19960112 Ver 1_Complete File_19960205

-A
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1I?ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
a 5
1.. Jt +r? v
February 1, 1996
Wilmington Regulatory Field Office RECEIVED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890 FEB 0 5 1996
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
Subject: Iredell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 269 over Hunting Creek on
SR 1813, Federal Aid Project BRZ-1813(2), State Project No. 8.282160 1,
TIP No. B-2147.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above
referenced project. Bridge number 269 over Hunting Creek on SR 1813 will be replaced
on new location west of the existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. The project will result in 0.10 acres of wetland impacts and
incidental fill in surface waters. No other impacts are anticipated.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23). 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.

k
2
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call Mr. Scott P.
Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/spg
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Bob Johnson, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. R. W. Spangler, PE, Division 12 Engineer
Iredell County
Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813
Over Hunting Creek
Federal Project BRZ-1813(2)
State Project 8.2821601
TIP # B-2147
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADNIlNISTRATION
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
7-2/-73 -
DateA,,.H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
talke Nicholas Graf, P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Iredell County
Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813
Over Hunting Creek
FederalProject BRZ-1813(2)
State Project 8.2821601
TIP # B-2147
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
July, 1995
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
. I
jM4
John . Williams
Prto?j ?ct Planning Engineer
W?y h, C-//,.0y7?-
Wayne Elliott
Bridge Project Planning gineer, Unit Head
r 7-2J-9S
Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
CARO
taO.O
SEAL
- 6976 •
??'''??'V 11110R???.
Iredell County
Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813
Over Hunting Creek
FederalProject BRZ-1813(2)
State Project 8.2821601
TIP # B-2147
Bridge No. 269 is located in Iredell County on SR 1813 crossing over Hunting
Creek. It is programmed in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a
bridge replacement project. This project is part of the Federal Aid Bridge Replacement
Program and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental
impacts are expected.
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing replacement of
Bridge No. 269 on new location to the west of the existing location (see Figure 2) with a
new bridge.
The design speed will be 60 km/h (35 mph). The existing structure will be replaced
with a new curved bridge structure approximately 51.8 meters (170 feet) long . The
elevation of the new bridge would be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The
bridge deck will be 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide including two 3-meter (10-foot) lanes and 0.6-
meter (2-foot) offsets. The approaches, like the bridge, will have two 3-meter (10-foot)
lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. The approaches on either end of the bridge
will be paved for a distance of 30 meters (100 feet). Where guardrail is used, an additional
0.9 meters (3 feet) would be required on the shoulders. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction.
The estimated cost of the project is $ 676,000. The estimated cost shown in the
1996-2002 TIP is $ 421,000.
II. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
NCDOT's Best Management Practices will be strictly enforced.
NCDOT will implement Erosion Control Measures for High Quality Waters.
NCDOT will study an infiltration ditch to prevent direct run off into the stream.
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented (where the above
commitments do not supersede) to avoid and minimize environmental impacts.
NCDOT will get a North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM)
Section 401 Water Quality General Certification prior to issue of the Army Corps of
Engineers Nationwide Permit #23.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
A design exception will be required due to the 60 km/h (35 mph) design speed
which is less than the 90 km/h (statutory 55 mph) speed limit. It is neither feasible or
prudent to improve the curve any more than the recommended alternate.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1813 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. It presently serves 100 vehicles per day. SR 1813 (Troy Mill Road)
is oriented in a north-south direction in the vicinity of Bridge No. 269.
The existing bridge was completed in 1958. It is 36 meters (118 feet) long
consisting of 3 spans @ 12 meters each. There are approximately 4.3 meters (14 feet) of
vertical clearance between the bridge deck and streambed. The deck is 3.7 meters (12 feet)
wide with 3.4 meters (11 feet) of clear deck width allowing for one lane of traffic.
According to Bridge Maintenance Department records, the sufficiency rating of the
bridge is 22.6 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted at 8 metric tons (9 tons)
for single vehicles and 11 metric tons (12 tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. The
structure has 10 years of estimated remaining life.
Bridge No. 269 lies at the center of the one mile section of unpaved road on
SR 1813. The horizontal alignment in the vicinity of the project includes three curves (See
Figure 2). Curve # 1 to the west of the project is the second poorest curve on SR 1813
with a design speed of approximately 50 km/h (30 mph) based on the 53 meter-radius (32-
degree) curve. Curve # 2 is on the north end of Bridge No. 269 and is the poorest curve
on SR 1813 with a design speed of less than 40 km/h (25 mph) based on the 18.4 meters
radius (95 degree) curve. Curve # 3 on the south end of the bridge is a 97-meter (18-
degree) reverse curve with a design speed of approximately 65 km/h (40 mph). The
remainder of SR 1813 has a design speed of 65 km/h (40 mph) or better.
The bridge is in a vertical sag. The unpaved shoulder to shoulder width to the north
and south of the bridge is 4.9 meters (16 feet). Shoulder widths on the north and south ends
of the bridge average 1 meter ( 3.3 feet).
Traffic volume is presently 100 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 400 VPD
for the year 2017. Truck percentages are 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer and 2 % dual-tired
vehicles. The speed limit on this segment of road is not posted.
Consultation with the Traffic Engineering Branch indicates that there were no
reported accidents within the last three years.
There are eight daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge (four in the
morning, four in the afternoon).
There is a power line running parallel to the bridge on the west side. There are no
other utilities in the area which will be impacted by this project.
V. DISCUSSION OF PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES
This document discusses two alternatives. In both cases the elevation of the new
bridge would be approximately the same as the existing bridge. Each alternative proposes
to pave 30 meters (100 feet) of the approaches on either end of the bridge.
Alternate 1 would replace Bridge No. 269 on the existing location. The south
approach would be slightly realigned to improve the approach to the bridge. The north
approach would be improved from the existing 18.4 meter radius (95 degree) curve to a
69.9 meter radius (25 degree) curve. The design speed for this curve would be
approximately 40 km/h ( 25 mph) which accounts for both curvature and sight distance.
The existing structure would be replaced with a new bridge approximately 45 meters (147
feet) long. The new bridge would have a clear deck width of 6.6 meters (22 feet)
including two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes and 0.6 -meter (2 -foot) offsets. Like the bridge,
the approaches would have two 2.7-meter (9-foot) lanes with 0.6 meter shoulders. An
additional shoulder width of 1 meter (3-feet) would be used where guardrail is required.
Traffic would be detoured along existing secondary roads during construction
(see Figure 1).
Alternate 2 (Recommended) will be on new location to the west of Bridge No.
269 as shown in Figure 2. The existing alignment, including an 18.4 meter radius (95
degree) curve on the north approach and a reverse curve on the south approach, will be
improved to one continuous 91.9 meter radius (19 degree) curve. The alignment will
allow for approximately 60 km/h (35 mph) design speed and the sight distance will be
improved so as not to limit design speed. The existing structure will be replaced with a
new curved bridge approximately 51.8 meters (170 feet) long. The new bridge will have
a minimum clear deck width of 7.2 meters (24 feet) including two 3-meter (10-foot)
lanes and 0.6-meter (2 -foot) offsets. The approaches, like the bridge, will have two
3-meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. An additional shoulder
width of 1 meter (3-feet) will used where guardrail is required. Traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge during construction.
Because of a large protrusion of rock on the west side of Curve # 3, it is not
economical to improve the alignment any more than shown in Alternate 2.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the
road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates.
Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
TABLE 1
COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 ALTERNATE 2
RECOMMENDED
New Bridge Structure
Bridge Removal
Roadway & Approaches
Engineering & Contingencies 275,000
10,000
94,000
71,000 345,000
10,000
199,000
96,000
Total Construction 450,000 650,000
Right of Way 25,000 26,000

Total Cost 475,000 676,000
Note: Costs above include Mobilization and Miscellaneous
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
Alternate 2 (Recommended) does not require an offsite detour. Traffic will be
maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
Alternate 1 would require traffic to be detoured offsite during construction in order to
construct the new bridge in place of the existing bridge. This detour would direct traffic
around the project by way of SR 1813, SR 1830, SR 1833, US 21, SR 1829, and back to
SR 1813, as shown in Figure 1. The roadways along the detour are equal to or better than
SR 1813. The bridges along this route will be sufficient to handle traffic detoured from
SR 1813.
Traffic counts indicate approximately 100 VPD use this road. Road User Economic
Analysis indicates a cost between $ 30,000 and $ 37,000 of additional costs to road users
during the ten to twelve month construction period. This is based on 3.3 miles of additional
travel that would be required by the traveling public.
4
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 269 will be replaced as described in Alternate 2 on a new alignment to
the west of the existing structure. This new alignment will improve Curves No. 2 and No. 3
from a design speed of less than 40 km/h (25 mph) to a design speed of 60 km/h (35 mph).
The remainder of the road has a design speed of 65 km/h (40 mph) or better. While
Alternate 2 costs significantly more than Alternate 1, Alternate 2 will improve the design
speed in the project area to more closely meet the design speeds on the remainder of
SR 1813. Both the division engineer and roadway design engineer support this alternate for
reasons of improved design speed and safety.
The new alignment will include one continuous 91.9 meter radius (19 degree) curve.
The existing structure will be replaced with a new bridge approximately 51.8 meters (170
feet) long . The elevation of the new bridge would be approximately the same as the
existing bridge. The deck will be 7.2 meters (24 feet) wide including two 3-meter (10-foot)
lanes and 0.6-meter (2-foot) offsets. The approaches, like the bridge, will have two 3-
meter (10-foot) lanes with 0.6-meter (2-foot) paved shoulders. The approaches on either
end of the bridge will be paved for a distance of 30 meters (100 feet). If guardrail is used,
an additional 0.9 meters (3 feet) would be required on the shoulders.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
IX. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. GENERAL
This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an
inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and insignificant environmental consequences.
This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of
the human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation.
No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project.
There are no hazardous waste impacts.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way
acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
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.
B. AIR AND NOISE
The project is located in Iredell County, which has been determined to be in
compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not
applicable, because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation
by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and
regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
This evaluation completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act
amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional
reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction.
C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS
In compliance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FFPA) of 1981, the U. S.
Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was asked to determine whether the project being
considered will impact prime or important farmland soils. The SCS responded that
Alternative 1 would impact approximately 1.7 acres of statewide important farmland soils,
and Alternative 2 would impact 1.0 acres of soils with the same classification. The SCS
indicates that the relative value of the farmland soils which may be converted by
Alternatives 1 and 2 is 39.8 and 42.6, respectively, on a scale of 0 to 100 points.
Completion of the site assessment portion of the Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating Form (AD-1006) indicates a total site assessment score of 62 out of a possible 160
for both alternatives. Total score reflects the summation of the relative farmland value and
the total site assessment score. For Alternative 1 the total score is 101.8 and for Alternative
2 is 104.6. Neither of these scores exceeds the threshold of 160 total points, at which
consideration of other alternatives is required.
D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS
Upon review of area photographs, aerial photographs, and cultural resources
databases, NCDOT staff architectural historians has indicated that they are aware of no
historic structures within the area of potential effect. The Department of Cultural
Resources concurs with this position and therefore recommends no historic architectural
surveys be conducted (See Attachment 2).
NCDOT staff archeologists have reviewed the project and found nothing to
necessitate an investigation. The Office of State Archeology has commented that an
inspection of proposed bridge replacement area was conducted while in the general vicinity.
It is unlikely that National Register-eligible archaeological resources will be affected by the
proposed replacement and they recommend no archaeological investigation (See
Attachment 2).
E. NATURAL SYSTEM
PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Water and soil resources, which occur in the study area, are discussed below. The
availability of water and soils directly influence composition and distribution of flora and
fauna in any biotic community.
Water Resources
Project B-2147 is located along the Hunting Creek sub- basin within the Yadkin
River Basin. Hunting Creek originates in southwest Yadkin County and flows southeast
approximately 32.3 kilometers (20.0 miles) before converging with the South Yadkin River.
The South Yadkin River then proceeds east approximately 16.1 kilometers (10.0 miles)
where it converges with the Yadkin River north of Spencer.
At the B-2147 project site, Hunting Creek had moderate flow rates and relatively
clear water. The substrate varies between cobble, pebble, sand and silt. Channel width and
depth are 15.3 meters (50.0 feet) and 40.6 centimeter (16.0 inch) respectively. Algae is
present on cobbles and pebbles directly under the bridge.
Two drainage canals, one northwest and one southwest of the existing bridge, divert
water from SR 1813 to Hunting Creek. They are approximately 0.9 meters (3.0 feet) in
width and 0.6 meters (2.0 feet) in depth.
Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Hunting Creek has been designated as "WS-III".
This classification denotes waters protected as water supplies which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted; local programs to control nonpoint source and stormwater discharge of pollution
are required; suitable for all Class C uses such as aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture.
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the study
area for the project.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by DEM
and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which addresses long
term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by sampling for selected
benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are
sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. BMAN information is available for Hunting Creek
downstream of this project. Sampling sites included the SR 2127 (11.3 kilometers (7.0
miles) from project) and NC 64 (16.1 kilometers (10.0 miles) from project) crossings.
Surveys occurred in June 1990 and corresponding ratings are good.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through
the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. Any discharger is
required to register for a permit. The NPDES identifies one discharger into Hunting Creek
downstream of the proposed project. The discharge is labeled 23 and 14 (meat process and
rendering and condensate).
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during
construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and
other natural resources. Bridge replacement on new location usually results in more severe
impacts. Impacts expected with the B-2147 project include: increased channelization and
sedimentation; scouring of the stream bed; soil compaction and loss of shading due to
vegetation removal. Increased sedimentation from lateral flows is expected.
Precautions will be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study
area, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and
Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced during the construction
stage of the project. Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval should be strictly enforced.
Soils and Topography
Mixed alluvial land soils dominate the study area. These soils consist of areas of
unconsolidated alluvium recently deposited by streams. They are found on narrow terraces
adjacent to the stream. These are subject to frequent overflow and soil color ranges from
grayish brown to black. Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil mapping units which
occur in the project area.
TABLE 1. COUNTY SOILS IN THE PROJECT AREA
Map Unit Specific Percent Hydric
Symbol Mapping Unit Slope Classification
Mn Mixed alluvial land A
Luf Louisburg and Louisa soils 25-55 -
NOTES: "A" denotes hydric soils or soils having hydric soils as a major component.
Iredell County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The soil association
consists of deep, gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils with a subsoil of reddish clay, on
granite, gneiss and shist.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
This section describes the existing vegetation and associated wildlife communities
that occur on the project site. It also discusses potential impacts affecting these
communities as a result of the proposed actions.
All species are cited with their common names accompanied by their scientific
names. Subsequent references to the same species will include common names only.
Faunal species observed during the site visit are noted with an asterisk (*).
Terrestrial Communities
Two distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project study area: (1)
alluvial forest and (2) roadside/disturbed community. Many faunal species are highly
adaptive and may populate the entire range of the two terrestrial communities discussed.
Alluvial Forest
The alluvial forest is found along floodplain ridges, terraces and active levees
adjacent to a river channel. The hydrology is palustrine with intermittent flooding during
wet periods. Alluvial forests are believed to form a stable climax forest, having a stable
uneven aged canopy composed primarily of bottomland hardwood trees.
The canopy is dominated by various bottomland trees such as sycamore, tulip
poplar, sweetgum and river birch. Understory trees include red maple, ironwood and
rosebay. Shrub and vine species present are tag alder, sassafras, poison-ivy and Virginia
creeper. The herbaceous layer is composed mainly with Christmas fern and grape fern.
Wildlife associated with the alluvial forest include mainly species adapted to wetter
ecosystems. A few species that may be found in this community are marbled salamander ,
two-lined salamander, spring peeper, gray squirrel, raccoon and white- tailed deer. One of
the dominant predators of this community is the barred owl, which hunts small rodents,
reptiles and amphibians primarily at night.
Roadside/Disturbed Community
The roadside/disturbed community is dominated by vines small herbs that are
regularly controlled by mowing. Species found along the B-2147 project site include
trumpet vine, poison-ivy, fescue, barnyard grass, dog-fennel, dallis grass and dayflower.
This landscape setting provides habitat for the existence of many faunal species
related to open settings. Species such as the northern cardinal, mourning dove, Carolina
chickadee and blue jay are found throughout this community. The eastern cottontail and
woodchuck also find foraging opportunities and shelter in this community. Major predators
include the red-tailed hawk, red fox and black racer.
Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community type, piedmont perennial stream, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical and chemical characteristics of the water body dictate faunal
composition of the aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water
resource also greatly influence aquatic communities and vice versa.
No invertebrates were observed in the streambed and no fresh water mussel shells
were encountered. Prey fish including shiners and chubs as well as crayfish and various
other invertebrates provide foraging opportunities for largemouth bass, sunfish and catfish.
Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described (habitat reduction, faunal displacement, etc.). Any construction-related activities
in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological functions. This section
quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and
ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to aquatic and terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance
of each community present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and
degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative
losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 18.3 meters (60.0 feet) for
Alternative 1 and 24.0 meters (80.0 feet) for Alternative 2. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
TABLE 3. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES
Community Alt. 1 Alt. 2
Alluvial Forest < 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2)
Roadside/Disturbed Community 0.1 (0.3) 0.1 (0.4)
Total Impacts < 0.2 (0.4) 0.2 (0.6)
NOTES: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Impacts to terrestrial communities will occur in the form of habitat reduction. Since
the project area is already fragmented, relatively little impact will occur to species that live
along the edges and open areas. However, ground dwellers and slow moving organisms
will decrease in numbers. Mobile species will be permanently displaced. Increased
predation will occur as a result of habitat reduction.
Impacts to aquatic communities will occur from increased sedimentation, increased
light penetration and loss of habitat. Sedimentation covers benthic organisms inhibiting
them to feed and obtain oxygen. Increased light penetration from removal of stream side
vegetation increases biological oxygen demand (BOD) and possibilities for algae blooms.
SPECIAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two
sensitive issues--Waters of the United States and rare and protected species.
Waters of the United States: Jurisdictional Topics
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal Register (CFR) Part 328.3.
Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those areas that are inundated or saturated by
surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to life in saturated
conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into these areas falls under the jurisdiction
of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33
U.S.C. 1344).
One small wetland is located within the alluvial forest community along the edge of
the proposed right-of-way in the southwest quadrant. It is associated with the drainage
canal and small floodplain adjacent to Hunting Creek. The approximate size of the wetland
is <0.1 hectare (0.2 acre).
10
Impacts totaling <0.1 hectare (<O.1 acre) will occur as a result of Alternative 2. Fill
is planned for this wetland which will both reduce the size and function of this ecosystem.
Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under jurisdiction of the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23 will authorize
impacts described above. This permit authorizes:
(1) activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole, or
in part, by another federal agency or department, and;
(2) that agency or department has determined pursuant to the council on environmental
quality regulation that the activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded
from environmental documentation because it is included within a category of
actions which neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on
the human environment, and;
(3) the office of the chief on engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with the
determination.
A Section 401 General Water Quality Certification is required for any activity which
may result in a discharge and for which a federal permit is required. State permits are
administered through the Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources
(DEHNR).
Mitigation
Nationwide permits do not require mitigation according to the Memorandum of
Agreement (MOE) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE.
However, final permit/mitigation decisions will be made by the COE.
Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline
either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with man. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action,
likely to adversely impact a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under
separate state laws.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions
of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of
September 15, 1994, the FWS lists no federally-protected species for Iredell County.
Federal Candidate and State Protected Species
There are four federal candidate (C2) species listed for Iredell County. Federal
Candidate species are not afforded federal protection under the Endangered Species Act
11
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. C2 species are defined as organisms
which are vulnerable to extinction although no sufficient data currently exists to warrant a
listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered or Proposed Threatened.
Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by
the North Carolina Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species 1993 are
afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 lists federal candidate species, the species' state status (if afforded state
protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This
species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be
upgraded in the future.
TABLE 4. FEDERAL CANDIDATE/N.C. PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR IREDELL COUNTY
Scientific Common Name NC Suitable
Name Status Habitat
Neotoma floridana magister Eastern woodrat T N
Clemmys muhlenbergu Bog turtle T Y
Delphinium exaltatum Tall larkspur* E-SC N
Lotus Durshianus var. hellerii Heller's trefoil* - Y
NOTE: "*" Population not documented in Iredell County in the past twenty years.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of
these species observed. A review of the database of the N.C. Natural Heritage Program
Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or
protected species in or near the project study area.
12
FIGURES
•3 .6 P ?`?? A p
-? BRIDGE NO. 269
a
6 4 3 a i
61
?? ? ? ?' 1 •6 Hunting ?`'; ?,
\' \l
-00
cp 00 o"
7.0
n o .32 1? \? o
\?a a .3._ G`o'o .3 \a?
1.4 It' 7
?f ?• ? N .. ? if Q
L
i .? \pD •W ..? 4 N 719 ;IV al ?? •C
\
"0. 0
VI \VD
., r
New ope oil
21
\L 3
Har
19
\p C: :j y a? a $Y•
?..• :;: j
D.b 1A
N p ;r \
?:;:•.. .7 .5
5
\a, .ate , ,
?l
Studied Detour Route \a?
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
?REDELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 269 ON SR 1813
OVER HUNTING CREEK
B-2147
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
Figure 1
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0
s•o

\'o

,7
ON?
e
#** 1
BRIDGE N Q. 269
IREDELL COUNTY

'\' livN' o l ' rS% ' ac of Blldae

' - - -77
:G 100 YEAR FLOODPLAIN
us
> a:
y
LZ
ZS61 -6*S
W
Z Bridge No. 269 -'
N .?- ?..?..? ./
•.: ? S.R. `8?
1834 ?
\7
b
i

0 kilometers 0.7 kilometers 1.6
Figure 4
0 miles 0.5 miles 1.0

North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
IREDELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 269 ON SR 1813
OVER HUNTING CREEK
B-2147

ATTACHMENTS
r`-

® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: Stephanie E. Goudreau, Mt. Region Coordinator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: June 10, 1994 7n`-(?/
SUBJECT: Review of scoping sheet for Bridge #269 on SR 1813 over
Hunting Creek, Iredell County, TIP #B-2147.
Biological staff of the North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission (NCWRC) have not identified any special concerns with
the subject project. We have the following general
recommendations:
1) If a reinforced concrete box culvert (RCBC) is the selected
alternative, stream flow should be directed through one or
two cells of a multi-cell RCBC during low and normal flows.
Other cells should only carry water during high flows. This
will ensure that adequate water depth exists for fish
passage at all times.
2) Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a
minimum during bridge replacement. Native trees, shrubs,
and grasses should be planted in disturbed areas to replace
those removed by construction.
3) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does
not contact water entering or flowing in the Hunting Creek.
This will reduce the likelihood of fish kills associated
with bridge replacement.
4) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented
where soil is disturbed and maintained until project
completion.
5) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare soil as soon
as construction is complete. Permanent vegetation in these
same should be planted within 15 days of project completion
to p;Fide long term erosion control.
yew ATTACHMENT 1
_I
TIP #B-2147 Page 2 June 10, 1994
Thank you for the opportunity to provide input to the early
planning stages for this project. If we can further assist your
office, please contact me at 704/652-4257.
cc: Mr. Joe .Mickey, District 7 Fisheries Biologist
r_
.moo
?F.
North Carolina Department of Cultural
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 6, 1994
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813 over Hunting
Creek, Iredell County, B-2147, ER 94-8891-
Dear Mr. Graf:
CC* V ?
pN%4,;1GN OF
On June 21, 1994, Robin Stencil of our staff met with North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting concerning the above project. We
reported our available information on historic architectural and archaeological
surveys and resources along with our recommendations. NCDOT provided project
area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting and for our use
afterwards.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
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.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a
Categorical Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT
addressed our comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
ATTACHMENT 2

Nicholas L. Graf
July 6, 1994, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley,
environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
avi BDeputy State Historic
DB:slw
44__?
Preservation Officer
cc: k14. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
i
t
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
/??/,// 7,??
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION -
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER.YOUR REQUEST.
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? OR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS OR: YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
?PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
r M

F DS GROUP
LITY SECTION
d?,a STATFv
wpm?
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 26, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813 over Hunting
Creek, Iredell County, B-2147, State Project 8.2821601,
F. A. Project BRZ-1813(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the field on
June 15, 1994 at 9:00 A.M.
The following people were in attendance:
Beth Vandeberg Traffic Control
Don Sellers Right of Way
John Pearce Location & Surveys
Ray Moore Structure Design
Dann y Rogers Program Development
John Williams P&E
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
R.W. Spangler, Division 12 Engineer wrote in the following comments:
1) Division Engineer does not support the use of an onsite detour. Offsite
detour is preferred if new location is not chosen. 2) Realignment of the
approaches would be beneficial if possible.
Stephanie Goudreau wrote in with the following comments:
1) Disturbance to riparian vegetation should be kept to a minimum during
bridge replacement. Native trees, shrubs, and grasses should be planted
in disturbed areas to replace those removed by construction.
2) Construction must be accomplished so that wet concrete does not contact
water entering or flowing in the Hunting Creek. This will reduce the
likelihood of fish kills associated with bridge replacement.
?iy-0
. «r
August 26, 1994
Page 2
3) Stringent erosion control measures should be implemented where soil is
disturbed and maintained until project completion.
4) Temporary ground cover should be placed on bare soil as soon as
construction is complete. Permanent vegetation in these areas should be
planted within 15 days of project completion to provide long term
erosion control.
In a later discussion with Robin Stancil of the SHPO, Robin indicated
that there appear to be no historic or archaeological concerns on this
project.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that if the bridge is replaced in its
existing location it will require a bridge 45 m (147 ft.) long.
NCDOT Bridge Policy indicates that an 7.2 m (24 ft) bridge width is
required including a 6.0 m (20 ft) travelway and 1.2 m (2 ft) shoulders.
A list of alternatives to be studied, with associated preliminary
construction costs, are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge on the same location
at approximately the same elevation. Traffic would be
detoured along existing secondary roads during construction.
Alternate 2 - Replace the existing bridge with a bridge on new location just
to the west of the existing bridge at approximately the same
elevation. This should provide some improvement to the
existing alignment. Traffic will be maintained on the
existing bridge during construction and then removed after
construction is complete.
Cost estimates are not yet available.
JW/plr
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 8-26-94
TIP PROJECT B-2563 DIVISION 5
STATE PROJECT 8.1370501 COUNTY Granville
F.A. PROJECT BRSTP-15(2) ROUTE US 15
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 4 on US 15 over Big Lodge Creek
in Granville County, B-2563.
TRAFFIC: CURRENT _
TTST
EXISTING STRUCTURE:
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE
100 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 400 VPD
1 % DT 2
LENGTH 35.9 METERS; WIDTH 3.6 METERS
1118 FEET 12 FEET
- LENGTH 45 METERS; WIDTH 7.2 METERS
147 FEET 24 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 875,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 24,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 899,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ...................................$ 899,000
Y_
C?t .6 .9
• \? • 3
\p ? •3 ?s b
1•
Cr •7
4! T
? D W \ \ c
}.0 •6 \Q 2 ?i t?
! b • 6 ?4iflj
o ! Q ?iP
m0 \p ?. \0 .? 2 fv.\?
4 v !6 .
.3\`?4? tea/
r 1 rove ckaY .,- ir J \
ew e 2 ® ` ? Of
v _
I
a t e Harmohl
rj
1l ?. N N
1 11 19 11 Tur ersEur 1 w /
,4, COtts 1 4.40 64
a
Loiate?,, 1 .
? tO
7 6. e 1 IYS?) , ld)
??O
n m Sp rags 3 I
AmRY
4 ® - -H 111 -10 wool
ill a
yp 21 \ 1
.. Mount * Ine ® N
?E? r
UMMININIM MEMO
Z
1.'2 G, ..4 00 \o? .?
D •s.
?1p N \0!
.3
! Tr eJD c?C N
n
N?
s
Huntin ?!? `•
g tr M
!a
D
? 3 ?• 0 A
\
a! N
2
w oo?
'Irv A
D .3 v,
4W
\`r
eJ ? ?
4
1
.
\?D
J

T
LOn .0
D
g
y ?j
! \eJ0

OA O
c,
ti 2
?
'. \ X2
r

. r. r'? - ?
G
to 1
A. 0

rots
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
IREDELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 269
ON SR 1813 OVER HUNTING CREEK
B - 2147
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
0 miles 1 miles 2
.- 3
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
-// ..??
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
?r. ---?:ri c- C-ralamh ??JyJ
FROM-: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.

ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION - ? INVESTIGATE AND RERORT
COMMENTS:
r f .?

94
MAY 1 3 19
WETLANDS GROUP 3
WATER UAUTY SECTION ®,r__,

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 10, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheet for Bridge No. 269 on SR 1813
in Iredell County over Hunting Creek, B-2147
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for June 15, 1994 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/pl r S ?Z 109- l6 C
Attachment
f A *1444? d4?
-- Z- / 0 0 -4:67 (:?? /
M
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 5-09-94
REVISION DATE
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING
PLANNING _
DESIGN
TIP PROJECT B-2147
STATE PROJECT 8.2821601
F.A. PROJECT BRZ-181.3(2)
DIVISION 12
COUNTY Iredell
ROUTE SR 18
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Brid' ge No. 269 on SR 1813 over
Huntin8 Creek in Iredell County.
SR 1813 is designated as a Rural Local
Route.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION _ ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) M

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 35 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 63 VPD
TTST _ % DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 36.0 METERS; WIDTH 3.7 METERS
118 FEET 12.0 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE, - LENGTH METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
CULVERT - X METERS
X FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH __ METERS; WIDTH
FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE MILLIMETERS
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES.
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
METERS
FEET
METERS
FEET
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 201000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 70,000
SUB TOTAL ....................................... $ 320,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ................................ $
TIP TOTAL COST ................................... $ 320,000
?!1.?_i_? l?_L.?_ .?.1_t? l? 1?.1 ? 1_? 1 ¦.1_?l ? l.¦ 1 ?_l?_I_tl ? 1 1_? 1 ? 1_? i_? 1_?_A
\! ?!
. Cr. A \T \s 7
W
61?
\? v \? 00.
l0 3 ?
• 1.0 .6 6 2 ! 4 \?
Oo \! I Q \ n
•
A
t?
!
s
\O Q d ? .
7.3 ?o .2
Hunting
.•4 .6 v 16 !
. o < \! \!? f !? co ! o !?
\!a l.0
. .37 c. 2 1 w\ G .3
C.j
LPA
7.4
N \!f
Hafmonj T
ni y Long .?!! \O
w
4 6 cotts a 3,440 64

IN
`•i i 1.0
Bp•
:i moo!
NOR
1 ¦ ??-1 ? 1711
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
IREDELL COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 269
ON SR 1813 OVER HUNTING CREEK
B - 2147
0 km 1.6 km 3.2
21
383
USES 7.5 Minute
j Quadrangle ?_r\?? \ 1 _ ?o \
J / Brooks Crossroads To`bi'-? ?- =SIN CO?\
l \ ?i?/',1 1 \ IREDEL -C0, _?-
0/8 "1
947
•?
Y, 18
l _ (,' \? ' .1 I ?? ? 0, C 959 Jm ((/ .-_..
?Z,Cem
w Hor,Ghi?w T ! t/ I±
Cem ?f /i. 2101
i
\ l \ \ ) / ?_
974
s'n Hill-Ch > ?•.
__j?• \lata\\\ it (?! (1? ??? _
x 00
c
\\' \9431.-
1832` \ \ i
.\ -? . _'` ??•:? \•' =, , I ?? O ; ? 1 _-' ?> ? ,off ?-_ ? (?-?
-9C° 1 ._ 878
s \\V-1 L??l\\\\?\ VJ
' agle Mills
\ .1 J 950 / 1` ; - =-? ,.• Ijl , ?, / L / \Q
o it ((.- : % ( 929 O
1 '0
?'\ `?? \ - 800 _ / ? \\$_ jo ` ?? \\\` ?-; ?,
//? _.
(j ij
T V_
r !
900
/?i??i /\i \ \?\. BR 830 I r 11 ?\ \ \\? ?. - //? i\ ?' ?•O 1 \? ,_?, /?
`
?? -???' 1'I \•\ j ?I, ?! 1E31: is \ '943 ( 1 i
\ l
967
/ ?,;,1 l \ sCem Houstonville ?zl
C.em Cem ?I \ p, ? !? `II_ ? •\