19970737 Ver 1_Complete File_19970822

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Wayne McDevitt, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
AdftwdMhmdft
[D EHNFi
September 4. 1997
Richmond County
WQC 401 Project #970737
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Franklin Vick
N.C. Dept. of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
You have our approval, in accordance with the attached conditions, to replace bridge 31 at NC 73, as you
described in your application dated 15 August 1997. After reviewing your application, we have decided that
this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number 3107. This Certification allows you to
use Nationwide Permit Number 23 when it is issued by the Corps of Engineers. In addition, you should get
any other federal, state or local permits before you go ahead with your project including (but not limited to)
Sediment and Erosion Control, Coastal Stormwater, Non-Discharge and Water Supply Watershed regulations.
Also this approval will expire when the accompanying 404 or CAMA permit expires unless otherwise
specified in the General Certification.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your application. If you
change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to send us a new application. If total
wetland fills for this project (now or in the future) exceed one acre, compensatory mitigation may be required
as described in 15A NCAC 2H .0506 (h). For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an adjudicatory hearing.
You must act within 60 days of the date that you receive this letter. To ask for a hearing, send a written
petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of
Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box 27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions
are final and binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Water Quality under Section 401 of the Clean Water
Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
Jr. P
WHowPrton ,
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Wilmington Field Office
Fayetteville DWQ Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files
970737.1tr
Division of Water Quality - Environmental Sciences Branch
Environmental Sciences Branch, 4401 Reedy Creek Rd., Raleigh, NC 27607 Telephone [phone] FAX # [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer - 50% recycled/10% post consumer paper
&. - a
?d w' 'nx
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNoR
June 23, 1995
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge
No. 31 on NC 73 over Buffalo Creek in Richmond County,
B-2609
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for July 25, 1995 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call John Williams, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
JW/plr'
Attachment
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
630751
-?ffvuf-10110 (-(<- C
?- vi 014-vi

S?, t"tr
?6
w?

-- -fb '
7b
?
US/

I(4-2,S M

jl?5

11 1
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
DATE: 6-22-95
TIP PROJECT B-2609 DIVISION 8
STATE PROJECT 8.1580901 COUNTY Richmond
F. A. PROJECT BRSTP-73 (2) ROUTE NC 73
PURPOSE OF PROJECT: Replace Obsolete Bridge
SPECIAL FUNDING: Will there be special funding participation by municipalities,
developers, or others?
YES NO X
STRUCTURE DATA
EXISTING LENGTH 21.3 meters; WIDTH 7.1 meters
BRIDGE NO. 62 70.0 feet 23.2 feet
TRAFFIC
1995 Traffic - 1000 VPD DUAL 3% DHV 12%
2020 Projected Traffic - 1900 VPD TTST 2% DIR 55%
COSTS
TIP Estimate
TIP Construction Cost ....................................... $ 200,000
TIP Right of Way Cost ....................................... + $ 18,000
TIP Total Cost ....................................... $ 218,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Major Collector
Figure 1

Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
0 kilometers 1.6 kilometers 3.2
0 miles 1.0 miles 2.0

I ry?p
/ MOUNT GILEAD EAST QUADRANGLE
l\

10
Vll /
' NORTH CAROLINA
7.5 MINUTE SERIES (TOPOGRAPHIC)
1 ^.

10 Il

O k _,7

r
a l:

jai

J - BD

'268
V X34
l -
J
/

1154 aoa
.128
*
es M
ttor ?J
i
ce 208
05 203
,
/XQ,
t
N u
,II \
\ ? ~ /'

1.156 ??O \ I
211
it Q ° II

//rJ? L
?? l

0

L/

2 2 , All
O
,% ? o CC
vV

':
Cl /?
? N J\
° / ? 2
uvgg \
am o ??
,
1157 '' C ? •..: .... o \\?.`.,,,W
. .

1155
r.
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 15, 1997
e v 01
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers 970737
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTN: Mr. Michael Smith
Chief, Northern Section
Dear Sir:
RECEIVEI)
AUG 21 1997.:
ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES
I-A
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY

?\I' SCIENCES
EJAv,?ONh?r?n1?AL,
SUBJECT: Richmond County, Replacement of Bridge No. 31 over Buffalo Creek on
NC 73; Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-73(2), State Project No.
8.1580901; TIP No. B-2609.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning document for the
subject project prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and
signed by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on 30 September 1996. The
project involves replacing Bridge No. 31 on NC 73 over Buffalo Creek. The planning
document describes the project as bridge replacement on existing alignment with a
quadruple 11-foot X 8-foot reinforced box culvert. Since completion of the planning
document, the DOT has changed the project description. The proposed project is now to
replace the old structure with a new bridge on existing alignment. Traffic will still be
maintained using an off-site detour using existing secondary roads. No Jurisdictional
wetlands are located within the project study area.
The project is being processed by the FHWA asa "Categorical Exclus' n" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, the Zer does not spate
requesting an individual permit but proposes to proceed a S on 404 Nationwide
Permit 23 in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued December 13,
1996, by the Corps of Engineers (COE). The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix
A (C) of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
ROO
I
b•
The DOT anticipates that 401 General Water Quality Certification for an
approved CE will apply to this project. A copy of the CE document has also been
provided to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality (DWQ), for their review.
The DOT requests authorization to complete the bridge replacement under a
Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23 from the COE. Application is also made to the DWQ
for the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Ernie Jahnke, COE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. W. F. Rosser, P.E., Division 8 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
t > i
NC 73
Bridge No. 31 over Buffalo Creek
Richmond County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-73(2)
State Project 8.1580901
T.I.P. No. B-2609
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
//0/97
A E H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
DATE cholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
NC 73
Bridge No. 31 over Buffalo Creek
Richmond County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-73(2)
State Project 8.1580901
T.I.P. No. B-2609
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
January 1997
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc.
?,.•'?ZH CARot "",
4.6
Willis S. Hood, P.E. Date SE AL
Project Manager = 14509
-. ?y. GI N? .••oo
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
4` • ;-,?
?/- A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit

Stacy Y. Ualdivint
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
NC 73
Bridge No. 31 over Buffalo Creek
Richmond County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-73(2)
State Project 8.1580901
T.I.P. No. B-2609
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
10
NC 73
Bridge No. 31 over Buffalo Creek
Richmond County
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-73(2)
State Project 8.1580901
T.I.P. No. B-2609
Bridge No. 31 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. 31 will be replaced at the existing location as shown by Alternative 3 in
Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of a quadruple 3.4-meter (11-
foot) wide by 2.4-meter (8-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)
graded shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
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) graded shoulders on each
side throughout the project limits.
Traffic will be maintained during the construction period with an off-site temporary
detour (See Figure 1).
Estimated cost based on current prices is $401,500. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $218,000 ($200,000 -
construction; $18,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the northwestern portion of Richmond County, approximately 14
kilometers (9 miles) northwest of the Townof Ellerbe (see Figure 1). Development in the
area is rural in nature.
NC 73 is classified as a rural collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System
and is not a Federal-Aid Road. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, NC 73 has a 6-meter (20-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 a tangent which extends
approximately 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) east and 0.8 kilometers (0.5 miles) west from the
structure. The roadway is situated approximately 3.7 meters (12 feet) above the creek
bed.
The current traffic volume of 1,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
1,900 VPD by the year 2020. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-
trailer (TTST) and 3% dual-tired vehicles (DT). There is no posted speed limit; therefore,
the speed limit is assumed to be the statutory speed limit of 88 kilometers per hour (55
miles per hour) in the project area.
Bridge No. 31 is a four-span structure that consists of a reinforced concrete deck on
timber joists. The substructure consists of timber caps and pile bents, one supplementary
steel cap and pile crutch bent, and timber bulkhead-type abutments. The existing bridge
was originally constructed in 1929, but major rehabilitation work was done in 1983 (see
Figure 3).
The overall length of the structure is 21.3 meters (70 feet). The clear roadway width is
6.0 meters (20 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 26.3 metric tons (29 tons)
for single vehicles and the legal gross weight for TTST's.
Bridge No. 31 has a sufficiency rating of 50.5, 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, an underground
telephone line runs along the south side of the roadway approaches and is aerial at the
bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
There have been no accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 31 during the period
from April, 1992 to April, 1995.
Five school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
III. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 31 were studied. Each alternative consists of
a quadruple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 2.4-meter (8-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) graded
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 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a distance of about 150
meters (500 feet) to the west and 110 meters (360 feet) to the east of the structure. A
temporary on-site detour will be provided during the construction period immediately
northeast of the existing structure. The temporary detour, to be located about 12 meters
(40 feet) northeast (upstream) of the existing structure, will require three 1,800-millimeter
(72- inch) corrugated metal pipes with a road grade approximately 1 meter (3 feet) lower
than the existing bridge deck. Approximately 25 meters (80 feet) of channel widening in
both the upstream and downstream directions will be required to accommodate the
proposed four barrel culvert. The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per
hour (62 miles per hour). Alternative 1 is not recommended because it is more costly than
Alternative 3.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on a new roadway alignment within
the study corridor immediately northeast (upstream) of the existing bridge.
Improvements to the alignment on the approaches include approximately 150 meters
(500) feet to the west and 215 meters (700 feet) to the east. The design speed of this
alternative is 100 kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour). The existing structure will
serve as an on-site detour structure during the construction period. Alternative 2 is not
recommended because it would result in a less desirable horizontal alignment for NC 73,
and because it is more costly than Alternative 3.
Alternative 3 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. Improvements to the approach roadways will be required for a
distance of about 150 meters (500 feet) to the west and 110 meters (360 feet) to the east
of the structure. A temporary off-site detour will be provided during the construction
period (See Figure 1). To minimize the construction time, a pre-cast reinforced concrete
box culvert is recommended. Approximately 25 meters (80 feet) of channel widening in
both the upstream and downstream directions will be required to accommodate the
proposed four barrel culvert. The design speed for this alternative is 100 kilometers per
hour (62 miles per hour). Alternative 3 is recommended because it maintains the existing
horizontal tangent alignment, which is superior to the proposed alignment for Alternative
2, and is less costly to construct than Alternatives 1 and 2.
3
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by NC 73.
The NCDOT Division 8 Engineer concurs that an off-site detour is acceptable, due to the
short construction time required and the minimal additional length of travel required for
through traffic (4.2 kilometers - 2.6 miles).
The Richmond County School Transportation Director stated no objections for
maintenance of traffic off-site during the construction period.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the three alternatives are as follows:

Alternative 1
Alternative 2 (Recommended)
Alternative 3
Structure $102,000.00 $102,000.00 $113,300.00
Roadway Approaches $277,800.00 $387,800.00 $206,500.00
Detour Structure and Approaches $155,000.00 NA NA
Structural Removal $10,200.00 $10,200.00 $10,200.00
Engineering and Contingencies $80,000.00 $75,000.00 $45,000.00
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities $26,500.00 $33,000.00 $26,500.00
TOTAL $651,500.00 $608,000.00 $401,500.00
4
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 31 will be replaced at its existing location, as shown by Alternative 3 in
Figure 2, with a quadruple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 2.4-meter (8-foot) high pre-cast
reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements to the existing approaches will be
necessary for a distance of about 150 meters (500 feet) to the west and 110 meters (360
feet) to the east of the structure. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended
alternative.
A 6.6-meter (22-foot) pavement width with 1.8-meter (6-foot) graded shoulders on each
side will be provided throughout the length of the project in accordance with the current
NCDOT Policy (see Figure 4). NC 73 is classified as a rural collector; therefore, criteria
for a rural collector was used for the structure replacement. The design speed is 100
kilometers per hour (62 miles per hour).
During the construction period, traffic will be maintained using existing secondary roads
as an off-site detour, as shown in Figure 1. Time required for detouring traffic during
construction will be minimized by using a pre-cast reinforced concrete box culvert.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a
quadruple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 2.4-meter (8-foot) high pre-cast reinforced
concrete box culvert. It is anticipated that 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.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on May 7, 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.
5
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
The predominant terrestrial communities found in the project study area are man-
dominated and Piedmont Alluvial Forest. Specific communities exhibited slight variation
dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human
uses, etc.). Communities are described below.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest:
This forested community occurs in all quadrants of the bridge as well as along the creek
banks throughout the project area. The dominant canopy trees include sweet gum
(Liquidambar styraciflua), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera), American sycamore
(Platanus occidentalis), mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and hackberry (Celtis
laevigata). The understory consists of sugar maple (Ater barbatum), dogwood (Corpus
florida), green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and
black cherry (Prunus serotina). The shrub layer includes red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), red bud (Cercis canadensis), and American holly (Ilex glabra). The
herbaceous layer includes common greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), and muscadine
grape (Vitus rotundifolia).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders.
Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed and regularly maintained areas.
Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders are dominated by fescue (Festuca
spp.), ryegrass (Lolium spp.), white clover (Trifolium repens), dandelion (Taraxacum
officinale), small -flowered cranesbill (Geranium pusillum), low-hop clover (Trifolium
dubium), and narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia).
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 Buffalo Creek and associated ecotones
serve as valuable habitat. The forest bordering Buffalo Creek has all the necessary
components (food, water, protective cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in these disturbed habitats are opportunistic and capable of
surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits, and
6
seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although no animals were observed in
these areas during the site visit, raccoon (Procyon lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis
virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus spp.), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata),
American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos),
and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are typical to these disturbed habitats.
Animals previously listed may also be found in the forested communities along with the
whitetail deer (Odocoileus virginianus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and
prothonotary warbler (Protonotaria citrea). On the day of the site visit, a Northern parula
warbler (Parula americana) as well as raccoon and whitetail deer tracks were observed in
the field.
Aquatic:
Buffalo Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. Fishes such as shiners and darters likely inhabit the creek. The
macroinvertebrate community may include mayflies (Ephemeroptera), stoneflies
(Plecoptera), and dragonflies (Odonata); however, no macroinvertebrates were observed
in the creek within the project area. No fish sampling data has been reported for Buffalo
Creek.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina),
Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills to flat with gently
sloping banks along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 61 meters
(200 feet).
According to the General Soil Map for Richmond County (NRCS, 1994), the area within
the creekbed and along the creek banks consists of Chewacla-Riverview association
which is described as nearly level, somewhat poorly drained and well-drained soils on
flood plains. These soils have a loamy surface layer and a loamy subsoil. These soil
types were confirmed in the field. The soils in the project area are mapped as Chewacla
loam and Mayodan-Exway complex. Chewacla loam is a nearly level, very deep,
somewhat poorly drained soil found on flood plains. Mayodan-Exway complex consists
of gently sloping Mayodan soils and Exway soils on uplands. Mayodan soils are very
deep and well drained. Exway soils are moderately deep and well drained.
7
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses Buffalo Creek and lies within the Pee
Dee River drainage basin.
Buffalo Creek is a perennial tributary to the Little River in the Pee Dee River drainage
basin. Buffalo Creek flows south through the proposed project area. On the day of the
field investigation, the creek was approximately 7.6 to 20.3 centimeters (3 to 8 inches)
deep. Within the project area, Buffalo Creek has a classification of Class C by the North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM). Class C indicates the
creek's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. This
classification changes to Class WS-IV 0.4 miles downstream of NC 73. Class WS-IV
indicates waters protected as water supplies which are generally in moderately to highly
developed watersheds; suitable for all Class C uses. The NCDEM Classification Index
number for Buffalo Creek is 13-25-38-(0.3).
The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps for
Richmond County (1989) indicates the project area lies in Zone A, where no base flood
elevations have been determined.
The NCDEM has sampled the macroinvertebrate community throughout the state.
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. 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.
There is no benthic macroinvertebrate data or NCIBI data from Buffalo Creek.
No waters classified by 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.
The Richmond County Watershed Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit the
exposure of watersheds in Richmond 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 watershed map indicates
that the project area is not within a Critical Area.
8
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Buffalo 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 8.2 meters (27.0 feet)
Water Depth 7.6 - 20.3 centimeters (3 to 8 inches)
Water Color Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Tag alder, river birch, ironwood,
sugar maple
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
United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Buffalo 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 water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 31.
9
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 Richmond County as of the August 23, 1996
listing. These species are listed in Table 2.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY-PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR RICHMOND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina
(Common Name) Status
Acipenser brevirostrum
(shortnose sturgeon) E
Picoides borealis
(red-cockaded woodpecker) E
Lysimachia asperulaefolia
(rough-leaved loosestrife) E
Rhus michauxii
(Michaux's sumac) E
Brief descriptions of each species' characteristics, habitat requirements, and relationship
to the proposed project are discussed below.
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum)
Status: E
Family: Acipenseridae
Listed: 11125/74
The shortnose sturgeon is a large [60 to 100 centimeters (23.6 to 39.4 inches) long]
anadromous fish with a short snout and wide mouth. This fish is dark brown to black
above and light brown to yellow on the lower side with bony plates scutes along the side
of its body. It has a shark-like tail and small dorsal fins. The shortnose sturgeon exists in
many habitats but it appears to prefer the shifting sands in relatively fast flowing, medium
sized rivers and medium to large creeks. It is also found over gravel and coarse sand
substrates. Populations have been reported in the Brunswick River, the Cape Fear River
and possible in western Albemarle Sound. These fish migrate upstream from estuaries to
river spawning grounds in January and February.
10
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; The portion of the creek within the
project area is too shallow and narrow for the passage of this species. No shortnose
sturgeons were observed 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. It can be concluded that construction of the proposed project will not
impact the shortnose sturgeon.
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis)
Status: E
Family: Picidae
Listed: 10113/70
The red-cockaded woodpecker is a small [18 to 20 centimeters (7 to 8 inches) long] bird
with black and white horizontal stripes on its back, a black cap and a large white cheek
patch. The male has a small red spot or "cockade" behind the eye. The preferred nesting
habitat of the red-cockaded woodpecker is open stands of pines with a minimum age of
60 to 120 years. Longleaf pines (Pinus palustris) are preferred for nesting; however,
other mature pines such as loblolly (Pinus taeda) may be utilized. Typical nesting areas,
or territories, are pine stands of approximately 81 hectares (200 acres), however, nesting
has been reported in stands as small as 24 hectares (60 acres). Preferred foraging habitat
is pine and pine-hardwood stands of 32 to 50 hectares (80 to 125 acres) with a minimum
age of 30 years and a minimum diameter of 25 centimeters (10 inches). The red-
cockaded woodpecker utilizes these areas to forage for insects such as ants, beetles,
wood-boring insects, caterpillars, as well as seasonal wild fruit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no stands of old growth pines
within or adjacent to the study area. No red-cockaded woodpeckers were observed
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. It can be
concluded that construction of the proposed project will not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia)
Status: E
Family: Primulaceae
Listed: 6/12/87
The rough-leaved loosestrife is a rhizomatous perennial herb with whorls of 3 to 4 leaves
encircling a slender stem. This plant reaches 0.3 to 0.6 meter (1 to 2 feet) in height.
Showy yellow flowers are produced from mid-May through June and fruits are present
11
from July through October. The rough-leaved loosestrife is endemic to the coastal plain
and sandhills of North Carolina and South Carolina. It occurs in open ecotones (edges)
between longleaf pine uplands and pond pine pocosins; on moist to seasonally saturated
sands and on shallow organic soils overlaying sand. It has also been found on deep peat
in the low shrub community of large Carolina bays.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no areas of long-leaf pines
or adjacent pond-pine pocosins. No specimens were observed 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. It can be concluded that
construction of the proposed project will not impact the rough-leaved loosestrife.
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii)
Status: E
Family: Anacardiaceae
Listed: 2/28/89
Flowers Present: April - June
Michawes 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 leaflet is finely 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
This habitat type does not exist in the project area; there are no open areas and the soils
are too acidic for this species. No specimens were observed 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. 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 listed FSC species
for Richmond County and their state classifications.
12
TABLE 3
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
RICHMOND COUNTY
Scientific Name North Carolina Suitable
(Common Name) Status Habitat
Aimophila aestivalis
(Bachman's sparrow) SC No
Corynorhinus plecotus rafznesquii*
(Rafinesque's big-eared bat) Sc No
Heterodon simus*
(Southern hognose snake) SR No
Moxostroma robustum
(robust redhorse) Sc Yes
Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus
(Northern pine snake) Sc No
Atrytone arogos arogos**
(arogos skipper) SR No
Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana*
(Georgia indigo-bush) E No
Astragalus michauxii
(sandhills milkvetch) C No
Kalmia cuneata
(white wicky) E-SC No
Lilium iridollae*
(sandhills bog lily) C No
Lindera subcoriacea
(bog spicebush) E No
Potamogeton confervoides
(conferva pondweed) C No
Stylisma pickeringii var pickeringii
. (Pickering's dawnflower) E No
Tofieldia glabra
(Carolina asphodel) C No
Xyris scabrifolia
(roughleaf yellow-eyed grass) C No
* Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
* * Indicates Obscure record - the date and/or location of observation is uncertain.
NC Status: E, SC, SR and C denote Endangered, Special Concern, Significantly Rare
and Candidate, respectively.
13
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 mixed hardwood community 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
Bridge No. 31 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.07(0.18) 0.09(0.22) 0.02(0.04) 0.18(0.44)
Temporary 0.17(0.43) 0.06(0.14) 0.02(0.04) 0.25(0.61)
Alternative 2 0.26(0.65) 0.60(1.48) 0.02 (0.05) 0.88 (2.18)
Alternative 3 0.07(0.18) 0.09(0.22) 0.02 (0.04) 0.18 (0.44)
NOTES: impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-ft) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Buffalo Creek. The proposed
bridge replacement (including a temporary detour) will result in the disturbance of
approximately 0.04 hectare (0.08 acre) of stream bottom. The new replacement structure
construction and approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the creek 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.
14
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.
15
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 impacts.
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 easements 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.
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject for submittal to the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office. The bridge itself is the only structure 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.
16
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. 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 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.
Richmond 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.
In the vicinity of the project, there are no buildings with floor elevations below the 100-
year flood level.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental effects will result from implementation of the project.
17
s
1542 N HISTORIC
???? SITE 1541 ?u+
? G
? ? s Gam' E xwo
% .
cn
4r 1153

4 h 1160 9 '
1120
??- 154 J
4 Littles Mills o
I 4 4 N.

1161 q 6
•
1153 ek
Cfe
1162 l / 1159
-L?
1
3 1.0 -2 1155 ?qS
, 1 7
1153
1159 ? 6r-
1 156 cy
1212 1 186
Coving
•
w BRIDGE NO. 31 0 1152
P'
Homer Creek

I L>
.7 .9/
1.1 ? ? ?
t 157
•I
FAS
1155
11 A C9 -
Norma
ti
C HMO N
220 s-dhiu Rec.
9 Roberdel Marst
i
1148 ?S? 1151

?ll
w i
P '
1148
1322
\I
1150 14
`
•C
1150
1
i
FIGURE 1
Le-?-- LEGEND
Studied Detour Route
® North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
NC 73
BRIDGE NO. 31 OVER BUFFALO CREEK
RICHMOND COUNTY
B-2609
0 kilometers 3 i2 kilometers 6 .4
0 miles 2.0 miles 4.0
NC 73
Bridge No. 31 Over Buffalo Creek
Richmond County
B-2609
SIDE VIEW

EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
I
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3

? t?
x
a
o a w
W
d,
e b a
E ? o
.a r

°
q a G4
c
.
o co
U o?

E
m
?
W.
?.?W
W
A m
*
??m z ° J
z C
0

.0 M x
c"'.ya p
z U
Z E- a. m
w
a
in
® x
m

M G M E
W

O O
W

N W
N
y
O W J

Q? QO o
O vs O o
oc
CL X
V oc

L
a CL
....
C

J J W
3

ac

E
E
x F-
LU,
E
M ?
G vi
? J
O O
r
u G

U Q
p
a
LL
#
1 Z

I
F O J
RC, o

o c
W
??
??
s 3 C4
LU
?
a C4
o
m 4 E s Z Q N
Q
5
Z

LL
.r\T;/
X
ITTLE MILLS
1
r,
JE X
i
COUNTY BOUNDARY
yam
ZONE X

ZONE X
ZONE X
J
r
_ i
\? t
b
i
r?
i,
BRIDGE NO. 31
? O
rr.?.

.o
North Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Planning k Environmental Branch
NC 73
BRIDGE NO. 31 OVER BUFFALO CREEK
RICHMOND COUNTY
55 B-2609
FIGURE. 5
? SfAIZ v
ti
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 kI?G?-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Of Aic
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 31 on NC 73 over Buffalo Creek, Richmond
County, B-2609, ER 96-9087
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 the only structure
over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect is the bridge
itself. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the
bridge for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us. No further
historic architectural survey is recommended.
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 g??
Federal Aid # t*tZ rF - 73 z TIP # 1? - L4, County -tet tMontp
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
ief Project Description P-"t,Ac,E Wa.ivt>t: t40•3t mN tAC'1'2j 0VF-SL 12"UFFAL0 GREG
O)RtoC.e. G-R-OL p x

(D

wA/lor the Divisior4Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will he included.
Representative, 8HPO
State Ristoric Preservation Officer /
On --?? t'? t ?'l?r? , 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
Othcr
All parties present agreed
there are no properties. over fifty years old within the projects area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty scars 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 13wvaE u.. ",t are 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:
01

T
Date

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRm JR.
GovEmoR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGGHpnI.C, ?74g201 SEcRErARY
Mr. Herman Williams
Superintendent
Richmond County Schools
522 W. Hamlet Avenue
Hamlet, North Carolina 28345-2624
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Project: Bridge on NC 73 over Buffalo Creek,
Richmond County; T.I.P. No. B-2609.
Subject: Environmental Evaluation
Dear W. Williams:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to replace
the NC 73 bridge over Buffalo Creek in Richmond County (T.I.P. No. B-2609).
Attached is a location map for your information and reference.
This replacement will result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of the
existing structure does not currently appear to be a feasible option due to its
age and deteriorating condition. It is anticipated that the structure will either be
replaced at its existing location or with a facility on new location. This project will
be constructed with Federal-Aid Funds.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with the bridge replacement project. 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. How many school buses cross this structure during the course of the day?
2. Provided travel service is maintained during project construction, would
there be any other cause for concern regarding disruption to school bus
service?
3. Are you aware of any other issues or do you have other school related
concerns that may be relative to the project planning process?
"
o 4tJ
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 malted to the following address:
Nt. H. Franklin Vick. P.E.. Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highwvtys
P. 0. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Should you have any questions or need additional information, please
contact the Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Baldwin, at (919)7333141 or Bill Hood,
P.E. at Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, [phone].
Sincerely.
Attachment
1 C, ?nnn o N
Chao.
:CROSS 1?u
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and En ironmental Branch
vu rU I Sckoof. s OpeRATcs
vu s e s ?Th ?T ? v e L A C /-?w.% 73
BQ FFALo C.Rcc I? ;3R' c4T C. ;C

Schoo L Dn ? S.
1NSPoi? 1RTiaA) ?l t'??C lorZ
icE.n,o,> COUATI y SC.hoc>Ls
1 - o -q 4,

UJ I I
Frank Vick, Manager
re. - .. .... !r,a..7y r..r ..,rte-..
Groom 464
Highway Building
? -Zt?o q
STATE 01
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
s
MEMORANDUM TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pl g and Environmental Branch
CB B. Yates, Director
FROM:
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 31 on NC 73
over Buffalo Creel-. Richmond County, TIP No. B-2609
In your memorand-.,An of April 1, 1996, you requested our comments regarding the prof else
improvements to the above mentioned project.
This section of roadway does not correspond ;o a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a des,?!na c
bicycle route. At present we have no indication that there is an urusz?al number of bicyclists )n 14s
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

PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]
0

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
LT-"
ED EHNR
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb 4
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
H - z-s E3 o
8- zs?a
?-zeeC9
43 2-5) 70
t35 2-?) 89
13 -3003
b `5 0 z-Z
5-3og.1
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,
r
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] ?j
An Equol Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post consumer oooer S! , ?

=T;
.
"',t, of ?e n :,r
'iSr .?.ND'VILDLIFtI S CE
aietgh Fiela Office
?0,1 Of ire Box 33725
•,rta Carolina 2,636-3, 2
x;
In Reply Refe= '"_.
FWS/AES11P.A1NC
April 10, 1996
C

}, ;J r..

?'! 4 ?-
>j - 2.q
JCL/?,?
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-2530, 2590, 2509,
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 Endanaered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial s.Doping 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' recommendat ions should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that 4etland 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):
G?;
e anc .:e. -=r :-e rr.:r.Lse? cjE_ ?i.:c_: Z a
• z: o?a-_'f/
?n analvsls of tha alternatives to t-ie pr-)nosed Nro;ect that were
considered. _::cluding 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 to 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;
S. 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):
1. 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; 0
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,
ojec: snu -*-ive effec'::s
u. ,a ;
rger act_.on and
?. , iiated actions are those t:..:.c are pact i a 1__
de cation;
penn la the larger a-=ion for their j=;stifi
nterras of future State and private acti•xities (not
agency involvement, that will be considered as
d. Cumulat;lie r'ede impacts
requiring
part of future Section 7 consultation);
of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effectS;
5, ummary
6. A description of the manner in which the action may affect any listed
proposals to
species or associated habitat including project
reduce /eliminate adverse effects;

The service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this p
continue to advise us of the progress made in the planning process, including
your official determination of the impacts of this project.
a determination of whether the project i
may affect threatened and endangered
?, Based on evaluation uatio advenrsely affcriteria,ect or
not likely
species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has threats to sufficient information on thedror hreat ned staundertus Endangered eSpeci slAct
to propose them as endanger rotection under the ESA,
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory p
likely ence of these species or that may destroy
Federal agencies are he i continuedlexis f
to modify jeopardize prropos oposed the
or critical notbhave•enoughlscientificeinformationttossupportea
for which the Service e the
ent ti listing proposal or species which do not wrotectionsu der the ESA eSbut could
Species of Concern receive no statutory p laces
become candidates in the future if or threatened. l list?.ng becomes
available indicating they are endangered
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey
prudent
if its status in the project corridor is unknown. Therefore, it would b or their
for the project to avoid any adverse impact to candidate speces
age Program should be contacted for
habitat. The North Carolina State l Her protection.
information on species under
ro'ect. Please
sincerely yours,
e
efn
GyohnIH
d supervisor
R
Attachments
• cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
FWS/R4/KDoak/gHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96:SCP
REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Richmond County
Birds
Bald eagle (Haliaeetus Ieucocephalus) - E
Red-cockaded woodpecker (Picoides borealis) - E
Fishes
Shortnose sturgeon (Acipenser brevirostrum) - E
Plants
Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii} - E
Rough-leaved loosestrife (Lysimachia asperulaefolia) - E"
The shortnose sturgeon is under the jurisdiction o
contacted concerning your agency's responsibilities
address is:
the National Marine Fisheries Service and should be
under Section 7 of the Endangered species Act. Their
National Marine Fisheries Service
U.S. Department of commerce
9450 Koger Boulevard
Duval Building
St. Petersburg, Florida 33702
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.
Birds
Bachman's sparrow (Aimophila aestivalis) - C2
Reptiles
Northern pine snake (Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus) - C2
Plants
Conferva pondweed (Potamogeton confervoides) - C2•
Georgia leadplant (Amoroha georgiana georgiana) - C2•
Pickering's morning glory (Stylisma pickeringiivar.pickeringii) -C2
Sandhills milkvetch (Astragalus michauxii) - C2
Smooth bog-asphodel (Tofieldia Ig abra) - C2"
White-wicky (Kalmia cuneata) - C2
*Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 50'
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890 7 ' o? 9 -
2-REPLY TO Z-9 %
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996 -?
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Pianning and Environmental Branch
h North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
• Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
O
MAY 1 6 1996 _
DiVISIO'V OF
cr HIGHW?IYS
?1RONME??P
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,
0 ?, ???
J
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
°ost Offi;:e Box 11 R
Nortnsioe, Nortn Carolina 27564-0i 'I 3
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 (910) 251-4-17218
A.
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 F1 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
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)J 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 other 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.
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)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) + Date of Land Evaluation Request
08/22/96
Name Of Project Federal A ncv Involved
NC 73, Richmond County, TIP B-2609 FHWe?
Proposed Land Use II County And State
Highway, Two Lanes I Richmond County, TIP B-2609, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Da eque t Received 8SC
is ?4 ( u) 7'-
n
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). 15"' 0 Acres Irrigated
1,11 ah? Average Farm Size
?,Oct
Major Crop(s)
C. C cvy% Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction
Acres: alt % 4j? 4, t0 Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
Acres: Sq S 1"1 % '6rG • (O
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used
IR ' c_V %nova? . . 1..E Name Of Lo I Site Assessment System
;IE Date r?)Evalullltion Returned BY SCS
9 9 tjt'W
PART III (To be com
leted b
F
d
l A Alternative S ite Rating
p
y
era
e
gency)
a Site A Site 8 Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly 0 2.6
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0 0
C. Total Acres In Site 0 2.6
PART IV (To be completed by SCS)- Land Evaluation Information
- A: .Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland p
B. - Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland .
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted O. d O
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 100 Points)
PART V1 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) Maximum
Points
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
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 j
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average j
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Support Services
10. On-Farm Investments j
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12. Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS I 160 I I
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
AP Relative Value Of Farmland (From Parr V) 100
Total Site Assessment (From Parr Vl above or a local
site assessmenrl 160
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines) 260
i I I
was A Local sit= Assessment Used?
Site Selected: Date Of Selection Yes No ?
Reason For Select-on