19970121 Ver 1_Complete File_19970220

i
., _... 7STATE
,
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GovERNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997
at
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 -
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief. Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Mecklenburg County. Replacement of Bridge No. 91 over West Fork
Rocky River on SR 2417. TIP No. B-2590, State Project No. 8.2673601,
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-2417(1).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Cate??orical Exclusion's in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore. we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 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 N 2745 Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of e CE document to
the North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality. for their review.
(9

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerel ,
r
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. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 2417 (Grey Road)
over West Fork Rocky River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2471(1)
State Project 8.2673601
T.I.P. No. B-2590
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
///f ?& " a i H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
ZG 94
DATE J? Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 2417 (Grey Road)
over West Fork Rocky River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2417(1)
State Project 8.2673601
T.I.P. No. B-2590
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
•oOp. i
)A CARP ? ••.
% FESSIpy.?q
SEAL
?
MAT
14509 s
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date s*??. f
Project Manager !y, I NE?-••' d
?I // •.•......• O
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit ea
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. B ld m
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 2417 (Grey Road)
over West Fork Rocky River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2417(1)
State Project 8.2673601
T.I.P. No. B-2590
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 91 on SR 2417 (Grey Road)
over West Fork Rocky River
Federal Aid Project BRZ-2417(1)
State Project 8.2673601
T.I.P. No. B-2590
Bridge No. 91 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. 91 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2.
The recommended replacement structure consists of a triple 3.4=meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-
meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to
provide two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as 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 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width, to provide two
3.3 meter (11-foot) lanes, and 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side throughout the project
limits.
A temporary off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period. The
off-site detour will be 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) in length (see Figure 1).
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $631,000. The estimated cost of the project, as shown
in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $598,000 ($550,000-construction;
$48,000-right-of-way).
Il. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northeastern portion of Mecklenburg County, approximately 3.2
kilometers (2 miles) east of the Town of Davidson, North Carolina (see Figure 1). The area is
rural woodlands in nature.
SR 2417 (Grey Road) is classified as a rural local in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 2417 has a 4.8-meter (16-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter
(6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat through the project
area. The existing bridge is located on tangent which extends approximately 120 meters (400
feet) east and at the beginning of a horizontal curve west from the structure. The roadway is
situated approximately 4.9 meters (16 feet) above the river bed.
The current traffic volume of 750 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2,000 VPD
by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 1% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4%
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 64 kilometers per hour (40 miles per hour) in
the project area.
Bridge No. 91 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing
surface on I-beams. The substructure consists of timber caps post and sills with timber
bulkheads. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1961.
The overall length of the structure is 20.4 meters (67 feet). The clear roadway width is 5.8
meters (19 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 15.4 metric tons (17 tons) for single
vehicles and 20.8 metric tons (23 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 91 has a sufficiency rating of 43.5, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. However, overhead power lines parallel
the-existing bridge on the south side of the roadway throughout the project area. Utility impacts
are anticipated to be low.
Two single vehicle accidents, resulting in no fatalities and two injuries, have been reported in the
vicinity of Bridge No. 91 during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. The incidents were
the result of the vehicles leaving the road and striking fixed objects, one of which was the end of
the bridge railing.
Four school buses cross the bridge daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 91 were studied. Each alternative consists of a triple
3.4-meter (11-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 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width and 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side. Typical
sections of the 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 approximately 60
meters (200 feet) in each direction from the culvert. A temporary off-site detour will be provided
during the construction period. The off-site detour will be 13.4 kilometers (8.3 miles) in length
(see Figure 1). The design speed for this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50-miles per
hour). Alternative 1 is recommended because it is less costly to construct and has less impact on
the ecosystem in the vicinity of the site as compared to the additional roadway approach work for
Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the study
corridor immediately north (upstream) of the existing roadway alignment. Improvements to the
approach roadways will be required for approximately 150 meters (500 feet) west and 250 meters
(820 feet) east of Bridge No. 91. The design speed of this alternative is 80 kilometers per hour
(50 miles per hour). 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 2417.
The NCDOT Division 10 Engineer concurs that an off-site detour will be the best alternative
during bridge replacement.
The Mecklenburg County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of traffic
off-site during the construction period is acceptable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Structure $175,515.00 3=, 15.00
Roadway Approaches $326,197.75 $498,197.75
Detour Structure and Approaches NA NA
Structural Removal $9,287.25 $9,287.25
Engineering and Contingencies $89,000.00 $117,000.00
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities $31,000.00 $252,500.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 91 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2,
with a triple 3.4-meter (11-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 60
meters (200 feet) in each direction from the culvert. The Division Engineer concurs with this
recommended alternative.
A 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-foot) shoulders on each side will be
provided throughout the length of the project in accordance with the current NCDOT Policy (see
Figure 4). SR 2417 (Grey Road) is classified as a rural local; therefore, criteria for a rural local
was used for the bridge replacement. The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per
hour). A design exception may be necessary for the sag vertical curve sight distance.
A temporary off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during the construction period (see
Figure 1).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a triple 3.4-
meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. The elevation
of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing structure. 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.
4
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 9, 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
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-dominated and
Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Dominant faunal components associated with these terrestrial areas
will be discussed in each community description. Many species are adapted to the entire range
of habitats found along the project alignment, but may not be mentioned separately in each
community description.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
This forested community occurs along the stream adjacent to the man-dominated community.
The dominant canopy trees include box elder (Acer negundo), green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica), willow oak (Quercus phellos), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), southern red oak
(Quercus falcata), sweet gum (Liquidambar styracijlua), and slippery elm (Ulmus rubra). The
understory consists of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), dogwood (Corpus jlorida), and Eastern
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana). The dense shrub layer includes blackberry (Rubus spp.) and
the herbaceous layer includes Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and crossvine
(Bignonia capreolata).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the fields in the northeast and
southeast quadrants, and the grassy area in the southwest quadrant. Many plant species are
adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas. These man-dominated areas are
dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum offcinale),
white clover (Trifolium repens), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia), dead nettle (Lamium
purpureum), and small-flowered cranesbill (Geranium pusillum).
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 West Fork Rocky River and associated ecotones serve as valuable
habitat since they have 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. Although no animals were observed during the site visit, the gray
squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), Eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis sirtalis), Eastern box
turtle (Terrapene carolina carolina), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), and the
American robin (Turdus migratorius), Northern Mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), and house
sparrow (Passer domesticus) are typical to the disturbed habitats.
Although no animals were observed during the site visit, the whitetail deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor),
American toad (Bufo americanus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), Northern cardinal
(Cardinalis cardinalis), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), and blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata)
are typical to the forested community.
Aquatic:
West Fork Rocky River supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. Vegetation along the banks includes box elder and ironwood. Typically
macroinvertebrates such as the mayfly (Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly
(Trichoptera) larvae would be found within snag habitats along the river 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 West Fork Rocky
River.
The river and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for amphibians
and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Natrix sipedon sipedon), Southern leopard
frog (Rana utricularia), and snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina).
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes along the
major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 210.3 meters (690.0 feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Mecklenburg County, this portion of Mecklenburg County
6
contains soils from the Cecil association which are characterized as being gently sloping to
strongly sloping, well drained soils that have a predominantly clayey subsoil. This map unit is
found on broad smooth ridges and side slopes on the uplands. This map unit was confirmed in
the field. The soils in the project area are mapped as Monacan soils and Cecil sandy clay loam, 8
to 15 percent slopes, eroded. Monacan soils are somewhat poorly drained, nearly level soils
found on flood plains along streams and drainage ways. Cecil sandy clay loam, 8 to 15 percent
slopes, eroded is a well drained soil found on side slopes on the uplands.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses West Fork Rocky River and lies within the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
West Fork Rocky River is a perennial tributary within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin, The
river flows south through the proposed project area with a width of 5.5 meters (18.0 feet) at
Bridge No. 91. On the day of the investigation, the stream was approximately 0.3 meter (1.0
foot) deep. The stream has a Class C rating from the North Carolina Division of Environmental
Management (NCDEM), indicating the stream'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 Mecklenburg County (1993) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, which is in the special
flood hazard area inundated by the 100-year flood where no base flood elevations have been
determined. The NCDEM Classification Index number for West Branch Rocky River is 13-17-3.
The NCDEM has no macroinvertebrate sampling data from West Fork Rocky River. 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 macro-
invertebrates 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 West Fork Rocky River.
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within the project vicinity.
According to the Charlotte - Mecklenburg Planning Commission, the project area is not within a
protected watershed.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of West Fork Rocky River 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 5.5 meters (18.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.3 meter (1.0 foot)
Water Color Clear
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) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as West Fork Rocky River has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in the
project corridor 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
0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of jurisdictional surface water impacts will occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 91.
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 four federally protected
species for Mecklenburg County as of August 23, 1996. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Lasmigona decorata
(Carolina heelsplitter) E
Echinacea laevigata*
(smooth coneflower) E
Helianthus schweinitzii
(Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Rhus michauxii*
(Michaux's sumac) E
* Indicates no specimen from this county in at least 20 years.
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship to the
proposed project are discussed below.
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata)
Status: E
Family: Unionidae
Listed: 6/30/93
The Carolina heelsplitter is the southernmost mussel in the genus Lasmigona on the eastern
coast. It has a shell that is an ovate trapezoid and can reach a length of 118.0 mm (4.6 inches)
with a height of 68.0 mm (2.7 inches) and a width of 39.0 mm (1.5 inches). The dorsal margin is
straight and may end with a slight wing. The umbo is flattened. The beaks are depressed and
project a little above the hinge line with a double looped sculpture. The unsculptured shell can
have a yellowish, greenish or brownish periostracum with greenish or blackish rays. Historically
the Carolina heelsplitter was recorded from the Abbeville District in South Carolina, and around
Mecklenburg County in North Carolina. Sampling in 1988 produced specimens in Waxhaw
Creek and Goose Creek in Union County, North Carolina. All specimens were found in shaded
areas, either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks with a moderate
current. All individuals were found in less than 1.0 meter (3.0 feet) of water on substrates of soft
mud, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
According to John Alderman, District 6, North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
(NCWRC), it is very unlikely that the Carolina heelsplitter exists in the West Fork Rocky River.
NCDOT biologist Tim Savidge performed a survey of the West Fork of the Rocky River on June
22, 1995. Based on this survey, it was concluded that the Carolina heelsplitter does not occur in
this stream. In addition, a search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database
indicated no occurrences of the Carolina heelsplitter in the project vicinity. It can be concluded
that construction of the proposed project will not impact the Carolina heelsplitter.
Smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 10/8/92
The smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 1.5 meters (4.9 feet) tall
from a vertical root stock. The stems are smooth with few leaves. The largest leaves are the
basal leaves, which reach 20 centimeters (7.9 inches) in length and 7.5 centimeters (3.0 inches) in
width, have long stems, and are elliptical to broadly lanceolate, tapering to the base, and smooth
to slightly rough. Mid-stem leaves have shorter stems or no stems and are smaller in size than
the basal leaves. The rays of the flowers are light pink to purplish, usually drooping, and 5 to 8
centimeters (2 to 3 inches) long. Flower heads are usually solitary. Flowering occurs from May
through July. The smooth coneflower is found in open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides,
clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs, and power line rights-of-way. Optimal sites are characterized by
abundant sunlight and little competition in the herbaceous layer.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Habitat exists in the project area for this species. Following inspections of herbarium specimens
and field guide photographs of the smooth coneflower, all roadside margins were visually
searched during the reported flowering time. No individuals of this species were observed in or
adjacent to the study area during the site visit. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the project vicinity; no
specimens have been reported in Mecklenburg county in at least 20 years. It can be concluded
that construction of the proposed project will not impact the smooth coneflower.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii)
Status: E
Family: Asteraceae
Listed: 6/6/91
Flowers Present: September - October
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows approximately 1.0 to 2.0
meters (3.3 to 6.6 feet) tall from a carrot-like tuberous root. Stems are usually solitary, branching
only at or above the mid-stem, pubescent, and often purple in color. The leaves are opposite on
the lower stem and changing to alternate above, lanceolate, pubescent, and have a rough and
thick texture. They are 18 centimeters (7 inches) long and 2.5 centimeters (1 inch) wide. The
5.5-centimeter (2-inch) broad flowers are borne from September until frost. Schweinitz's
sunflower blooms with rather small, upwardly arching heads of yellow flowers. The fruit is a
gray-black achene approximately 5 millimeters (0.2 inch) long and are glabrous with rounded
10
tips. Based on its similar morphology to H. laevigatus and H. microcephalus it is difficult to
positively identify this species prior to flowering.
Schweinitz's sunflower is found only in the piedmont of North and South Carolina with 13
known populations occurring in North Carolina. Growing best in full sunlight or light shade, it
occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay loams, or sandy
clay loams with a high gravel content. The sunflower usually grows in open habitats such as the
edge of upland woods, roadside ditches and shoulders, and pastures. Natural fires and large
herbivores are considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these
sunflowers. Today, disturbances such as mowing, controlled burning, and logging help maintain
its open habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Suitable habitat exists in the project area for this species. Following inspection of herbarium
specimens and field guide photographs of Schweinitz's sunflower, all roadside margins and
woodland fringes were searched visually for plants with sunflower characteristics. No
individuals of the genus Helianthus were observed during the search performed on May 9, 1996.
NCDOT staff biologists performed a survey of all suitable habitat during this species' flowering
time on October 22-24, 1996. No individuals were observed in the study area as a result of this
survey. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded
occurrences of this species within the project vicinity. It can be concluded that construction of
the proposed project will not impact Schweinitz's sunflower.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiaceae
Listed: 9/28/89
Flowers Present: April - June
Michaux's sumac is a densely hairy shrub with erect stems which are 0.3 to 0.9 meter (1 to 3 feet)
in height. The shrub's compound leaves are narrowly winged at their base, dull on their tops, and
veiny and slightly hairy on their bottoms. Each leaf is fine toothed on its edges. The flowers are
greenish-yellow to white and are 4-5 parted. The plant flowers from April to June. Michaux's
sumac is found in sandy or rocky open woods in association with basic soils. This plant survives
best in areas where some form of disturbance has provided an open area.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No habitat exists in the project area for Michaux's sumac. A search of the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program database showed no recorded occurrences of this species within the
project vicinity. The USFWS reports that habitat for Michaux's sumac consists of sandy or
rocky open woods. Since the soil in the project area consists of clay and the forested areas have
a dense shrub and herbaceous layer, it can be concluded that construction of the proposed project
will not impact Michaux's sumac.
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 3 includes FSC species listed for Mecklenburg County and their state
classifications.
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Aster georgianus
(Georgia aster) C Yes
Delphinium exaltatum*
(tall larkspur) E No
Isoetes virginica
(Virginia quillwort) C No
Lotus helleri
(Heller's trefoil) C Yes
* Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
NC Status: E and C denote Endangered and 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.
12
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated and Piedmont Alluvial
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 4 details
the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 4
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL
AND AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 91 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.20 (0.50) 0.15 (0.37) 0.01 (0.02) 0.36 (0.89)
Alternative 2 0.29 (0.71) 0.50 (1.24) 0.01 (0.02) 0.80 (1.97) -_-
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within West Fork Rocky River. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.01 hectare (0.02 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 a culvert or
supporting structures in the river 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
13
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.
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 comment. The project is also subject to compliance with
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
14
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. All work
required for Alternative 1 will be done along the existing roadway alignment. Therefore, the
project will not involve the direct conversion of prime, unique, or important farmland acreage.
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 213.0520. 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.
Mecklenburg 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.
15
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.
16
4
APPENDIX
'MI. M-
1111
L

1131
1191
I"?
l1'1111111111LLU'11 z
-'- ?uLL ?/ 11]9 ??
1 903 F 11]3
ire ell County
Mecklenburg County
1? - 1
?? 11>1 W )J
B-2590 p
_ DAVIDSON
"I'l POP. 3.741 .y
----------------
`L..... 1 1
I L•J o
13 C•? 1.. 4 i 1w
m CORN
R
FIGURE 1
2 NFwe"1
` i 3 Chagg t@+
Allen .
flint ill a
EC LE ZJ GJ.?
LEGEND
11110,, An, Ask Ank
Studied Detour Route
!Mt
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning k Environmental Branch
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 91 ON SR 2417
OVER WEST FORK ROCKY RIVER
B-2590
0 kilometers 3 ?2 kilometers 6 14
0 Mlles 2 0 miles
4.0

- 5 %
t.at
5 ? V t? p

Orr
• -'Y ?aG?. 5-^'f,'h '?4FG ?ir?'V ?f'?3 "fy??.Ovf ,y"?y3?. ?p??yr ?t
- 4jqi •4
mo?
a t ? -_
_ y ?
a ,I ? +
M r r:
T mrD-? p m .ry.
N n
¦
r% m
m
m
p Z ?4 ?y4 1 m T
i Y
7G ch, ?
?. Y U 1 ' 1 {'v Y/ l

w

IV CJ p •-'- ?,kP

C] `' o

x

0
tr '1

,
0 ::? i s o t
$. ? .3 k p G?1 ,? » tc

m
7v _
?Y -
Z T ?-

m
N
uh _.

R f "?
ti?l S
i

Mecklenburg County
Bridge No. 91 On SR 2417
Over West Fork Rocky River
B-2590
SIDE VIEW
DOWNSTREAM
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3

x
a
R=
o r°. w
w a ?, d, a
w
»+
u E- N
Z >'

a O cn U ...
0 0 U
z O
a G4
_ q?? cyo 0
E
Go $ aq obi sw am
o

u
I m
?o

o ,

?.w
sae Wx
a E-
0
h
U
w
z a. wa d

0
l7 $
H m M G 0
W
Z Z Z
O O

W

N LU
N
t/?
3: LU
V
QF Q
0 O
o
y
oC
CL ad 0
L
v
a C
< LU
J J
? W
V 3

M
E $ J p
N OD M G
Q 0

J

U
Z
OQQ
J ?
N
Q
N N
N
U ? p II
'n
m .
°° Q a o

1-
U
Z

LL-

ZONEA - -?-__
Q
West Branch Rocky River
ZONE AE
T BRIDGE NO.91
ZO
68 5 /••
eqj/ 6s2
Q?% 5
ZONE AE
680
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 91 ON SR 2417
OVER WEST FORK ROCKY RIVER
B-2590
FIGURE 5
STAIL,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 91 on SR 2417 over west branch of Rocky
River, Mecklenburg County, B-2590, ER 96-9086
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
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 ???

Federal Aid # ?,P-7-- 2q i-1(1) TIP # 1?- I-`j°I o
County MUV-Lt ?at3uRtf
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description V-9-PLACE, 6R10e,E "0-11 .a Sa Z417 eve-e- "sr r Fvzv-
_ {zoo?cy (z,vEtz, (6¢tvFE G?2.oup x?
On Ju?? , 11'l(0 , representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal High-way Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
revicwcd the subject project at
A scoping meeting
? Historic arcliitecturai resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there arc no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no propcrtics less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are propcrtics 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, propcrtics
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Rcaister and no further evaluation of them is ncccssarv.
,/ there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential cfffects.
Siancd:
Represi
DOT
-o
the Division
r, or other Federal Agency
S C°t?1(P
Date
Date
%)? e I ,, L14 ? t tJ?t?? 1 J571 q D
Representative, S,HPO Date

tate Historic Preservation Officcr
9

If a survey report is prepared, a tinai copy of tliis Corns and the attached list will be included.

Transportation Department
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools
3301 Stafford Drive
Charlotte, North Carolina 28208
Telephone [phone]
April 23, 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
V
d
'APR 2 5 A
on't sic-*'
ti t?r`.• t't 5
I received a copy of the attached letter dated, April 1, 1996, that you had forwarded to
Dennis Williams, Interim Superintendent of the Charlotte Mecklenburg County Schools.
This letter was concerning NCDOT bridge replacement on US 29 - NC 49 over Norfolk
Southern Corporation ridge located on SR2417IRocky River-R4a in Mecklenburg
County. Co
?V? utoo°P
CMS Transportatio department has assessed the situation and currently we have
approximately?ses utilizing this area. We do not feel that if service is still provided
for travel that our bus routes will be disrupted. At this time, we are not aware of any
issues that the Transportation Department will have related to the project planning
process.
Your letter did not state the dates that you anticipate this project to take place. Therefore,
the current number of buses in this area could change with the scheduled dates for the
project. If you like to have more accurate information once these dates are established,
please let me know. Our routes often change from year to year and occasionally during
the school year.
If you have any questions or need further information to my response, please contact me
at CMS Transportation Department [phone].
Sincerely,
?Gt?ta-G
Carol S. Stamper
Executive Director of Operations
cc: H. Hilton L'Orange
Dennis Williams
Suzanne Willen
Administrative Offices Education Center 701 East Second Street

s?
o
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
8-z?1?tZ
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B B. . Howes, , Secretary C -B ? Z? ?O
? FE rNJ F1 -B 2-1) 70
A. Preston Howard, Jr.; P.E., Director 8-2g 89t
g -3 003
April 19, 1996 8 -3o zZ
MEMORANDUM 3 0?
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb fl
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
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 Emolover 50% recycled/ 10% cost-consumer oaoer ?! ? X70
'r._i? ?? : `(n ?(.-r:'ar:. i _e-at or ..-Je !.nL =r?or
ISH.AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
P.aieigh Field Office
Post Offic° Box 33726
Raleigh. North Carolina 27636-3726
In Reply Refer To:
FWS/AES/RANG
April 10, 1996
- 2s? a
C)
13-zg SC

Fj Zc! 4
"Zq`70
i
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:
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 Fish 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 serves
as initial scoping 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)
calls for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
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 wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain 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.
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):
, 4i

1. A and 7ez r --.e -r--pCsE 1 a
disr_uss _oa of
2. Nn ana).vsis of the alternatives to t.qe proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of 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 for 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)
-Y. A specific description of the proposed action.to•be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of 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,
}
.: imu'_-tiva eff_cts
?;e __ojec and
state, zd _ ,a ,F a.L _
.a,
rarelated actions are those ti.Ic are part of a 1=rger act-4-on and
`' • larger action for their jl;stificati on;
Vepena on the future state
ntand private activities (not
Cumulat.ve impacts of that will be considered as
d. requiring Federal agency involveme,
part of future section 7 consultation);
5, of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
Summary ?
the affect any listed
manner in which the action may
6. A description of associated habitat including project proposals to
species
reduce/ eliminate adverse effects;
• 7. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is
not likely to adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered
species.
lant and animal species for which the Service has
threats Endangered to their survival
Candidate species are those p Species Act
sufficient information on their or i threatened staundertus
der the ESA,
to propose them as endangered rotection
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory p
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions s or that likely to jeopardize the continued existence
Species of econcernlinclude those species
or modify proposed critical habitat. Sp
warrant llist ninformation at t the e preresbuiPtime-
ent
for which the Service does s have o enough
could
listing proposal or specie rotection under the ESA,
Species of Concern receive no statutory p laces
listing becomes
become candidates in the areuendangered or threatened fi FormaInformation
the protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
available indicating they
species under the full ecies or their
if its status in the project corridor is un act 'to hcandidatel spould be prudent
erefore, for the project to avoid any adverse imp program should be contacted for
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
information on species under State protection. Please
continue to advise us reciates of the the pr opportunity to comment on this project. ,including
The Service app ogress made in the planning process/
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEH
NCWRC
USACE
Sincerely yours,
rohn Hefne
ield supervisor
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96:SCP
x'30 03
8 - 251)
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Mecklenburg County
Plants
Schweinitz' sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) - E
Clams
Carolina heelsplitter (Lasmigonia decorata) - E*
s
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. An the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Plants
Georgia aster (Aster oeoroianus) - C2
Heller's trefoil (Lotus r)urshianus var. helleri) - C2
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2
Virginia quillwort (Isoetes virQinica) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.

V) Q
4gCH 3 18
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 15, 1996

Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
?- Z-9 g9
.3-2-6-80
i3-300 3
3'259 n
B-Za& g
XV ED
, lz?
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Forsyth, Iredell, Mecklenburg, and
Stokes Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of April 1, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
Raleigh'Field Office was forwarded to our office. We handle project reviews and requests
of this "nature for the western part of the state, including the above-mentioned counties.
Our Raleigh Field Office will provide scoping comments for the projects in Chatham,
Randolph, Richmond, and Scotland Counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16`U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information you provided, the following bridges will be replaced: Bridge
Number 79 on. SR. 2700 over South Fork Creek (Forsyth County); Bridge Number 178 on
SR 1907 over Morrison Creek and Bridge Number 27 on SR 2342 over an unnamed creek
(Iredell County); Bridge Number 91 on SR 2417 over the West Branch of the Rocky River
and Bridge Number 108 on US 29/NC 49 over the Southern Railroad (Mecklenburg
County); and Bridge Number 127 on SR 1673 over Snow Creek (Stokes County).
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts the proposed bridge
replacement projects could have on federally listed species and.on.Federal species of
concern and (2) the potential impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project
areas.
r '
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate
possible impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern
(these include aquatic animal species known from a particular stream system for one of the
proposed bridge projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
FORSYTH COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergii) (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams. -
IREDELL COUNTY
Bog turtle (Clemmvs muhlenbergiil (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat-acidic soils.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Schweinitz's sunflower elianth schweinitzii) (Endangered) This plant species is
generally found in woodland borders, especially along roadsides or banks that are
mown or bush-hogged regularly. It also occurs in gladelike _openings In woods.
N ichaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii (Endangered) - This plant species grows in sandy or
rocky open woods associated with basic soils.
Georgia aster (Aster geormanus) (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures.
Heller's trefoil (Lotus helleri (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
a .,
STOKES COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Orangefm madtom (Noturus ilg berti) (Federal species of concern) - This fish species
occurs in montane warm-water streams; juveniles and adults inhabit swift riffle
areas. Ideal habitat for this species consists of streams with low silt levels, relatively
high local gradient, and predominantly small cobble substrate.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) (Federal species of concern) - This species is
generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact areas should
be addressed in any environmental document prepared for these projects. Please note that
the legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative
with regard to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the
Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal
species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation of the various bridge replacement
alternatives.and structures (e.g., replacement at the existing location versus upstream or
downstream of the existing structure); (2) any special measures proposed to minimise
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g, protecting riparian vegetation whenever
possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you
keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In any huture correspondence
concerning them, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-061.
Sincerely,
f
Brian P. Cole `
Field Supervisor
91CD 8" 260E 0.- ??o"? ?i
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS - Z 8
P.O. BOX 1890 t3 "ZOO (t 5U
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 472-
REPLY TO Z9 7 c
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:
O
MAY 1 61996
k DWISION OF
HIGHW:YS )
¢4?`
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
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-0118
e
t

11
.4 a , t
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 9/79
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.
{ , t ,.
May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatorv 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
and/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 qualify 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.
K I ,
May 9, 1996
Page 3 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
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if 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)
Frank Vick, Manager -zs?o
Planning & Environmental
Room 464
Highways Building
STATE OF N
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. OFFICE OF BICYCLE &- GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 1, 1996
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pi ing and Environmental Branch
FROM: C?Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 91 on SR 2417
over West Branch Rocky River, Mecklenburg County, TIP No. B-2590
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 bicyclists on this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity 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
CEO
t\f\ _
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]

I
k,

- . P r
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date Ot Land E-,aluat,on Recuest
Name Of Project Federal A encv involved
SR 2417 M r,k enburg County, TIP B-2590 FHW?
Proposed Land Use I County And State
High-way, Two Lanes Mecklenburg County, TIP B-2590, NC
P
ART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Da a eque t Received B1Y S`CS
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not comple local important farmland? Yes No
te additional parts of this form). ? Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
-

Major Crop(s)
C O`c VA
Farmable Land In Govt_ Jurisdiction ,
Chi O
Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPPA

Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Acres: z4 3 ?1 % ja
Name Of
l Acres: ?3 3 , 96 a

b Loca
Si a Assessment System
/il 0 Al 'c- (
Date Land Evalu
9 I3 I4 t.
ation Returned By SCS

W 4J
PART 111 (To be completed by Federal Agencyl
Site A
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0
C. Total Acres In Site
PART IV (To be completed by SCSI 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 of0to 10OPoints)
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency) l
Maximum
Site Assessment Criteria (These crireria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use I
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
Site B Site C Site o
2.1
0
0.00
sg, g
?• vn-r-arm investments I i
1 1. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Supoort Services I I I
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use I I i
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160
PART VII (To oe completed by Federal Aoency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
;
Total Site Assessment .From Par, VI aoove or a local I
sire assessme.-,r! 160
i
i
TOTAL POINTS (Tonal of aoove 2 lines) j 260 i
i
Site Selected: Was A _ccai S,(-, =ssessinent used
Date Of Seiec-ton
Yes No