19970115 Ver 1_Complete File_19970220

r +
?'? r it .435
???? .y g? 01 ? 5
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVIT,NOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI I. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Reoulatorv Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmin-ton. NC 28402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief. Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Iredell County. Replacement of Bridge No. 27 over an unnamed creek on
SR 2342. TIP No. B-2580. State Project No. 8.282 170 1. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-2342(2).
Attached for vour 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 771.1 1 5(b). Therefore. we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13. 1996.
by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification b. 274 (C' egorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project. and are providing a cop., of the document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural-Resources. Division of
Water Quality. for their review.

-0 r
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincere ,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. R. W. Spangler, Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
Iredell County
Bridge No. 27 on SR 2342 (Amity Hill Road)
over a Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2342(2)
State Project 8.2821701
T.I.P. No. B-2580
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE (;,-Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
ivision Administrator, FHWA
Iredell County
Bridge No. 27 on SR 2342 (Amity Hill Road)
over a Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2342(2)
State Project 8.2821701
T.I.P. No. B-2580
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
.••`??H CAR0414"
•
r ?ESSIO ' • 9 •.
A 'P
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date = SEAL s
Project Manager 14509
? s
% E
",?0? ,I /S,S 11Np,•?••
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
//. '?. &f?
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U it ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
-Sw L4
Stacy Y. ld n
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Iredell County
Bridge No. 27 on SR 2342 (Amity Hill Road)
over a Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2342(2)
State Project 8.2821701
T.I.P. No. B-2580
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
Fill material from the temporary detour within the floodplain will be removed and the area
restored to the extent reasonably possible, to promote regeneration of the pre-construction
conditions.
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Iredell County
Bridge No. 27 on SR 2342 (Amity Hill Road)
over a Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2342(2)
State Project 8.2821701
T.I.P. No. B-2580
Bridge No. 27 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 27 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a double 3.0-meter (10-
foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure
will be of sufficient length to provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes with 2.4-meter (8-
foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be slightly higher than the existing grade at
this location. A design exception may be necessary for the sag vertical curve sight
distance.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width, to
provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, 0.6
meters (2 feet) of which will be paved on each side, throughout the project limits.
A temporary on-site detour (see Figure 2) will be used to maintain traffic during the
construction period. The temporary detour structure will consist of three 1,800-
millimeter (72-inch) corrugated metal pipes.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,146,000. The estimated cost of the project,
as shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $585,000 ($550,000
- construction; $35,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central part of Iredell County, approximately 2.3 kilometers
(1.4 miles) southeast of I-77 at exit 45 (see Figure 1). Development in the area is rural
residential in nature.
SR 2342 (Amity Hill Road) is classified as a rural collector in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated
bicycle route and there is no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists using
this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2342 has a 5.4-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.8-
meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is rolling through the
project area. The existing bridge is located on a tangent that extends approximately 152
meters (500 feet) west and 91 meters (300 feet) east from the structure. The roadway is
situated approximately 5.0 meters (16 feet) above the creek bed.
The current traffic volume of 2,400 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
4,900 VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-
trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 88 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour) in the project area.
Bridge No. 27 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams and
double channels. The substructure consists of timber caps on timber piles and bulkheads.
The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1950 and is in poor condition.
The overall length of the structure is 23.1 meters (76 feet). The clear roadway width is
6.0 meters (20.5 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 14.5 metric tons (16
tons) for single vehicles and 17.2 metric tons (19 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 27 has a sufficiency rating of 12.0, compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered to be in poor condition.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure; however, there are overhead
power lines and telephone lines on the downstream side of the roadway through the
project area. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
Five accidents, resulting in two injuries, have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No.
27 during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. Three accidents occurred on the
bridge. These accidents can be attributed to the narrow clear roadway width of the
existing structure. Two of the accidents involved cars sideswiping each other as they met
on the bridge. Both accidents caused property damage, and one accident resulted in a
non-fatal injury. The other accident was a single vehicle accident where the vehicle
struck the end of the bridge rail, resulting in property damage and non-fatal injury.
Three school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes
2
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 27 were studied. Each alternative consists of
replacing the bridge with a double 3.0-meter (10-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high
reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to
accommodate the approach roadway which will consist of a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement
width and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, 0.6 meter (2 feet) of which will be
paved on each side, throughout the project limits. Typical sections of the proposed
approach roadway are included as Figure 4.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a
distance of approximately 170 meters (558 feet) to the west and 180 meters (591 feet) to
the east of the structure. A temporary on-site detour will be provided during the
construction period south (upstream) of the existing structure. The temporary detour will
require three 1,800-millimeter (72-inch) corrugated metal pipes with a road grade
approximately the same as the existing bridge deck. The on-site detour will be about 400
meters (1300 feet) in length. Alternative 1 is recommended because it minimizes impacts
on any sensitive natural ecosystems in the vicinity of the site. Also, this alternative will
have a minimal impact on the floodplain and on adjacent properties.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor upstream (south) of the existing structure. The existing Bridge No. 27
would serve as a temporary on-site detour. The new alignment would have a design
speed of 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour) and would be approximately 400
meters (1,300 feet) in length. This alternative is not recommended because of the impact
on the ecosystem in the vicinity of the site and the effect on adjacent properties.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 2342.
The NCDOT Division 12 Engineer concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of
closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 2342 and
the excessive length of additional travel that will be required with an off-site detour (16
kilometers - 10 miles) (see Figure 1).
The Iredell County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of traffic
on-site during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Structure $175,000.00 $143,500.00
Roadway Approaches $547,280.00 $596,600.00
Detour Structure and Approaches $227,820.00 NA
Structural Removal $9,900.00 $9,900.00
Engineering and Contingencies $140,000.00 $125,000.00
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities $46,000.00 $104,000.00
TOTAL $1,146,000.00 $979,000.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 27 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in
Figure 2, with a double 3.0-meter (10-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced
concrete box culvert. Improvements to the existing approaches will be necessary for a
distance of about 170 meters (558 feet) to the west and 180 meters (591 feet) to the east
of the new structure. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, 0.6
meters (2 feet) of which will be paved on each side, will be provided throughout the
length of the project in accordance with the current NCDOT Policy (see Figure 4).
SR 2342 is classified as a rural collector; therefore, criteria for a rural collector was used
for the bridge replacement. The design speed is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per
hour).
During the construction period, maintenance of traffic on-site with a temporary detour is
necessary. Otherwise, traffic would have to be detoured along existing secondary roads.
An off-site detour route is considered unacceptable due to traffic volumes using SR 2342
and the excessive length of additional travel required (16 kilometers - 10 miles) (see
Figure 1).
The elevation of the new roadway will be slightly higher than the existing structure (A
design exception may be necessary for the sag vertical curve sight distance.). The
recommended culvert size is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The final design
of the culvert will be such that the backwater elevation will not encroach beyond the
current 100-year floodplain limits. The dimensions of the new structure may be increased
or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on April 30, 1996 to verify documented information
and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred
by a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to
1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats;
4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and
physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are
described below.
Successional Mixed Hardwood Forest:
This forested community occurs along the stream banks and surrounding the fields and
residential yards. The dominant canopy trees include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), tulip tree (Liriodendron tulipifera), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), and
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica). The understory consists of ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana), box elder (Acer negundo), dogwood (Cornus florida), black cherry (Prunus
serotina), and red maple (Acer rubrum). The shrub and herbaceous layers include species
such as blackberry (Rubus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), and common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the fields and residential
yards in the project area. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly
maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders, the fields, and
residential yards are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), dandelion
(Taraxacum officinale), wild onion (Allium cernuum), plantain (Plantago rugelii),
narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia), and cranesbill (Geranium maculatum).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside man-dominated and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby
the project area. The forested areas adjacent to the creek and associated ecotones serve as
valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective cover)
for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in the disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. During the site visit, the Northern
cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) were observed as
well as raccoon (Procyon lotor) tracks. Although not observed during the site visit,
several species of mice (Peromyscus sp.), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius)
are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Although no animals were observed, the animals previously listed are typical to the
successional mixed hardwood forest community, along with the gray squirrel (Sciurus
carolinensis), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), Eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina carolina), copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix), American toad (Bufo
americanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata).
Aquatic:
The creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. Although no animals were observed during the site visit, animals such as the
belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) are typical to these communities. Typically,
macroinvertebrates such as the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and
caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would be found within snag habitats along the creek banks
and within riffle areas. The macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel may be
dominated by midges (Chironomid larvae) and segmented worms (Oligochaetes).
During the site visit, no invertebrates were observed. No fish sampling data has been
reported for the creek.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana), and Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia).
6
Physical Resources
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes
along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 237.7 meters (780.0
feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Iredell County (USDA NRCS 1964), this portion of
Iredell County contains soils from the Cecil association which are characterized as deep,
gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils with a subsoil of reddish clay, on granite,
gneiss, and schist. This soil map unit was confirmed in the field. The soils in the project
area are mapped as Mixed alluvial land and Cecil soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded.
Mixed alluvial land is nearly level and found on narrow to wide first bottoms adjacent to
streams. It is subject to overflow and consists of recent alluvium washed from soils of
uplands and terraces. Cecil soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded are generally on side
slopes that border deeply cut drainage ways.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses an unnamed creek and lies within the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
The creek is a perennial tributary within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. The creek
flows northeast through the proposed project area with a width of 5.3 meters (17.5 feet) at
Bridge No. 27. The depth of the creek was approximately 0.3 meter (1.0 foot) on the day
of the investigation. The creek has a rating of Class C from the North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the creek's suitability for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, agriculture, and
other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Iredell County (1980) indicates the
project area lies in Zone A, which is within the 100-year flood zone, and no base flood
elevations or flood hazard factors have been determined. The NCDEM Classification
Index number for the creek is 12-108-20-4-4.
The NCDEM has no macroinvertebrate sampling data from the creek. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic
sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different
ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina.
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The scores derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody
and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable
to high elevation trout streams, lakes or estuaries. No NCIBI data was available for the
creek.
The Iredell County Watershed Protection Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit
the exposure of watersheds in Iredell County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area
adjacent to a water supply-intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than from the remaining portions of the watershed. The Protected Area is the area
defined as extending five miles from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which
the intake is located, or ten miles upstream of and draining to a river intake. According to
the Watershed Protection Map of Iredell County, the project area is not within a Critical
Area or a Protected Area.
No waters classified by the North Carolina Division of Environmental Management as
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated
as WS-I or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of the Creek observed in the vicinity of the
proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Sand, gravel
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 5.3 meters (17.5 feet)
Water Depth 0.3 meters (1 foot)
Water Color Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Boxelder, ironwood
Wetlands None
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as the Creek has well defined banks
within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Approximately 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of jurisdictional surface waters will
be impacted due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 27.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability. The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
lists no federally protected species for Iredell County as of August 23, 1996.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. Table 2 includes FSC species listed
for Iredell County and their state classifications.
TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
IREDELL COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Neotoma magister
(Alleghany woodrat) SC No
Clemmys muhlenbergii
(bog turtle) T No
Lotus helleri
(Heller's trefoil) C Yes
Delphinium exaltatum*
(tall larkspur) E No
* Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
NC Status: SC, E, T, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Candidate,
respectively.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) or
the project site.
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs.
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated and successional
mixed hardwood forest communities will receive the greatest impact from construction,
resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species
in residence. Table 3 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities by habitat type.
10
TABLE 3
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 27 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1
Permanent 0.29 (0.71) 0.04 (0.10) 0.01 (0.02) 0.34 (0.83)
Temporary 0.31 (0.77) 0.06 (0.16) 0.01 (0.02) 0.38 (0.95)
Alternative 2 0.70(l.72) 0.21 (0.51) 0.02 (0.04) 0.92 (2.27)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within the creek. The proposed bridge
replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.02 hectare (0.04 acre) of
stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work will
likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the creek channel. Sedimentation and erosion control measures
(Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction areas help
decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids and
particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach waterways.
Permit Coordination
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of dredged
or fill material into "Waters of the United States".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented. Fill material from the temporary detour within the
floodplain will be removed and the area restored, to the extent reasonable possible, to
promote regeneration of the pre-construction conditions.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires that if a federally funded, licensed, or permitted project
has an effect on a property listed on or eligible for the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
12
comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Therefore no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. With the exception of the construction of a temporary detour, all work will be
done within the existing right-of-way. There are no soils classified as prime, unique, or
having state or local importance in the vicinity of the project. Therefore, the project will
not involve the direct conversion of farmland acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
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 Regulation (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.
13
Iredell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
14

111 •?,,

?• S
Wt
1;V / 4

tom:
r ,
47
nj
d'1 nGj?4i 'h^ 1a1? G.°'!
,I1 + L ' ixt /A?i . I? ,IZI}t l I t I?t '?' ; / •?`
,,??•:i,?`}?',' . ?M Ili{ ? 1? p t . %l 7Sy?R ' '
At
t F
I . , ? I ? ?M1J, J
i 17? t t: ryy?ri !;7'j. YI , ?t (? r 114: 1
01
I ? 'L N
t:':14V I??+:V V.LV^•j } 1??' r tn??.y' ` 1?` I .

I
11

00,
POO
00,
000
00,
00
000
00
00,
100
000
.00
x
u
a
o w
N
N w 04
u 0
A ° z w
??
q U O U CO
r
a d N
V aq W p LY W o
° A z W O
q?
0 w
a W >
o N
:a
c7
A W
_
U)
f??rR tl li+
1 ? 6 f
, 'MA
F,

Iredell County
Bridge No. 27 On SR 2342
Over A Creek
B-2580
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING EAST
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3!
' u
a
N
O

G c cv

0 6 pd
A z
] w w

^
`[ _
q0W z
U O x
U co
E N m

m
•o
w a.ti
a In
d cQ
A a W O P4 W
a - r? w
v- z a
Na
ra
a
E
N P M G

O O

N W
N
y?
UZ Uw

O

oCO
°, ? nom, V
Q t?
LU
W
3

}
? ? M
F v
E ? E OC
O o
N l7 G
O
U
U

Z
F ? O
O

E
'O ? LL
II II
c ? ? ?
0
_ U a
N
co
H F

z

''?II\ ZONE A
ZONE C
Y \
I`I ?,, 11111111
71 /
BRIDGE NO. 27
342

)NE A.
u
J

North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning 4 Environmental Branch
IREDELL COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 27 ON SR 2342
OVER A CREEK
B-2580
FIGURE 5
\ 1

&(dmtin

Q-411- t:fi s??ifl cLOols

r'-)rt __
.Face er, :=.rart ;,;e, \: 23t>
"!10ne 0-;-• 72-•;931. i-70?1.87a
April 17, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
0
'APR 1 c 1996
v U
DIVISIO?J OF
HIGHWAY ;
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2342 over Creek (T.I.P. No.
B-2580) and Bridge on SR 1907 over Morrison Creek (T-.I.P. No. B-2989), Iredell
County
Dear Mr. Vick:
In response to your letter of April 1, I would like to express our concerns to the
following questions:
1. How many school buses cross these structures during the course of the day?
We now have 3 buses crossing Bridge 2580 and 3 buses crossing
Bridge 2989 during the morning and afternoon bus routes.
2. Provided travel service is maintained during project construction, would there be
any other cause for concern regarding disruption to school hus service?
Because of the high cost of school bus transportation, it would help
if travel service is maintained during construction.
At present time we have no other concerns pertaining to this project; however, we
appreciate your allowing us to have input on these issues.
Sincerely,
Jesse B. Register, Ed.D.
Superintendent
dpc
?Ie1
e r SiNto?
y ?1
•f Or. ??
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP NSPORTATION
JAmEs B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.G 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 1, 1996
Mr. Joel Mashburn
County Manager
Iredell County
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2342 over Creek (T.I.P.
No. B-2580) and Bridge on SR 1907 over-Morrison Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2989), Iredell
County.
Subject: Environmental Evaluation
Dear Mr. Mashburn:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to replace
the SR 2342 bridge over Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2580) and the SR 1907 bridge over
Morrison Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2989) in Iredell County. Attached is d location map
for your information and reference.
These replacements will result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of
the existing structures do not currently appear to be a feasible option due to
their age and deteriorating conditions. It is anticipated that the structures will
either be replaced at their existing locations or with facilities on new alignments.
These projects will be constructed with Federal-Aid Funds.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with the bridge replacement projects. We would appreciate your
input giving us any information you have on the issues listed below, as well as
any additional information you might have relative to the project planning
process:
1. Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals?
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project?
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project?
ir, 'ra airy * , ti1C ?r-,-)C--, 2? ncc. : res in
?. hr< '.lEf>? cclnmerC:vi cr CEr'.f1Gl C 3`/PI .? rTlc n oVI
the projec` area?
6. Are tax me ps available for the area surrc:.-nding the proposed grcject?
Also, are County topographic mains available in the vicinity of the project?
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for the
project area?
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency
routes such as fire, rescue, etc.
9. Is there a Land Use Plan or Master Plan available for Iredell County?
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the area
surrounding the proposed project?
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project
planning process?
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is requested that your agency respond
by April 25, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
Your comments should be mailed to the following address:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact the NCDOT Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Baldwin, at [phone] or Mr.
Bill Hood, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., at [phone].
Sincerely,

H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
?7441
4 G?
April 24, 1996
IREDELL COUNTY
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687-0788
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environment Branch
N C Dept. of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:

[phone]
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the questions identified
in your 4/l/96 letter regarding bridge improvements in Iredell County. I trust this
information will be of some assistance to you and your staff.
If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at [phone].
Sincerely,
Vzz- .
William Allison
Planning Director
WA:kh
Enclosure
E
?O
4PP 2 c 1996
D
ONMV- .
`3c?
J
i
-7HE FOLLOWING ARE THE C C)TJNTY,S RESPONSES
TO THE PROPOSED QUESTION
1. Yes
2. No, not at this time
3. No, not to our knowledge
4. No, not at either site
j. No, not at either site
6. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Mapping Department at
[phone]
7. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Planning Department at
[phone]
8. No, alternate routes are available
9. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Planning Department at
[phone]
10. See enclosed maps
11. No, not at this time
srn 3
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Govemor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
ortation
Department of T z6d
FROM: David Brook h
Dep
uty State istoric Prese vation Officer
SUBJECT: - Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 27 on SR 2342 over Creek, Iredell County,
B-2580, ER 96-9085
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
?cer?
0
JUN 2 1
1996

Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, it appears that there are no
structures over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect. We,
therefore, 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.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ga
1 Evtvtt ,
Federal Aid # ??az - 2312-(T TIP # County
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description ?-V.MA e, t V-Mf-V, *le- 2.1 'N SR 2342- Nl- G¢Evv_
( SR-toGE_ Fwu(l -A

All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the projects area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Register and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Rcpres Ht Live. Of ?T-- Date
FHwl; f?r the ivision iiiistrator, or other Federal Agency Date/
On Jut-tie- ?, , 11°ifv , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
s?ntativc, SHPO
r-

^Irln
tate Historic Preservation Officer
D tc
If a sunny report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be includcd.
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacy Baldwin
A14.170
ID EHNR
From: Eric Galamb f
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
D - f-.S-6 0
.PJ - Z Spa
o9
? `Z8 5-g
8-V1-17.
-Z5) ?O
?5_" 89
e '3003
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action EmQlover 50% recvclsd/ 1 rte, nest-Cana imnr nnnnr ?/

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
r
L...
- ca
r .?
Y'2`:'1 Z
?
50'
.o.._NY
cEI
O
MAY 1 6 1996
Z DIVISIC'J OF
¢ HIGHWAYS
?RONME??
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E.
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence).
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Rex 11 R
Nortrisiae, Nortn Carodria 2i 664-O'i'10
May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9179 "
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No FI Haz -- 2/82
52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34 SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance .maps and reports.

May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh. Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
arid/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then ether DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may quaiify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 9, 1996
Page 3of3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (I any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
Auh?-
11 '" 1
ISH kND 1-%'ILDLIF'E SELRVICE
^.aieigh Fiela :)ffice
Pose Of5r° Box 3326
Raleigh. ?ionr Carolina 27636-3726
In Reply Refer Ta:
FWS/AES/RANC
April 10, 1996
P
?,-Zc s5

G L A
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
ca s
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
'Generally, the Service recommends that .?tl,nd impacts be avoided and minimized
to tie maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should aintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U. S. Fish and Wildlife service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the F:.sh and
Wildlife Coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also ser-res
as initial s.ooping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
11 for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts):

, %3r
1. A c..aac. _F: as .'.:ri se anc. ,.e, ,r _°e rr :pose
015(:1153:.0:1 O? the :Y:OjB•?t'?i _71U?`?E .:,?f:`:: U.:111.r_y;
2. ?fin anal.vsls of the alternatives to tZe pr-)l)osed project that were
considered, icluding a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fish?:ry and wildlife resources within the action
area of the pro.)osed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters cf the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and_permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys fer the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental•impacts):
-.1. A specific descr-ption of the proposed action;to be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map cE the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,
• . If
i _r Ffa??S
ra _ ojeC: 3.1.1, 'lmll_ i'J2 r.
State, -nd _ .;, ,c a=r_•'_ _._?__
u= =a ? ,- qer act'.on and
or their are ait of a 1___ j',;tification;
?.. t::•?._
:interrelated actions are -ion those
d.pena on the larger a,--+-
suture State and private act-•,rities (not
Cumulat'ie impacts of that will be considered as
d' 2ederal agency involvement,
requiring
part of future Section 7 consultation ; otential effects;
• Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of PO
listed
5, may affect any
_ manner in which the action project proposals to
6. A description n associated habitat including pro
species
reduce/eliminate adverse effects; of whether the project is
Based on evaluation criteria, a determination
7• to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
not likely
species. ce has
ate are those plant and anim astatus and threats which to then rrSurvival
candidate species Endangered species Act
sufficient information on their bio q
eyed atened under the End c g r under the ESA,
protection
to propose them as endang confer with the SeY?rice on actions
(ESA). Although candidate specioer s receive y statutory
species or that may destroY
Federal agencies are required to informally
likely to jeopardize the continued existence of these tion to support a
odif proposed critical habitat. Species of concern include tresentptime.
for which the Service does not have enough r scoteiectntioifnic infundeorrmathe ESA, out could
liormy pPropos
al or. eecies which not warrant listing at the Species of Concern r
protection
laces
become eceive no statutory
me candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes
Formal listing
a new plac es
available indicating they are endangered or threatened.
Therefore, neceFsositit would be prudent
the species under the full protection
candidate species or thei r
for the project to avoid if its status in the project corridor any adversise impact unknown.
rider State protect on. Program should be contacted for
habitat. The North Carolin Natural Heritage
information on spec to comment on this project. Please
process, including
The Service appreciates the opportunity ro ect.
continue to advise us of the Progress mactsade of in this the s planning your official determination of the imp
Sincerely yours,
john Hefield Suvervisor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-656-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP
I - z?t aq
P,>.-.z sg o
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Iredell County

There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance. notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Mammals
Alleghany woodrat (Neotoma magister)
Reptiles
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) -C2
Plants
Heller's trefoil (Lotus purshianus var. helleri) - C2*
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2*
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
JL , ,';? 12"x.
J ?"eCc.
STATE OF NOFTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMEN"T OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES P. HUNT JR-
GOVERNOR
OFFICE OF BICYCLE &
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201. RALE;GH. N.C. 27611-5201
Apri. 29, 1996
G
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
1
FROM: C is B. Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation

GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 27 on SR 2342
over Creek, Iredell County, TIP No. B-2580
In your memorandum of April 1, 1996, you requested our comments regarding the proposed
improvements to the above mentioned project.
This section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is It a designated
bicycle route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of oicyclis's this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunitv to comment on this project. If there is a need for further
information, please contact Tom Norman, Facilities Program Manager, at 715-2342.
CBY/tn
[)11n,iv (0,o 7-n--)Rna F i71S-44)7
'-- 1vE\
? ?qq6

U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date Of Land E aluat.on Request
Name Of Project Federal A encv involved
SR 2342, Try ell County, TIP B-2580 FH4?A
Proposed Land Use Countv And State
Highway, TWO Lanes I Iredell County, TIP B-2580, N
PART II (To be completed by SCS) Date Reque I Received 6v CS
_8/Z8?4fv cvW
?uv4 utc Zinc c.uttcatrt prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(if no
the FPPA does not a
l
d
l Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
'
,
pp
y -
o not comp
ete additional parts of this form) ?
- A a IE
? 4S
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
C.o? Acres: 31 o Q24- % Q `( Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FP
"

Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local ire Assessment System
ct, A) Acres: Z9 %
'
I Date Land Evaluat on Returned By SCS

PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Ratin
Site. A
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly Site 8 Site C Site D

B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 2 . 2
0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 2 . 2
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. :Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County'Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
D. Percentage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 10OPoints)
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency)

Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b)
Maximum
Points I
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
3
Percent Of Si
B
i -
.
te
e
ng Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5
Distance Fr
U
b
.
om
r
an Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7
Siz
Of P
.
e
resent Farm Unit Compared To Average
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland --

9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
--------------------------------
1
I -
-

1---
0. On-Farm Investments ---
1 1. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Servjces
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use I I I I
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I I
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) i
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100
_ I
------- ---- - ------------------------------------- --------
Total Site Assessment (From Part Vl above or a local
sire assessmenr! 160 j
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 211nes) 260
Site Selected.
treason For Select.on
Was A Local S.t ? Assessment Useo%
Date Of Selec; on Yes No u