control (croup
919 733.0870 (g0 days)
Complex Source Permit required under 15A NCAC 20 0000.
The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be properly addressed for any land disturbing octivny. An erosion a saimmentatio
D control plan will be required if one or more acres to be disturbed Plan filed wiih proper Regional Office (Land Ouality taect.) at /asst 30 20 days
days before be morn achvit A fee of 330 for the first acre and S70 00 for each additionaf acre or an must accompany the plan 30 d, s
D The Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 must be addressed with rasped to the rsfemncad Loud Ordmsnca: (30 days)
On-site Inspection usual. Surely bond filed with EHNR. Cond amount
D Mining Pttrmit varias with type mine and number of ocres of affactcd land Any area x days
)
14 08
mined greater than one =te must be psrmited. The l:,ppropn.-to bond (
0
must be received before the permit can be issued.
j? Meth Carolina [Wining parmn On-site Inspection by N.C. Division Forest resources if p rramt t day
+--+ Cz>;z?ada 4 C:ya (,WA)
Special Ground C &arance During Pamul • 22 On-site Inspection by N.D. avision Forest Rosourcci r.-rutr;4 "tf rnora 1 day
D countida In coastal N.C. with cr;zri c cz;:s than fire acres of ground elsanng activities are Involved. Lizpoctions (+u,)
should to requested sit bast ton days Cslote WuJ Wm Is ybymnad "
p0120 days
D «l llahnlmg J==".lli;Zi
tJA
(WA)
It permit roquircd. application CO days before begin con=== L
Applicant must hire N.C. qualified engineer to: prepare p:=. = days
D yarn safety Pemtn Inspect construction, certify construction is according to EHNR rpprov-
od plans. May also require permit under mosquito control program. And
a tW permit from Corps of Engineers An Inspection of Wto Is nc--s•
spry to verify Huard Classification. A minimum toe of == fw-.1 uc
company the application. An additional processing fee based on a
percent a or the total Project cost will be-required upon complatre'1.
os mca - - - - Continut:d •: reverse
I rwrrry? rrvcsss
T.en?
(statutory time .
PERMITS SPECIAL APPLICATION PROCEDURES or REOUIREMENTS t;mil)

F F14 wraty band of 15.000 with EHNR nurn+ng to Zwe of 44.C. 10 days
crpoflmcxpiort Cory c f Cr C=a call conditional that cry wall opened Dy drill operator WWI,w-*n
(NIA)
=andonmant, ta plugged according to EHNR rvias"m2ulailona.
.iod Exploration ftrmit Application filzd with EHNR a swat 10 days Ixiw to h.Z4-a of Permit 10 days
Application by latter. 14o standard c;phczlion tart. QVA)
Sore Lucas Construction Pemt?t AvVic-Mion (re Cased on structure sirs is charged. tzlvv tuluda
descriptions a drawings of structure t proof of c==r.N;) 15.20 days
(NIA)

00 clays
401 I.Ytasr Oualty Carillowgion CVA (130 days)
35 days
CAMA Pttmit for GAJOR d3rlCpm:nt 2=110 ts nuit ==MP MY CDplicatbn (150 days)
22 days
CAUA Permit for MINDR dmlopmant U0.00 Ice must cccomWy c;V"ion (25 clays)
Several geodetic monuments are located in or rear the project area. If any morwmants naid to be mo+.40 or dastroraa. please notdy:
U.C. G*Wetic Svmy. 0ox 270 7. Raleigh, N.C. 27611
Abanoonmerrt of any wells. H raquirsd. must be in ccc rdance with Title 15A. C ubchtpter 2C.0100.
Notil4oton of the proper n agionN off" is ropWstad it "orphan" underground storage tanks (LISTS) we-discovered during any sxcavstron operation.
45 days
Compliance with 1SA NCAC 2*1 1000 (Coastal Stom+rrater Rules) is mquircd.
(NIA)
Other comments (attach additional pages as necessary, being certain to cite comment authorty).

?''•'- t'?
`?i"?,'?4 ' I,y jet{
r/
dZIC
Aft) iz?;
I`

C
C
C
E
C
REGIONAL OFFICES
Questions rogarding these potTnits should bo addressed to tho Rogional Office marked below.
? Asheville RapplonJ ONico ? Fayetteville Ragienal Office
59 Woodfin Place Gvlte 714 Wtthovia Building
Asheville. NC a,:01 Fayetteville, 94C 23301
(704) 251 203 (319) 4CS-1541
? Mooresville Regional Office ? Raleigh Rapion.J Office
suite 101
3000 garrett Drive
Q19 North Main Streit. P.O. Cox C50
Mooresville, NC %3115 ,
Raleigh, IJC 2Tt,03
(704) 0611= [phone]
? Washington Regiontl Offico ? Wilmington Ropion l Office
1424 Carolina Avenue 127 Cardinal Drive Extension
Washington, NC 27= Wilmington. NC 26405
(719) 395.3voo
(919) 9466431
? WinstonSalem Region) OffIC3 -
0025 North Point UIW.
suite 100
Winston-Salem. NC 27103
(919) 88('-7007
State of North Carolina i
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources v? 4 o
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor nn
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ED IFE A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart', Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0490; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #178 Over Waxhaw Creek, Union
County, B-2643, SR 1104
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Waxhaw Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10497er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carorina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equai Opportunity Affirmative Action Employor 5096 rocycled/ 10% post-con=nor papor
l ' ?A
L'
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW COMM IUS Charles H. Gardner
William W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: ?V-U `(cl0 County:
Project Name: c.( g d
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box 27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For m/o`rr?fe? information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
/ -
Reviewe Date
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
/ increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
Aaz." J.-
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Melgh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
,
0
TAKE=="a M
United States Department of the Interior AI RIM
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Ecological Ser-6ces
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 12, 1994
DEC 15 iqu
y Dll?iS(C?? pF 1c,
? ??7'G?yti'AyS
??v a
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
PO Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement #178 over Waxhaw Creek, Union
County, NC; State Project #8.2691601/Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1104/ TIP # B-2643
Dear Mr. Vick:
The Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) has reviewed your
December 5, 1994, letter, clarifying the revisions for
Commitment No. 7 and 11 for the above-referenced proposed
bridge replacement over Waxhaw Creek, Union County, North
Carolina. Our comments are provided in accordance with Section
7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C.
1531-1543) (Act).
We appreciate your efforts to minimize any possible impacts to
the Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigonia decorata) that is known
to occur in some areas of the Waxhaw Creek. Based on adherence
to the revised commitments listed below, the Service believes
that this project is not likely to adversely affect the
Carolina heelsplitt er.
Environmental commitments from NCDOT:
1. Early permanent seeding of disturbed areas.
2. High Quality Waters Erosion guidelines will be followed
throughout construction.
3. A three-span bridge structure will be used to cross the
stream channel. However, there will be no new
construction in the stream channel.
4. The existing structure will be removed so as not to
allow debris to enter the stream.

5. Existing piles and abutments will be cut down to
substrate. The approaches to the existing abutments
should be cut back to 2:1 and reseeded.
6. Silt curtains will be used when cutting existing piles
and abutments and when driving new piles.
7. Bridge drainage outlets will be located to drain
landward over a rock rip-rap ditch. No outlets will be
located over the Creek Channel.
8. All piles will be driven and not drilled.
9. Piles for interior bents will be driven prior to placing
approach fill.
10. Silt basins should be constructed at all four corners of
the proposed bridge during construction.
11. The survey requirement for the Carolina heelsplitter was
omitted since no instream activity is involved with the
proposed action.
12. The Service and NCWRC will have an opportunity to review
the plans prior to construction. Immediately before
bridge construction is to begin, the contractor shall
contact both agencies for notification of construction
initiation date.
13. No construction work will be done between December 1 and
May 31.
We believe that the requirements of Section 7 of the Act have
been satisfied. We remind you that obligations under Section 7
consultation must be reconsidered if: (1) new information
reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect
listed species or critical habitat in a manner not previously
considered; (2) this action is subsequently modified in a
manner that was not considered in this review; (3) a new
species is listed or critical habitat determined that may be
affected by the identified action.
If you have any questions regarding this matter, please contact
Candace Martino at 919-856-4520 ext. 30. Thank you for your
continued cooperation with our agency.
Sincerely, /
L.K. Mike Gantt
Supervisor
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. unto Jr., Governor If
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 2, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, Office of Policy Development
10)
FROM: Monica Swihart', Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0490; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #178 Over Waxhaw Creek, Union
County, B-2643, SR 1104
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Waxhaw Creek which is classified C by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10497er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 1096 post-consumer paper