20000607 Ver 1_Complete File_20000225

e„'s7A1F V v O
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT 1R. DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
June 9, 2000 1
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Subject: Caswell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500 over Moon Creek.
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1500(3). State Project No. 8.2480701. TIP
Project No. B-2810. 00- 0607 ,t,444i.e d i5-15- 60 U N? Z3
Dear Sir: ?/
On February 18, 2000, we submitted a request for verification of a Nationwide Permit 23 for the
replacement of Bridge No. 111 over Moon Creek in Caswell County. As described in our
original submittal Bridge No. 111 will replaced in its existing location with a bridge 307 ft long
and 30 ft wide while traffic is detoured on a structure just west of the existing bridge.
STREAM IMPACTS
It had been originally determined that a total of 255 ft of temporary stream impacts would occur
from the construction of the temporary bridge and approaches. These impacts included the
temporary fill of 125 feet of an intermittent stream and piping 130 feet of a perennial stream that
drains to Moon Creek. It has since been determined by the NCDOT Hydraulics and
Construction units that a temporary stream crossing will be needed to allow construction vehicles
to cross the perennial unnamed tributary to Moon Creek. The crossing would consist of
extending the previously described pipe an additional 70 ft. Consequently, the proposed project
would result in 325 linear feet of total temporary stream impacts.
Additionally, NCDOT previously proposed 30.4 yd3 of temporary fill to Moon Creek resulting
from the demolition of the existing bridge. Discussions with NCDOT structures engineers
indicated that the current bridge could be dismantled without dropping it into Moon Creek.
Therefore, no stream impact will result from bridge demolition.
RESTORATION PLAN
Restoration Plan: The materials used as temporary fill in construction of the road crossing will
be removed once the new bridge and approaches are complete. The stream will be restored to its
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 WEBSITE: WWW.DOH.DOT.STATE.NC.US RALEIGH, NC
original condition and fill areas will be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and
contours in the vicinity of the proposed stream crossing are available from the field survey notes.
Restoration Schedule: The project construction letting is proposed for October 17, 2000, with an
availability date of November 27, 2000. It is expected that the contractor will place the pipe and
fill for the access road along with the placement of the pipe and approach fills, and the
construction of the temporary bridge detour at this time. The temporary stream crossing will
remain in place for approximately 24 months.
Disposal Plan: The contractor will use excavating equipment to remove the pipe and fill used for
the temporary access road. The access road fill and pipe will be removed to natural grade and
the area will be planted with native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate when the new
bridge is completed. The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of
and disposal of all used materials.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
In addition to the previously requested Nationwide Permit 23, NCDOT requests a coverage for
the additional impacts under a Nationwide Permit 33 in accordance with the Federal Register of
December 13, 1996, Part VII, Vol. 61, No. 241. Attached for your information are a copy of the
Preconstruction Notification (PCN) and Permit drawings for the subject project. If you have any
questions or need any additional 'information, please contact Mr. Eric Black at [phone].
Sincerely,
William Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Timothy Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Design
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. J. M. Mills, P. E., Division 7 Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, PD&EA
ti
r
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #):NWP 33
PRE-CONSTRUCTION NOTIFICATION APPLICATION
FOR NATIONWIDE PERMITS THAT REQUIRE:
1) NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS
2) APPLICATION FOR SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION
3) COORDINATION WITH THE NC DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT
SEND THE ORIGINAL AND (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED FORM TO THE APPROPRIATE
FIELD OFFICE OF THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET).
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL
MANAGEMENT (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET). PLEASE PRINT.
1. OWNERS NAME: NCDOT; Project Development and Environmental Analysis.
2. MAILING ADDRESS: 1548 Mail Service Center
SUBDIVISION NAME:
CITY: Raleigh STATE: NC
ZIP CODE: 27699-1548
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS, INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK): 919-733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER:
William D. Gilmore, P.E., Branch Manager
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Caswell NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Yanceyville, NC
1
t
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.): Bridge
No. 111 is located over Moon Creek on SR 1500 in Caswell County.
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER: Moon Creek (Class C, DWQ Index #22-
51), UT to Moon Creek Creek (Class C, DWQ Index #22-51)
RIVER BASIN: Roanoke River Basin
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (W'S-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
7b. IS THE PROJECT LOCATED WITHIN A NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL
MANAGEMENT AREA OF ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN (AEC)?YES[ ] NO[x]
7c. IF THE PROJECT IS LOCATED WITHIN A COASTAL COUNTY (SEE PAGE 7 FOR
LIST OF COASTAL COUNTIES), WHAT IS THE LAND USE PLAN (LUP) DESIGNATION?
N/A
8a. HAVE ANY SECTION 404 PERMITS BEEN PREVIOUSLY REQUESTED FOR USE ON
THIS PROPERTY? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, PROVIDE ACTION I.D. NUMBER OF
PREVIOUS PERMIT AND ANY ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (INCLUDE PHOTOCOPY OF 401
CERTIFICATION):
8b. ARE ADDITIONAL PERMIT REQUESTS EXPECTED FOR THIS PROPERTY IN THE
FUTURE? YES [ ] NO [x] IF YES, DESCRIBE ANTICIPATED WORK:
9a. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES IN TRACT OF LAND:
9b. ESTIMATED TOTAL NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS LOCATED ON PROJECT
SITE:
N/A
2

10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: EXCAVATION:
FLOODING:
DRAINAGE:
OTHER:
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: N/A
10b. (1) STREAM CHANNEL TO BE IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT (IF
RELOCATED, PROVIDE DISTANCE BOTH BEFORE AND AFTER RELOCATION):
LENGTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER: N/A FT
WIDTH BEFORE (based on normal high water contours): N
WIDTH AFTER: FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: N/A FT AFTER:
FT
FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL: x
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER:
11. IF CONSTRUCTION OF A POND IS PROPOSED, WHAT IS THE SIZE OF THE
WATERSHED DRAINING TO THE POND? N/A
WHAT IS THE EXPECTED POND SURFACE AREA?
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 1/2" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): Replacement of existing bridge with a 307' x 30' bridge.
Traffic will be maintained on a detour structure located just west of
the existing structure during construction. Mechanical equipment will
include heavy duty excavation equipment.
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: Bridge Replacement (Public
Transportation)
3

14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): No wetland impacts will occur from bridge construction.
17. DOES THE PROJECT INVOLVE AN EXPENDITURE OF PUBLIC FUNDS OR THE USE
OF PUBLIC (STATE) LAND?
YES [x] NO [] (IF NO, GO TO 18)
a. IF YES, DOES THE PROJECT REQUIRE PREPARATION OF AN
ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT PURSUANT TO THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE NORTH
CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT?
YES [x] NO [ ]
b. IF YES, HAS THE DOCUMENT BEEN REVIEWED THROUGH THE NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION STATE CLEARINGHOUSE?
YES [x] NO [ ]
IF ANSWER TO 17b IS YES, THEN SUBMIT APPROPRIATE DOCUMENTATION FROM THE
STATE CLEARINGHOUSE TO DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REGARDING
COMPLIANCE WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT.
QUESTIONS REGARDING THE STATE CLEARINGHOUSE REVIEW PROCESS SHOULD BE
DIRECTED TO MS. CHRYS BAGGETT, DIRECTOR STATE CLEARINGHOUSE, NORTH
CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATION, 116 WEST JONES STREET, RALEIGH,
NORTH CAROLINA 27603-8003, TELEPHONE [phone].
4
18. THE FOLLOWING ITEMS SHOULD BE INCLUDED WITH THIS APPLICATION IF
PROPOSED ACTIVITY INVOLVES THE DISCHARGE OF EXCAVATED OR FILL MATERIAL
INTO WETLANDS:
a. WETLAND DELINEATION MAP SHOWING ALL WETLANDS, STREAMS, LAKES
AND PONDS ON THE PROPERTY (FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT NUMBERS 14, 18, 21,
26, 29, AND 38). ALL STREAMS (INTERMITTENT AND PERMANENT) ON THE
PROPERTY MUST BE SHOWN ON THE MAP. MAP SCALES SHOULD BE 1 INCH EQUALS
50 FEET OR 1 INCH EQUALS 100 FEET OR THEIR EQUIVALENT.
b. IF AVAILABLE, REPRESENTATIVE PHOTOGRAPH OF WETLANDS TO BE
IMPACTED BY PROJECT.
C. IF DELINEATION WAS PERFORMED BY A CONSULTANT, INCLUDE ALL DATA
SHEETS RELEVANT TO THE PLACEMENT OF THE DELINEATION LINE.
d. ATTACH A COPY OF THE STORMWATER MANAGEMENT PLAN IF REQUIRED.
e. WHAT IS LAND USE OF SURROUNDING PROPERTY? Agricultural,
residential, and forested property.
f. IF APPLICABLE, WHAT IS PROPOSED METHOD OF SEWAGE DISPOSAL?
N/A
g. SIGNED AND DATED AGENT AUTHORIZATION LETTER, IF APPLICABLE.
NOTE: WETLANDS OR WATERS OF THE U.S. MAY NOT BE IMPACTED PRIOR TO:
1) ISSUANCE OF A SECTION 404 CORPS OF ENGINEERS PERMIT,
2) EITHER THE ISSUANCE OR WAIVER OF A 401 DIVISION OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT (WATER QUALITY) CERTIFICATION, AND
3) (IN THE TWENTY COASTAL COUNTIES ONLY), A LETTER FROM THE
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION OF COASTAL MANAGEMENT STATING THE PROPOSED
ACTIVITY IS CONSISTENT WITH THE NORTH CAROLINA COASTAL MANAGEMENT
PROGRAM.
"I' i 75? 14 ?- z
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
5
DATE
AGENCY ADDRESSES
I INe.m
n
a C A
5
I
eae•
r. i ??r N
I ?.
1360 • 1500 0 1503
-? • I SOd D NY<7
3 ? 1512 'y
gb 1506 1503
` e a e ?
a do
1524
1330 ) 1 115 1510
1329 1511
.S 1511
?' p 6
` Providence
tea' •`1500 1513 a h 1523
1300
1300 1.1 ' 1.8
f n' FAS P
1514 1522. 1•0
1611 ` P
4 1605
11330 .3 1 "21328 1517 Purley-0 15_1155
1523 V.
Q 1500 1516
? .l ,5
1331 O
b 4 1127
CiQey ' .7 .1i.3 -:u 4520 1521 1572
1325 1609 .q iw o
Park o
;_;1500 1523
b Spring 1571
.3 1321 ? 1518 0' -
1306 132d Covington K-2
m s t s b??,?
1323 9 1519
VICINITY
MAIDS
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CASWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2480701 (B-2810)
BRIDGE NO. Ill
ON SR 1500 OVER
MOON CREEP
SHEET OF
i
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
L
WETLAND
WL
P DENOTES FILL IN
Q? FLOW DIRECTION
T?? TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
C PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATERS
* • • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• CLEARING IN WETLANDS
F PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
ANk NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB= EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
XXXXX LIVE STAKES
CD BOULDER
- - - CORE FIBER ROLLS
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
LEGEND
PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
(?? SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
00000 VORTEX ROCK WEIR
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
DISSIPATOR BASIN
VANE
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CASWELL COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2480701 (B-2810)
REPLACE BRIDGE #111
OVER MOON CREEK
SHEET OF ?!
N
00
_ i ? \I \ II F m
a
\ a x z ,-U
.? z ® ° a
o a Z
00 0
.0, 0
- ' ow ow
? i3N? I W , ? 0
\ - \ A A Ow W
I ? \ U ?
111 11 ? ? 9?`\ \\ z ?
W
1 ? \
R ° 0 1 , 65Hm
??°/ , ? I 1 WSW 1 \ ? O
15
tk
LL
/ r V)
/ aw
W
/ w LL
z v>
I I w
aZ
F?
?Q

1
O
O F o
N ?wz
z U
w0 z w u o
\ ® cai? W A o O
® \ E? cn d tia
-4 0 Co
W > V Q?
\ U W
W
` z
\N?
U
? QQ O o
O
a_ ob -?
w
? v1
L i
CL L
wQ -
l
I
I
i
O
O
Qo
l
1

I

I
I

I
I
I

I
I
I z
0
H
F

°

F
rZ4
o
a
w
U
z

a

w

o
z
°
>
A

F

a

v

.
o

?
00

s

o0
c?.

Ol
,mow

d
zoo
w=
c?z o
Q ? ?0
?z
° E-'
?

ti I
I
I
?
I
f
I

J
_J I
I
C?

O
M
Q I z

I p
W I C7
I J ?
I ?

F-
I p
I z
I
C I

I

I
I
I
I
I
I

Z

? S Z °
=O
OD
11
Q
J
~
W

o
LL Z
0_ R' to U) 55
Q
O
?j U
W ao

U
Z w F-
O w

CL A -6
m
a?
F-

c
(V
O
a
E

N
F
N
cu
(9

O
N (U
O N
O ?
O
7 C
O
U
U) Z cv F- CL

0 c

o m C
? ° o
o
C r N N
w U
v
n> ?

?U
?
C
Q •
U
N N a?
N
N
M
? W U E

? o 0 0
? ac
?
E o 0 0
w c
? -
U

C U
? C ? (0
v
LL

f6
Z
v
N ?
•C ._ O f0
L N
? U a)

a?
U ? "•' f0

(n N
N N
H C

Q "
C

?
a 0
O
c
•
Q ? ? m
C
G
O cu a> m
U
Q W c

? c
IL
3
E ?
a>
c
c ?
m
= m
a

? a a

U ,N U
U U
U

fn (O CO
O
N O

O
O
p d
p
?
N
O
w + +
r r
(O (O

U O J

O U-
Q } O
J ?.
04
d co
7
.- a
..a SL1Tf' °?
vuw
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR
February 18, 2000
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
0006(j..
SUBJECT: Caswell County, Replacement of Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500 over Moon
Creek. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1500(3). State Project No.
8.2480701. TIP Project No. B-2810.
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 111 over Moon Creek (Index # 22-51) a "Class C" waters of the state. The proposed
project will consist of replacing the current 304 ft long and 17 ft wide bridge with a 307 ft
long and 30 ft wide bridge at the existing location and at approximately the same
elevation. All traffic will be maintained on a detour structure located just west of the
existing structure during construction. The proposed bridge dimensions differ from those
previously described in the environmental document. These discrepancies are due to
changes in bridge design.
STREAM AND WETLAND IMPACTS
The superstructure of Bridge No. 111 is composed of reinforced concrete (RC) deck
girders carrying a RC deck slab and bridge rails. The substructure includes a mix of RC
Post & Beam and RC Post & Webb Piers. Only one of the eight spans is actually over
Moon Creek, the remainder is over land. The asphalt wearing surface and the bridge rails
will be removed without dropping components into the creek. It may be required that one
span of RC deck and girders be dropped into the water during demolition of the bridge
resulting in a temporary fill of 30.4 yd3. Removal of the substructure will not result in
fill
SECRETARY
" ?1dt1 2131V
r„ 4
S 3 _ l ?
A total of 255 ft of temporary stream impacts will be associated with the construction of
the temporary bridge and approaches. These impacts include 130 ft of a perennial
unnamed tributary to Moon Creek, and 125 ft to an intermittent unnamed tributary to
Moon Creek. Once construction of the new bridge is complete, the temporary bridge and
approaches will be removed. Approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area
will be planted with native grasses and/ or tree species as appropriate.
The environmental document indicates that approximately 0.7 acres of wetland will be
impacted by the proposed project. A detailed wetland survey was conducted by NCDOT
biologist Bruce Ellis on March 17, 1998. Wetlands were not located in the project area.
Consequently, there are no wetland impacts associated with the project.
THREATENED AND/OR ENDANGERED SPECIES
As of January 3, 2000, there a4 r &Federally Threatened or Endangered species listed for
Caswell County, N ft Carolina.
NEPA DOCUME STATUS / REGULATORY APPROVALS
Attached for your information is a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the subject
project and a list of plant species commonly used for typical streambank reforestation.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion"`'in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We propose to proceed under a
Nationwide Permit 23 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 during construction of the project.
Additionally, a request is made to the Division of Water Quality by copy of this
application for the appropriate 401 Water Quality Certification.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Eric
Black at [phone].
Sincerely,
C- 61"KI
William Gilmore, P. E., Branch Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis
Cc: w/attachments
Mr. David Franklin, COE
Mr. John Dorney, NCDWQ
Mr. Timothy Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. John Alford, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P. E., Program Design
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. J. M. Mills, P. E., Division VII Engineer
Ms. Karen Orthner, Project Development and Environmental Analysis
r
RF-1
? TYPE 1 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 3 FF. TO 5 FT. ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 4 FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 2724 PLANTS PER ACRE.
? TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE PLANTED 6 FT. TO 10 FF. ON CENTER, RANDOM
SPACING, AVERAGING 8 FT. ON CENTER, APPROXIMATELY 680 PLANTS PER ACRE.
? NOTE: TYPE 1 AND TYPE 2 STREAMBANK REFORESTATION SHALL BE
PAID FOR AS "STREAMBANK REFORESTATION"
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION TYPICAL
TYPE II
TYPE I
s Ff.
fT.
S7 REll
STREANIBANK REFORESTATION
MIXTURE. TYYE, SIZE. AND FURNISH SHALL CONFORM TO THE FOLLONNING:
50% SALIX NIGRA
50% CORNUS AMOMUM
TYPE 2
25% LIQUIDAMBAR STYRACIFLUA
25% PLATANUS OCCIDENTALIS
25% PRUNUS SEROTINA
25% BETULA NIGRA
BLACK WILLOW 12 in - 18 in BR
SILKY DOGWOOD 12 in - 18 in BR
SWEETGUM
SYCAMORE
BLACK CHERRY
RIVER BIRCH
12 in 18 in BR
12 in - 18 in BR'
12 in - 18 in BR
12 in - 18 in BR
? SEE PLAN SHEETS FOR AREAS TO BE PLANTED
STREAMBANK REFORESTATION
DETAIL SHEET
N.C.D.O.T.- ROADSIDE ENVIRONMENTAL UNIT
-.4, 8
Caswell County,
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500
Over Moon Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1500(3)
State Project 8.2480701
TIP Project B-2810
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Z-13 -9 7 E,q/. &Q'
Date j?,,-H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Date .cholas L. Gra , P. E.
Division Administrator, FHWA

. .A 0
Caswell County,
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500
Over Moon Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1500(3)
State Project 8.2480701
TIP Project B-2810
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
February 1997
Documentation Prepared in Planning and Environmental Branch By:
William T. Goodwin, Jr., P. E.
Project Planning Engineer

2,k? -9 7
Wayne'(Elliott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
r,q?.

Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
I
?N GARO
s4k '? •
SEAL s
: 2177 i
?q ' tiFN G i N ??? 'y? ? ? •`'
GO,

Caswell County,
Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500
Over Moon Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ - 1500(3)
State Project 8.2480701
TIP Project B-2810
1. SUMMARY OF PROJECT
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 111, Caswell County. This bridge carries SR 1500 over Moon Creek (see Figure 1). NCDOT
includes this bridge in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge
replacement project. NCDOT and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) classify this
project as a federal Categorical Exclusion. These agencies expect no notable environmental
impacts.
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 111 in its existing location as shown in Alternate 2,
Figure 2. NCDOT recommends replacing the bridge with a new bridge approximately 108 meters
(354 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. This structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter
(24 foot) travelway across the structure with a 1.0 meter (3 foot) lateral off-set on each side. The
approach roadway will consist of 7.2 meters (24 feet) of pavement and a minimum of 2.4 meter
(8 foot) grassed shoulders. The new bridge will be at approximately the same elevation as the
existing bridge. The completed project will provide a design speed of approximately 70 km/h
(45 mph).
The estimated cost is $ 1,742,000 including $ 42,000 for right of way acquisition and
$ 1,700,000 for construction. The estimated cost included in the 1997-2003 TIP is $ 695,000.
II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
NCDOT may be required to seek a design exception due to the low design speed for this
project. The design speed for the project is affected by the existing horizontal alignment. The
recommended alternate will improve the design speed of the roadway, but it will not reach the
desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph). To improve the alignment enough to meet the
desired design speed would require extensive approach work on both approaches and would
drastically increase the project cost.
III. SUMMARY OF PROJECT COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All applicable Best Management Practices will be installed and properly
maintained during project construction.
t -.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
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." A Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23 will
likely be applicable for this project.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification will be obtained prior to issue of the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23.
Once construction of the new bridge is complete, the temporary bridge and approaches
will be removed. Approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will be planted with
native grasses and/or tree species as appropriate.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
NCDOT classifies SR 1500 as a rural local route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. The surrounding area is primarily wooded with a few scattered residences
and small farm plots mixed in.
Near Bridge No. 111, SR 1500 is a two lane paved road, 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide with
grassed shoulders. At the bridge, SR 1500 is reduced to one lane about 4.2 meters (14 feet) wide.
Vertical alignment in the area is good, while horizontal alignment is poor with a curve on the
north approach just north of the bridge.
NCDOT built Bridge No. 111 in 1921. The bridge has an asphalt overlay surface on a
reinforced concrete deck girder system. The bridge has reinforced concrete post and beam or post
and web bents and reinforced concrete abutment end bents. The deck of Bridge No. 111 is 6.7
meters (22 feet) above the streambed. Water depth is approximately 1.0 meter (3.0 feet) in the
project area. The bridge is 92.7 meters (304 feet) long with a 5.2 meter (17 foot) roadway width.
It carries one lane of traffic and the posted load limit is 19 tons for single vehicles and 23 tons for
Truck-tractor Semi-trailer (TTST).
According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of Bridge No. 111
is 22.4 of a possible 100.0.
The current traffic volume is 900 vehicles per day (VPD), projected to 2100 VPD by the
design year (2020). No speed limit is posted in the project area, therefore it is assumed to be 55
mph by statute. There is an advisory speed limit of 40 mph due to the single lane bridge and the
curves in the area of the bridge.
Traffic Engineering accident records indicate two accidents were reported in the vicinity
of Bridge No. 111 between March 1, 1993 and February 29, 1996.
The Transportation Director for Caswell County Schools indicated that there are 10 to 15
school buses crossing the bridge twice each daily (20 to 30 trips daily).
2
V. ALTERNATES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 111 were studied. Each of the alternates studied
involves a replacement structure 108 meters (354 feet) long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. This
structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway across the structure with a 1.0
meter (3 foot) lateral off-set on each side. The approach roadway will consist of 7.2 meters (24
feet) of pavement and a minimum of 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed shoulders.
The alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate One - replace the bridge on existing location with a new structure. Approximately 150
meters (500 feet) of approach roadway work is required. Traffic is to be detoured along
existing roads as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate Two (Recommended) - replace the bridge on existing location with a new structure.
This alternate would involve approximately 150 meters (500 feet) of approach roadway
work. Traffic would be maintained on a detour structure located just west of the existing
structure during construction.
The "do-nothing" alternate is not practical, requiring the eventual closing of the road as
the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is
neither practical nor economical.
VI. COST ESTIMATE
Estimated costs of the alternates studied are as follows:
Structure
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure & Approaches
Structure Removal
Misc. and Mobilization
Engineering & Contingencies
Total Construction
Right of Way & Utilities
TOTAL PROJECT COST
Alternate One Alternate Two
(Recommended)
645,000 645,000
76,000 76,000
-0- 390,000
37,000 37,000
242,000 327,000
150,000 225,000
1,150,000 1,700,000
28,000 42,000
1,178,000 1,742,000
VII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 111 in its existing location, as shown in Alternate 2,
Figure 2. Traffic will be maintained on a temporary bridge during construction.
3
NCDOT will replace Bridge No. 111 with a new bridge that will be 108 meters (354 feet)
long and 9.2 meters (30 feet) wide. This structure width will accommodate a 7.2 meter (24 foot)
travelway across the structure with a 1.0 meter (3 foot) lateral clearance on each side.
Initial design indicates that the completed project will provide a design speed of
approximately 70 km/h (45 mph). The project will require approximately 150 meters (500 feet)
of improved approach roadway. The approach roadway will consist of 7.2 meters (24 feet) of
pavement and a minimum of 2.4 meter (8 foot) grassed shoulders. Where the design requires
guardrail, the shoulder will be at least 3.3 meters (11 feet) wide. The new structure and roadway
approaches will be at approximately the same elevation as the existing roadway.
NCDOT recommends Alternate 2 because it is the most cost-effective, reasonable, and
feasible method of replacing Bridge No. 111 while maintaining traffic operations and emergency
access to the project site. Alternate 1, an off-site detour, is less expensive than Alternate 2; but
does not maintain emergency access. This access is important to the area as shown by letters
from Law Enforcement, Government, and Emergency Response Officials included in the
appendix to this report.
An alternate for realigning SR 1500 and maintaining traffic on the existing bridge during
construction would be considerably more expensive than the recommended alternate because
such an alternate would involve extensive approach realignment on both approaches. This
approach work would make a new alignment alternate cost significantly more than Alternate 2
and would increase the environmental impacts of such an alternate. A realignment to the east
would probably require the relocation of at least one residence if such a alignment were moved
east so that traffic could be maintained on-site. A permanent realignment to the west is not
desired because it would move the existing curve closer to the end of the bridge or onto the
bridge, which would adversely effect the safety of the alignment. Such an alternate was not
considered in detail for these reasons.
The division engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate 2. He states that the
disruption to emergency services and school bus operations caused by Alternate 1 are great
enough to justify the increased cost of Alternate 2. Traffic should be maintained on-site during
construction.
VIII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
A. General Environmental Effects
The project is considered to be a "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the
human or natural environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
4
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition
will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl
refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
There are no known hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Construction of Alternate 2 will not have a significant adverse impact on the floodplain
or associated flood hazard. The elevation of the 100-year flood will not be increased by more
than 30 centimeters (12 inches).
NCDOT expects utility conflicts to be low for a project of this type and magnitude.
B. Architectural and Archaeological Resources
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's regulations for compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section
106 requires that 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.
Architectural Resources
The area of potential effect (APE) for historic architectural resources was reviewed in the
field by a NCDOT staff architectural historian. Bridge No. 111, built in 1921, is the only
property over fifty years of age located within the APE. At a meeting on September 26, 1996, the
State Historic Preservation Office concurred that the bridge is not eligible for the National
Register. A copy of the concurrence form signed at the meeting is included in the appendix.
Archaeological Resources
The SHPO has indicated that there are no known archaeological sites in the project area.
Based on present knowledge of the area, no unknown sites are likely to be found. Therefore, no
archaeological surveys were requested for this project.
C. Natural Systems
Methodology
Prior to a site visit, published resource information of the project area was gathered and
reviewed. Information sources include: US Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute series
quadrangle map (Yanceyville, VA), US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands
Inventory (NWI) map (Yanceyville, VA), NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1:1200
[1"=100']), US Department of Agriculture (USDA) Natural Resources Conservation Service
(MRCS) Soil Surveys (Person and Rockingham Counties), and US Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) and NC Natural Heritage Program (NHP) lists of protected species and database of
uncommon and protected species and unique habitats.
Field surveys were conducted in the project area on December 31, 1996. Plant
communities were identified and recorded. Wildlife was identified using a number of observation
techniques, including habitat evaluation, active searching and recording identifying signs of
wildlife (sounds, tracks, scats and burrows). Cursory surveys of aquatic communities were
accomplished by observation and inspection of substrate materials.
Physiography
The project area lies in the extreme northern and central portion of the Piedmont
physiographic province. The topography of the project area is characterized as gently undulating
with associated broad bottomland floodplains. Climatological data is not available for Caswell
County, however, the region encounters total annual precipitation rates of 42 to 48 inches.
Average annual temperatures range from about 56 F to 58 F (USDA, 1992 and 1995).
Soils
There is no published soil survey for Caswell County; however, some information was
available from the USDA District Conservationist and soil surveys completed for two adjacent
counties: Person County and Rockingham County. One general soils unit, the Chewacla-
Congaree-Wehadkee soils association, occurs in the project area. This soils unit is characterized
by nearly level, deep, well-drained soils that have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. This unit is
associated with flood plains (USDA, 1992). Of the soil series in this association, Chewacla and
Wehadkee are listed as hydric soils; however, the Congaree soils series may contain hydric soil
inclusions of the Chewacla and Wehadkee series. Some soil classifications have been conducted
in the project area. Data collected indicate that Chewacla soils are predominant on the south side
of Moon Creek. Soils in other parts of the project area are likely to be limited to Congaree,
Chewacla or Wehadkee soil series (UDSA, 1996). Descriptions of these soils follow.
6
Congaree loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, occasionally flooded - These soils are very deep,
well-drained soils on floodplains. They have formed in loamy alluvial deposits and have a loamy
surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is high. The
seasonal high water table is at a depth of between 0.76 and 1.22 m (2.5 and 4.0 ft). These soils
are subject to frequent flooding (USDA, 1996).
Chewacla loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded -These soils are very deep,
somewhat poorly drained soils on floodplains. They have formed in loamy alluvial deposits and
have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is
high. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of about 0.30 m (1 ft). These soils are subject to
frequent flooding (USDA, 1996).
Wehadkee silt loam, 0 to 2 percent slopes, frequently flooded - These soils are very deep,
poorly drained soils on narrow floodplains. They have formed in alluvial deposits and have a
loamy surface layer and subsoil. Permeability is moderate and available water capacity is
moderate to high. The seasonal high water table is at a depth of between 0.15 and 0.46 m (0.5
and 1.5 ft). These soils are subject to frequent flooding (USDA, 1992).
Field observations indicate that hydric soils within the project area were found over most
of the area south of Moon Creek, on both sides of SR 1500. Soil samples taken in these areas
measured a color of 10YR5/2 with evidence of organic material and common medium,
yellowish-red mottling (5YR5/8) in the B-horizon at depths between 25 and 50 cm (10 and 20
in). In other areas, soil sample colors were measured as 10YR5/3 and 10YR5/4 with no evidence
of organic material or mottling. Groundwater was present within 0.5 m (1.5 ft) of the ground
surface in the low lying, depressed areas south of Moon Creek. No evidence of groundwater was
found near the ground surface at other locations.
Drainage Basin(s)
Moon Creek will be traversed by the new facility and will be impacted as a result of
bridge construction. This stream lies within the Dan River Sub-basin of the Roanoke River
Basin. Moon Creek originates in the western portion of Caswell County, about 18 km (11 mi.) to
the southwest of the project crossing, and flows in a northeasterly direction into the Dan River,
approximately 6.5 km (4.0 mi.) downstream of the project crossing. Two small, unnamed,
intermittent tributaries conjoin with Moon Creek on the immediate upstream side (west) of the
existing bridge.
Moon Creek bears an NC Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
(DEHNR), Division of Water Quality (DWQ) classification index number of 22-51 (DEHNR,
1993). The unnamed, intermittent tributaries are not indexed; therefore, it carries the same index
number (22-51) as Moon Creek.
7
Water Body Characteristics
Moon Creek, in general, is a slightly meandering stream in the project region but flows
perpendicularly to the roadway in the project vicinity. As a result, only a single crossing of the
stream will be required for this project. The stream channel is located on the western side of a
broad 90- to 125-m (300- to 400-ft) wide floodplain in the project vicinity. The stream banks are
relatively high (1.8 to 2.4 in [6 to 8 ft]), steep and highly eroded. A small ridge along the stream
bank separates the waterway from the terrestrial communities. The substrate of Moon Creek is
comprised primarily of sand and gravel but is heavily overlain with silt. Detritus remains in some
of the small pool areas. Stream flows are moderate and the water is slightly turbid. Some siltation
was also noted, due likely to the moderate rainfall that had occurred in the area overnight and in
the early morning. In the project vicinity, the average depth of Moon Creek is about 0.75 m (2 ft)
with some pools as deep as 1.2 m (4.0 ft). Its width ranges from 11 to 18 m (35 to 60 ft)
averaging about 12 in (40 ft). In the project area, Moon Creek is about 14 in (45 ft) wide and
about 0.76 m (2.5 ft) deep.
The intermittent tributaries on the west side of the roadway, south of the creek, are both
approximately 1 in (3 ft) wide and will both likely be affected by the new bridge construction,
regardless of the alternative selected (see Section 3.3.5 with regard to impacts). During the site
visit, these tributaries had a silt and sand substrate with a water depth of about 5 cm (2 in);
however, due to low flows, shallow depth, recent rainfall and no evidence of benthic
macroinvertebrates, it is apparent that these streams are intermittent.
Best Usage Classification
Moon Creek has been designated by the DWQ with a Best Usage Classification of C
(DEHNR, 1993). Class C designates waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture (DEHNR, 1994). No waters classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS-I, or WS-1I occurs
within 1.6 km (1 mi.) of the project area. The Dan River has also been designated as Class C
waters.
Water Quality
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms. The species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN monitoring, or sampling sites have been
established within the Moon Creek watershed. However, one site, located in the Dan River about
13 km (8 mi.) downstream from the project area, had a "good" water quality rating by the DWQ
(DEHNR, 1989).
The Division of Environmental Management National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) report lists no permitted discharges into the stream crossed by the proposed
project, nor are there any listed within the project region.
8
Anticipated Impacts: Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources include the disruption of the substrate, increased
sedimentation and siltation, and temporary decreases of dissolved oxygen. Clearing and grubbing
activities, as well as bridge construction activities will impact the water resources. Most impacts
will be temporary in nature during project construction and are likely to be limited to the project
area. The placement of an in-stream pier(s) will result in a permanent loss of streambed habitat.
Sedimentation is the most serious impact to the waters of the unnamed stream channel
which will be crossed. Studies have shown that during roadway construction, there is a direct
correlation between the amount of suspended particles in the stream channel with the amount of
clearing and grubbing activity, embankment modification, and project duration. Not only is
sedimentation detrimental to the aquatic ecosystem, but changes in physical characteristics of the
stream also occur. Sedimentation of the stream channel causes changes in flow rate and stream
course, which may lead to increased streambank scour and erosion. Sedimentation also leads to
increased turbidity of the water column. Removal of the riparian vegetation could result in
decreases in dissolved oxygen and temperature instability of the stream.
Additionally, modifications to the water flows as a result of the new bridge (pier
placement, hydraulic opening, etc.) may change the floodplain hydrological characteristics,
particularly downstream from the bridge crossing.
Alternate 1 would have the least overall impact to water resources. Alternate 2 would
result in both temporary and permanent impacts due to the placement and removal of the
temporary detour. Impacts resulting from bridge construction will be directly related to the size
(hydraulic opening) of the new structure and placement (position and configuration) of the piers
as they relate to the main stream channel.
Impacts to water resources can be minimized by avoiding in-stream construction
activities. Strict adherence to and enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control practices
will minimize stormwater runoff and sediment loading into the waterway.
Biotic Resources
This section describes the ecosystems encountered and the relationships between
vegetative and faunal components within terrestrial and aquatic ecosystems. Descriptions of the
terrestrial systems are presented in the context of the Classification of the Natural Communities
of North Carolina - Third Approximation (Schafale and Weakley, 1990).
Representative animal species which are likely to occur in these habitats are provided.
Animals observed during the site visit are identified with an asterisk (*). Information regarding
their respective "roles" within that community is provided. Sightings of spoor evidence are
equated with sightings of individuals.
9
Terrestrial Communities
One natural community type was identified within the project area. This is a palustrine
system - Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest. Other terrestrial communities in the project
area are man-dominated, consisting of old fields, lawns, cultivated fields and pasture land.
Micro-communities, particularly within the man-dominated areas were observed; however, due
to their small size and relationship to the project area, no further discussion is provided.
Community composition is reflective of the physiography, topography and current and
prior land uses of the area. All community types have had some degree of past or continued
human disturbance. As a result of disturbances, changes in vegetative dominance often occur
within the community types. Numerous terrestrial animals are highly adaptive and populate a
variety of habitats. Therefore, many of the species mentioned may occur in any number of the
different community types described. Other animals are tolerant of a narrow range of
environmental conditions and may be limited to a particular habitat type. These species are the
most vulnerable to habitat disturbance.
Man-Dominated or Maintained Communities
Maintained communities are land parcels in which the vegetation is kept in a low-
growing, non-successional state. These communities, which include roadside shoulders, utility
corridors, agricultural fields, pastures, borrow pit/waste areas, old fields, residential lawns and
urban landscapes, vary greatly with regard to vegetative composition.
Roadside Shoulder, Embankment, Waste Area and Utility Corridor
Roadside shoulder habitats along the existing SR 1500 will be impacted by all proposed
alignments. Fescue is the primary plant component of this community, along with various other
weedy species associated with disturbed areas. These species include: Japanese honeysuckle,
morning glory and blackberry
An electrical utility corridor parallels the roadway shoulder and embankment on the east
side. Some relocation to this utility may be required as a result of project construction. This
corridor is narrow (9 in [30 ft]) and is periodically maintained. Because the utility poles are
placed along the toe of the roadway embankment, the vegetative component is not
distinguishable from that of the roadway embankment.
Resident fauna is limited by continual habitat disturbance and consists mainly of small
animals. Species such as eastern harvest mouse and white-footed mouse have been shown to be
more abundant in roadside ROW'S than in adjacent habitats. Insects, earthworms and other
invertebrates are also abundant in roadside habitats.
Roadsides are utilized primarily as a travel corridor between other habitats, or as a
foraging zone for species of adjacent woodlands. Foraging opportunities offered by roadside
habitats include seeds, fruits and insects, as well as other small animals (rodents, etc.). The
10
animals utilizing this habitat are susceptible to roadkill. Roadkill species noted during field
investigations include raccoon*, Virginia opossum*, and gray squirrel*. Species such as turkey
vulture*, American crow*, and domestic dogs and cats often scavenge on carrion along
roadways.
Pasture and Cultivated Fields, Old Fields
Vegetation in the pasture is dominated primarily by various grasses including fescue, rye
grasses and velvet grass, as well as clovers. Other fields in the area have been used for cultivating
corn.
East of SR 1500 and north of Moon Creek, there is a gentle slope, formerly an old field,
with very dense vegetation. There is no canopy or sub-canopy, however, scattered loblolly pine,
scrub pine and stands of sweetgum dominate the shrub layer. The understory is extremely dense
consisting of blackberry, Japanese honeysuckle, greenbrier and Joe-pye-weed
Of all the maintained community types, the old field will have the highest faunal
abundance and diversity. Small animals such as eastern cottontail*, eastern harvest mouse,
white-footed mouse, house mouse, eastern mole and meadow vole are likely to occur in this
habitat. Insects, earthworms and other invertebrates are also abundant in pastures. Other animals
such as white-tailed deer* also forage in these areas.
Smaller birds such as the northern bobwhite*, mourning dove*, song sparrow*, northern
cardinal*, and eastern bluebird may also forage in this habitat on seeds and berries while species
like the American robin*, and white-throated sparrow* feed on the many species of insects and
earthworms attracted to this type of habitat. Various snakes, skinks and lizard are also common
occupants of this habitat type, although none were observed during the site visit.
The eastern kingsnake and red-shoulder hawk, commonly found in riparian systems, as
well as red-tailed hawk*, and grey fox, are some of the predatory animals that may reside in this
habitat type feeding on small rodents, birds, and bird eggs. The grey fox will also consume
insects and fruits, particularly in the summer months.
Residential Lawns
Impacts to residential lawns will be minimal, if present at all. The lawns in the area
consist primarily of grasses such as ryes and fescues, along with a few ornamental shrubs and
small trees. It is difficult to establish a clear distinction between the lawns and other maintained
pasture areas. Field mice, rabbits, squirrels and song birds are the primary inhabitants of
residential areas.
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This palustrine community occurs throughout the southern side of Moon Creek, and to a
greater degree on the west side of SR 1500. It is typical of a floodplain community in that it is
11
near level and has pockets of debris that have been deposited following inundation. Relatively
high (2 to 3 m [7 to 10 ft)] stream banks and a small ridge along the stream bank separates the
waterway from the terrestrial communities. This community surrounds the small, unnamed
tributaries, then eventually grades into a Basic Mesic Forest (Piedmont Subtype) community.
The canopy is dominated by sycamore, river birch, and tulip poplar. The understory and shrub
layers are extremely sparse to non-existent consisting ironwood and box elder. Other vegetation
noted include greenbriers, poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle and blackberry.
A dense herbaceous layer occurs on the forest bottom, consisting of Christmas fern, wild
onion, bottlebrush grass and Canada avens, heartleaf or wild ginger, jewelweeds, bluestem
goldenrod.
The forest floor is heavily covered with leaves and fallen branches, providing habitat for
various reptiles, amphibians and small mammals such as the American toad, slimy salamander,
marbled salamander, ground skink, and eastern hognose snake, which live under the litter layer,
feeding on various species of beetles, ants, and other insects, as well as herbaceous plant
material: These species, although often found in other habitats, are adapted to survival in a
periodically flooded environment.
Spring peepers, are common occupants of this community type, however because of their
camouflaged color patterns, close affinity with trees, and the time of year the site visit occurred,
these species are difficult to observe. Insects and spiders are the primary food items of these
species.
Other species associated with this type of community are the golden mouse, which builds
its nests in vines or shrubs several feet off the ground, and the eastern box turtle, a common
species feeding on plant material, insects, and small animals. There is a substantial amount of
downed timber on the ground, which eastern fence lizard commonly use for refuge.
Avian species observed here include mourning dove, song sparrow, rufous-sided
towhee*, tufted titmouse*, the ruby-crowned kinglet*, blue jay* and Northern cardinal*.
Stumps, roots and tree cavities provide shelter for numerous bird and mammal species
including: red-eyed vireo*, downy woodpecker, wood thrush*, raccoon, white-footed mouse,
which builds nests in hollow trees from grass, leaves and shredded bark, and the grey squirrel,
the nests of which are common in most habitats in North Carolina.
Some predators likely to occur here include eastern screech-owl, black rat snake, grey fox
and copperhead. Diet of these species consists of insects, frogs, small snakes and mammals.
Often predators at the top of the food chain are "keystone" species of the ecosystem. These
species are crucial in the maintenance of community composition and stability. The loss of such
species will usually result in alterations of the community structure.
12
Various species of detritiovores such as terrestrial snails* and slugs*, as well as other
invertebrates, serve the role of decomposers in this community. This step of the food chain is
crucial for nutrient regeneration. Additional, a number of species of fungi were observed during
the site visit.
Aquatic Communities
Other than the two small, unnamed, intermittent tributaries, one aquatic community type,
perennial stream, may be impacted by the proposed project. Community composition of these
aquatic communities is reflective of physical characteristics of the water body and the condition
of the water resource. Community structure is also greatly influenced by the adjacent terrestrial
communities.
Perennial Stream
Research has shown that a large amount of food chain energy of stream communities is
derived from allochthonous (produced outside of stream ecosystem) sources, in the form of
terrestrial detritus. Rocks, fallen debris (logs, sticks, etc.), and low velocity areas in the stream
trap or retain detritus within the stream. The detritus is than decomposed by heterotrophic
microorganisms, such as bacteria, and consumed by macro invertebrates, such as aquatic insects
and snails. Decomposers and primary consumers are, in turn, consumed by larger organisms. The
amount of allochthonous energy input within a stream varies seasonally. Small pools containing
organic matter were observed in Moon Creek during the site visit.
Autochthonous (produced within the stream ecosystem) energy sources include
planktonic and benthic micro- and macro-algae, as well as aquatic vascular vegetation. Algal
growth was not evident in Moon Creek, indicative of high dissolved oxygen content and stable
nutrient conditions. Relatively high flow rates associated with this stream, limited streamside
agricultural fields and vegetated buffers between agricultural areas and the stream prevent Moon
Creek from eutrophication.
Fish sampling was conducted by the DWQ in Moon Creek in 1994. The sampling
occurred over a 180 in (600 ft) stretch of Moon Creek, near SR 1511, about 3 km (1.8 mi.)
downstream from the project site at SR 1500. It should be noted that the qualitative parameters
(width, depth, substrate, flow regime, riffle-pool ratios, etc.) of this portion of Moon Creek are
quite similar to those of Moon Creek in the project vicinity; therefore, fish species collected at
that time are likely to be found in Moon Creek at SR 1500, as well (DEHNR, 1996). The
dominant fish species collected from Moon Creek included a variety of cyprinids such as chubs,
shiners, and minnows. Redhorse suckers and catfish were also collected. A variety of bream
including redbreast sunfish, bluegill and pumpkinseed were collected as well. Largemouth bass is
likely to be one of the largest fish species to occur in Moon Creek (DEHNR, 1996).
Aquatic invertebrates are a major component of stream ecosystems, as primary and
secondary consumers, and as prey items for organisms higher in the food chain. Substrate
elements (e.g., cobbles, leaves, sticks, etc.) were inspected for evidence of invertebrates.
13
Evidence of less tolerant species, such as mayflies, stoneflies and caddisflies, was not present
indicating that the silt/sand substrate and turbid conditions precluded these species from being
predominant. Other invertebrates, such as dobson flies (Megaloptera), dragon flies (Odanata),
mosquitos and black flies (Diptera) and craneflies (Tipulidae) are likely to be the dominant
aquatic insect species. Crayfish (Cambaridae), snails (Gastropoda), and surface beetles (whirligig
beetles and water striders [Hemiptera]) are also likely to be prevalent in the stream.
Anticipated Impacts: Biotic Communities
Construction of the proposed project will have various impacts on the biotic communities
described. This section quantifies and qualifies these probable impacts, in terms of area impacted
(cleared/modified), and ecological consequences to the communities during the construction and
operation of the proposed roadway.
Terrestrial Community Impacts
Portions of the biotic community types occurring in the project area will be cleared or
altered as a result of the project construction. Estimations of acreage impacted for each
community type are given in Table 1.
TABLE 1. Anticipated Terrestrial Community Impacts
Community (hectares [acres])
Alt. Man-Dominated Piedmont/Low Mtn. Alluvial Forest
1 0.36 [0.9] 0
2 perm 0.36 [0.9] 0
2 temp 0.18 [0.4] 0.3 [0.7]
Estimates were determined for impacts resulting from bridge, approaches and/or temporary
detour. Estimates given in hectares (acres) are based on proposed 24 m (80 ft) ROW, but
take into consideration that some roadway exists for each of the approaches. It is assumed
that the width of impact for activities within the existing right of way is 18 m (60 ft).
The plant communities found along the project alignment serve as shelter, nesting and
foraging habitat for numerous species of wildlife. Loss of habitat initially displaces faunal
organisms from the area, forcing them to concentrate into a smaller area, which causes over-
utilization and degradation of the habitat. This ultimately lowers the carrying capacity of the
remaining habitat and is manifested in some species as becoming more susceptible to disease,
predation and starvation.
Habitat fragmentation will not necessarily occur; however, Alternate 2 will result in a
broader disturbed (man-dominated) area following the placement and removal of the temporary
detour. This will result in losses to faunal populations and changes in community dynamics are
also likely. Such disturbances will also result in creating more ecotone habitat. Species which
thrive on community edges will increase, while species which require larger, undisturbed tracts
will decrease or disappear as a result of competitive interactions, habitat reduction and other
14
factors. Studies have shown that populations of species such as wood thrush and blue jay are
negatively impacted by road construction. Conversely, road construction has been shown to have
a positive impact, or no effect on species such as cardinal, tufted titmouse, indigo bunting and
field sparrow.
Individual mortalities are likely to occur to animals closely associated with the ground
(snakes, small mammals, etc.) from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
Wildlife mortality caused by vehicles is a direct consequence of project construction once the
road is in operation. Because of their visibility, highway mortality of game species such as deer
and rabbit is well documented. However, reptiles and amphibians as well as birds and small
mammals are very susceptible to roadkill. Although roadway mortality is generally not believed
to significantly effect animal populations under normal conditions, if the population is
experiencing other sources of stress (disease, habitat degradation/elimination, etc.), then traffic-
related mortality can be very significant to the population's demise.
Aquatic Community Impacts
All of the alternatives will involve the crossing of Moon Creek and the two unnamed,
intermittent tributaries to Moon Creek. Impacts to the aquatic community will vary depending
upon pier placement and configuration.
Impacts to the stream community can be directly attributed to sedimentation and reduced
water quality resulting from project construction. Although disturbance and sedimentation may
be temporary processes during the construction phase of this project, environmental impacts
from these processes may be long-lived or irreversible.
Research in North Carolina Piedmont streams has shown that water quality and biota are
greatly affected by land use. Streams in urbanized settings have comparatively lower water
quality and corresponding lower biotic diversity than streams in forested areas. Construction of
this roadway will only slightly modify the land use in the project vicinity. Consequently, long
term degradation of the stream is not expected to occur, by neither direct nor secondary impacts.
The aquatic environment serves as a major food source for many terrestrial organisms
such as raccoons, various species of snakes, birds, turtles, and amphibians. It also serves as a
means of predator avoidance for many animals.
Benthic non-mobile organisms, such as filter and deposit feeders, and macro and micro
algae, are particularly sensitive to construction activities such as dredging, filling, pile driving
operations, and slope stabilization. These construction activities physically disturb the substrate,
resulting in loss of sessile benthic organisms. Increased siltation and sedimentation will also
result in changes to the substrate composition, greatly affecting organisms which are less tolerant
to such changes. Many of these aquatic organisms are slow to recover or repopulated an area,
because they require a stabilized substrate for attachment. Substrate stability may take a long
time to develop, therefore, changes in community composition will occur.
15
Populations of photosynthetic species, the primary producers in the food chain, can also
be greatly affected by siltation. The increased amount of suspended particles in the water column
reduces the photosynthetic ability by absorbing available light. Clogging of feeding apparati of
suspension feeders and burial of newly settled larvae of these organisms are other effects of
siltation. These species are often primary consumers in the food chain, and are a major step in the
aquatic food web. Impacts to these organisms may directly effect organisms higher in the food
chain, such as fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds and mammals.
Mobile aquatic organisms may escape some of the effects of siltation, however gills of
fish, crustaceans and larval amphibian and insect forms can become clogged and dysfunctional as
a result of sedimentation. Spawning habitats for these mobile species may become filled with
sediment, diminishing reproductive success and inevitably reducing populations.
Habitat disturbance and sedimentation are extremely detrimental to aquatic ecosystems.
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for protection of surface waters must be strictly adhered to
in order to ensure the biological integrity of the water bodies impacted by this project.
Jurisdictional Tonics
Waters of the United States
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3, in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S. C. 1344). Estimated wetland impacts by Alternate are listed in Table 2.
Wetland impacts provided in Table 2 are estimations based on field investigation and aerial
photography, and were calculated based on a proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft).
It should be noted that actual field delineations of the wetland communities were not
performed, rather a determination of potential wetland communities was conducted in
accordance with the criteria specified in the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation
Manual (Environmental Laboratory, 1987).
For an area to be considered a "wetland," the following three criteria must be met; (1)
presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma values), (2) presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and (3)
evidence of hydrology, including saturated soils, stained, oxidized rhizospheres, matted
vegetation, high water marks on trees, buttressed tree bases or surface roots.
One wetland community type may be impacted by the proposed action. Alternate 2 will
impact a forested wetland community (PFOIA) south of Moon Creek, west of SR 1500. This
area is also identified as Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest community. Alternate 1 avoids
impacts to this wetland community.
16

This wetland community serves an important role with regard to flood flow retention and
also adds ecological diversity to the riparian community. Water storage, pollutant removal,
sediment retention, wildlife habitat and aquatic life value aspects of a wetland community would
be high scoring parameters with respect to DEHNR-DWQ's Wetland Rating System. Other
wetland attributes, such as recreational/educational value and economic value are also considered
in this rating.
TABLE 2. Anticipated Wetland Impacts by Alternate
Community (hectares [acres])
Alt. PFO1A
1 0
2 0.3 (0.7)*
* This impact results from the placement and removal of the temporary detour.
Estimated impacts in hectares (acres) using 24 m (80 ft) ROW.- PFOIA denotes
Palustrine Forested Broad-leaved Deciduous Temporarily Flooded wetland communities as
defined by USFWS (Cowardin, 1979).
Permits
Impacts to Waters of the United States fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers (COE). A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) for impacts to surface waters
associated with Hogan's Creek, is likely to be applicable. This permit authorizes activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, fimded or financed in whole or in part, by another
Federal agency or department. That agency or department has determined that the activity is
categorically excluded from environmental documentation because it will neither individually
nor cumulatively have a significant adverse environmental effect. However, discretionary
authority on permit issues lies with the COE.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water
Quality General Certification is also required prior to issuance of the Nationwide permit.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require compensatory
mitigation per the 1989 Memorandum Agreement between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the Department of the Army. If an individual 404 permit is applicable to this project,
minimization of impacts and compensatory mitigation will be required.
Rare and Protected Species
Federal law requires that any action which has the potential to have a detrimental impact
to the survival and well being of any species classified as federally protected is subject to review
by the USFWS and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of
17
the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended. Endangered species receive additional
protection under separate state statutes. In North Carolina, protection of plant species falls under
N.C. General Statutes (G.S.) 106-202.12 to 106-202.19 of 1979. Wildlife protection falls under
G.S. 113-331 to 113-337 of 1987.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T),
Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of
Section 7 and Section 9 of the ESA of 1973, as amended. As of August 23, 1996, the USFWS
did not list any federally protected species for Caswell County (USFWS, 1996).
D. Air Quality and Traffic Noise
The project is located in Caswell County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The project is an air quality "neutral" project, so a project level CO analysis is not required.
The impact on air quality will be insignificant. If the project disposes of vegetation by
burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements of the 1990 Clean Air Act amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act. The project requires no additional reports.
The project will not significantly increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will have no
significant impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction.
E. Farmland
The Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 requires all federal agencies or their
representatives, to consider the impact of land acquisition and construction projects on prime and
important farmland soils. These soils are determined by the US Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
based on criteria such as potential crop yield and possible level of input of economic resources.
The SCS was asked to determine whether the alternatives under consideration will impact prime
or important farmland soils. According to the SCS, the proposed bridge replacement will not
impact prime farmland. The project will result in the conversion of a small amount of land but
the area to be converted is wooded and void of agricultural uses. Therefore, no further
consideration of impacts to farmland is required.
WTG/
18
lli C0unh l w
U ti o. 111 on SR 100
r`Aloon Cr_tlk
-?S10 r
9 9 a now 0 No= mum . own a Una 0
asbu
.?
Pidg 000 0000
1360 1500 I 1503 1.0
• .0 1504 '
?- 3 ? 1512
2
%b • 1506 1503
a ?
Lit 1524,
1330 )) 15 1510
1329 ? 1511
•
.5 W 1511
Providence
1513 > 1523
`1500
1300 ?
1.8
1300 1 1 h
k N PAS
1514 1522 1•0
1611 b
''•,' .4 1605
1330 .3 ?1328 1517 Purle 1St5
I 1523 p
v 1516 >r
1331 1500 Ib 1 3 ?O IN% 19 1327 )?,3 1521
g? 5 •1520 1572
4 1325 Gie 1609 q iw e? f •o
1 Park 11.500 "1523 c
b Spring lit O• 1571
3 1306 1321 1518
1324 Zovington
,a
1323 ? 1519
Studied Detour Route
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Caswell County
Replace Bridge No. 111 on SR 1500
Over Moon Creek
B-2810
I Figure One
uw
,•ST^Tro
r?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
July 10, 1996
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Replace Bridge #111 on SR 1500 over Moon
Creek, Caswell County, B-2810, Federal Aid
Project BRZ-2101(1), State Project 8.257160 1,
ER 96-9035
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
We regret staff was unable to attend the scoping meeting for the above project on
June 26, 1996. However, on July 9, 1996, Debbie Bevin met with Bill Goodwin of
the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to discuss the project
and view the project aerial and photographs.
In terms of historic architectural resources, the only structure over fifty years of
age within the project area is Bridge #111, which was built in 1921. We
recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the bridge for
National Register eligibility and report the findings to us. No further architectural
survey is recommended 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.
I
JUL 1 2 J"6
109 Fast Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
7/10/96, Page 2.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
SiI ely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: H F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett
.? ? T •
?-d?'''??u-
Federal Aid # f7ga.- 19W TIP # 5-'L6t0 County
CONCURRENCE FORIM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description PZeLACr, OV-4y6-r-- t,1° ' M ^%J 41 ? 14o0 AV= M"t4 5'S"4e
On representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHNvA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
rcvic%vcd the subject project at

A scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fit'h, years old within the project's area of potential effects.
? there arc no properties less than fifty years old which are considcrcd to mcct Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
? there are properties over fifty rears old (list attached) within the projects area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as 0,1LIOC-E t3v- Ill are considcrcd not eligible
for National Resister and no further evaluation of them is necessary.
? there are no National Resister-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Si¢ncd:
1 u 'f -
Rcpr t OT Date
/d
-4 44,ew
F w or the Dir?tston Administrator, or other Federal Agency Da e
1,-1 1
Rcpr_cscntauvc, S PO Dat
4 l ,?
'State Historic Prescrration Officcr
Ira survey report is prcpurcd, a final copy of this fonn and the attached list will be ineludVI
C
- CO
_V4 __S F It
DEC 31 1996
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTA I-KEAPMOMATE ACDON
JAmEs B. HUNT JK DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS -FEAR X6Y?
GOVERNOR ?`-t7?+'^nE RE?G Ry
P. O. Box 14996
Greensboro, NC 27415-4996
December 27, 1996
N,C,=,'v SERRMCI-8 UVII
CO EC _Sv
\&I _S & F - VVVP
_ GLB _ JO
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Bill Goodwin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer DEC 3a 1996
FROM: J. W. Watkins, P.E.
_ TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge #111 on S 156b?Vft":`WI%reek,
Project 8.2480701 - B-2810 -F,,E:PAAE R P
Attached are copies of letters from Caswell County Board of
Commissioners, Caswell County Emergency Services, Providence Fire and
Rescue, Inc., Caswell County Fire Inspector's Office, and Sheriff J. I.
Smith, Jr., opposing the closing of the above bridge during
construction.
I recommend that the new bridge be placed adjacent to the existing
bridge so that the old bridge can be used for handling traffic during
construction.
JWW/gm
Atta.
cc: J. Douglas Galyon w/atta.
S. P. Ivey
Nnoo

Transportation
December 18, 1,996
Mr. S. Pat Ivey
District Engineer
N.C. Department of
P.O. Box 2513
Reidsville, N.C.
27324
CASWELL COUNTY PEO
v'
????UU =u V ku '
.; .moo L,
-DEC - 27 1996%
NC Dept.r?tibi?y-;
Division
Office of the County Manager

Re: Planned Bridge Replacement
Old N.C. 86 over Moon Creek
Dear Mr. ey(j??e:
I would like to thank you for.your correspondence regarding the
above-referenced project, including your request dated December 6,
1996 for the advisory input from the Caswell County Board of
Commissioners. The Board of Commissioners discussed this matter at
its Regular Meeting of December 18, 1996, and a number of serious
concerns were raised, including the likely impairment of the Road
Closing to the effective provision of Emergency, Fire, Rescue and
Law Enforcement services to the households in the Community, the
increase in response times to nearby medical facilities, and the
importance of Old N.C. 86 as the primary detour route for N.C.
Highway 86 in the Northern half of the County.
The Board unanimously adopted the enclosed Resolution opposing the
closing of State Road 1500 (Old N.C. 86) during the bridge
construction phase, and requested that I attach the comments
presented to the Board in reviewing the request for consideration by
N.C. DOT officials.
On behalf of the Board of Commissioners and Caswell County, I would
like to thank you for the opportunity to comment on this matter, and
for the assistance provided to the County by the Department of
Transportation in this area of vital importance to the County.
Sincerely,
P ul C. Tax
T
ounty Manager
Attachments
cc: John Watkins
Doug Galyon
Gorman Gilbert
.J...
139 East Church Street - P.O. Box 98 - YanceyviUe, N.C. 27379
Phone [phone] -Fax [phone]

CASWE1 IL COUNTY
RESOLUTION
WHEREAS, the N. C. Department of Transportation (DOT) has identified the
replacement of Bridge No. 111 on State Road 1500 (Old NC 86)
over Moon Creek in Caswell County as a project on the
Transportation Improvement Program; and
WHEREAS, the N.C. Department of Transportation is conducting a study on
the project, in anticipation of the construction of the replacement
bridge scheduled for 1999; and
WHEREAS, the N.C. Department of Transportation has provided information
to County, School, Emergency Response, and Sheriff's Department
officials in Caswell County, and is seeking the input of those
officials in deciding whether or not to close Old NC 86 road
during construction; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners has reviewed the information and
received comment from affected individuals; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners agrees with the comments made that
the closing of Old NC 86 would have a significant adverse affect
on the provision of Emergency Medical Services, Sheriff's
Department protection, Fire, Rescue, and Emergency Response
calls to the one hundred and eighty five households in the
immediate community, effectively tripling the response time in
providing emergency services; and
WHEREAS, Old NC 86 serves as the vital detour route for NC Highway 86,
the primary North-South highway that connects Caswell County,
the entire eastern Piedmont Triad and Triangle Regions of North
Carolina with the City of Danville and all of Southside Virginia;
and
WHEREAS, there have been two major traffic incidents in recent years that
have forced traffic to be routed along Old NC 86 as a detour to
NC Highway 86, and a similar incident this past week on the 265
Bypass around Danville, Virginia just one-half mile from its
junction with NC Highway 86 served as a reminder of the
potential for these incidents to occur; and
WHEREAS, the Board of Commissioners believes that the needs of the
Providence and Pelham Communities, and of all of the citizens and
visitors to . Caswell County are worth much more than the
estimated additional cost of $600,000, the impairment on the
provision of emergency services and the added inconvenience.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Caswell County Board of -
Commissioners that the Board does hereby oppose the closing of
State Road 1500 in Caswell County during the construction of the
replacement bridge over Moon Creek, and the Board wishes to
forward this Resolution and a copy of the letters submitted by
County officials and public servants to the appropriate
Department of Transportation officials for their consideration.

ADOPTED THIS THE 16th DAY OF DECEMBER, 1996.
/ V y r ! t 4?j
John D. Foster, Chairman
Caswell County Board of Commissioners
ATTEST:

Etta. 'LLJ t ?
Wanda P. Smith
Clerk to the Board

r
. ^ .
4a. .y
O
Os '?
V =
J a
y,?y t711'
CASWELL COUNTY
OFFICE OF EMERGENCY SERVICES
MEMO
To: Pat Ivey, NqBOT Regional Engineer
From: Joe Wrigh Emergency Services Director
Date: 12/16/96
RE: Bridge closing on Old 86.
Caswell County Emergency Services is officially against the closing
of the bridge on Old 86. The closing of this bridge would greatly
endanger the lives of those individuals needing EMS assistance.
The response times to about 142 households would increase
drastically. This risk is to great no matter what the cost.
On two occasions last year new 86 was closed due to Haz-mat
accidents and this section of Old 86 was used as a detour route.
I am not comfortable at all with the closing of Old 86 for one
month, much less 18-24 months.
Thank you for your interest in this matter and please voice my
concerns to the appropriate DOT authorities.
If

208 County Park Road - P.O. Box 99 - Yanceyville, NC 27379
[phone] - Fax[phone]
Y
J ?
J ^ ?
•
J ?+
.
Caswell County
BUILDING and FIRE INSPECTOR'S OFFICE
P. O. Box 204
Leonard McFarling, Jr. Yanceyville, N.C. 27379 Woodrow Bigelow
Inspector & Fire Marshall 910-694-9731 Inspector
Fax [phone]
Mr. Pat Ivey
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Dear Sir,
After much discussion and research about the closing of Moon Creek bridge located on
Old Hwy 86 North, it is my opinion that the existing bridge should remain open during
construction of the new bridge. Station four in Providence will be cut off from
approximately 185 homes valued at approximately 9,000,000.00. Their response time
using proposed detours would increase 3-4 times. One thousand people cross this bridge
daily which would require them to travel New Hwy 86 N which would increase the
posssibility of more wrecks on this heavily traveled Hwy. New 86 was closed twice in
the past year and traffic had to be detoured around Old Hwy 86 to keep traffic moving
North and South. The sheriffs department and EMS have the same concerns as my
office. Thank you for allowing us to express our concerns about this project.
C
Leon I McFarling
Fire shall
J.'.
' ® II
Providence Fire and Rescue, Inc.
P.O. Box 93- -
Providence, N.C. 27315
Kenneth-A. Guthrie, Chief.
A
December 13,1996
Herbert McDowell
Department of Transportation
Yanceyville, N.C. 27379
Dear Herbert
It has recently been brought to my attention that the
bridge crossing Moon Creek on NC Hwy. Old 86 N. which is
south of Providence will be closed for repairs for about
eighteen'months. This is of great concern do me because
there will be 185 households in our fire district with.
a delayed response for fire protection as well as a medical
emergency. Also there is about one third of our firemen
that live south of this bridge and this will greatly delay
their response time when they respond to an emergency that
is north of the bridge. It will add at least five miles
to the distance of travel for any response that is on
N.C. Hwy. Old 86 N.. There will also be a delay or an
extended travel for the Emergency Medical Service when
they respond from this area to a medical facility.
In.the event there is an incident on N-.C.. Hwy 86 N. that
would not allow through traffic then N.C. Hwy. Old 86 N.
is going to be the most logical detour available for that
traffic and for EMS trying to get to Danville Regional
Medical Center as well as any other emergency vehicles needed.
This bridge and the bridge on N.C. Hwy. Old 86 N. north of
Providence is in great need of replacement or widening. On
numerous occassions while responding to a call, and after
entering the bridge, we realize that there is a compact
car, which you cannot see before entering, already crossing
the bridge. This delays our response because someone has to
stop and back up.
If
. X _ '-
I am asking you to consider not closing this bridge due
to the use of the emergency vehicles that rely on this
bridge for emergency traffic.
In a life or death situation one life is worth more than
what additional cost would be incurred by leaving this
bridge open.
Sincerely
Kenneth A. Guthrie, Chief

cc: Pat Ivey, Dept. of Transportation
Paul Tax, Caswell County Manager

If
?"f a
J. I. SMITH, JR.
SHERIFF OF CASWELL COUNTY
PHONE: OFFICE 6949311
YANCEYVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA
V3"
December 17, 1996

Mr. Pat Ivey
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Reidsville Engineering Office
P.O. Box 2513
Reidsville, N.C. 27320
Dear Mr. Ivey:
I was recently informed that a project has been planned to replace the
bridge on Old N.C. 86N at Moon Creek between Yanceyville and Providence
in the near future. This situation has caused me great concern due to
the fact that I have been advised that Old N.C. 86 could be closed at
that location from twelve to eighteen months. Emergency response time
to this area would be effected in a very negative. way, due to the routes
that would have to be taken to get to areas north of the existing bridge.
Another concern is the increase in traffic volume on New 86 due to the
detour on Old 86. Additional traffic volume could present a problem on
New 86 due to the past history of accidents on the section of 86 from
Yanceyville to the Virginia line. We have had several occasions in which
accidents have occurred and 86 had to be completely closed for several
hours.
Closing Old 86.would limit your detour routes and at the same time with
both being closed in this type situation practically isolates the Providence
area from some of the emergency services. Other routes would be available
but the'delay in response times could result in life or death situations.
The closing of this bridge would effect many of our citizens and possibly
have an effect on their well being. I urge you to consider the alternative
of leaving this bridge open and constructing the new bridge as planned.
Sincere '
J.I. Smith, Jr.
JIS/jw