20001380 Ver 1_Complete File_20001018

V_
00 1380
.1?Ol?SSpFp.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. 13.0. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 DAVID MCCOY
GOVERNOR ACTING SECRETARY
October 2, 2000
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
SUBJECT: Rockingham County, Bridge No. 64 on US 220 Business over the
Mayo River; Federal Aid No. BRSTP-220B(2); State Project No.
8.1511501; TIP No. B-3230.
Dear Sir:
Attached for your information is a copy of the project-planning document
prepared by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (DOT) and signed by the
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) on June 1999. The project involves replacing
Bridge No. 64 over the Mayo River on US 220, Rockingham County. The new bridge
structure will be a placed on a new alignment downstream of the existing bridge. The
approach work will extend approximately 1,000 feet east and west of the bridge. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. Upon completion of the
new alignment, the existing bridge and approaches will be removed.
The project is being processed by the FHWA as a "Categorical Exclusion" (CE)
in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with
33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued 13 December 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.
It is anticipated that a 401 General Water Quality Certification for an approved
CE will apply to this project. The NCDOT will follow general conditions on permit,
Section 404 Nationwide 23. A copy of the CE document has been provided to the North
Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality (DWQ), for their review. A copy of this document is also being provided to the
NC Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) for their review. The DOT is requesting that
the WRC provide comments to the COE concerning permit requests.
Bridge No. 64 is located on US 220 over the Mayo River in Rockingham County. It has
three spans totaling 261 feet in length. The superstructure consists of five spans or
reinforced concrete deck girders; 1 @ 51.75 feet, 3 @ 52.5 feet, and 1 @ 51.75 feet. The
substructure on the west side end bent is a reinforced concrete pipe cap and the east side
end bent is a reinforced concrete abutment with concrete wing walls. The interior end
bents are reinforced concrete with pile caps and spread footings. Bent No. 3 has a steel
pile crutch. There is potential for components of the deck and interior bents to be dropped
into Waters of the U.S. during construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete deck and interior bents is approximately 370 cubic yards. This bridge
demolition has been classified as a Case 3 Bridge Demolition (see BMP-BD&R
attachment). There are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
It is anticipated that construction of a temporary work pad will be authorized
under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). The DOT is therefore requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit
authorizing the construction of the causeway. Enclosed are construction drawings of the
temporary causeway and a completed preconstruction notification form for a Nationwide
Permit 33 and General Water Quality Certification.
As stated in the CE document for this bridge replacement, the DOT commits to
the implementation of Design Standards for Sensitive Watershed Sedimentation Control
Guidelines in addition to standard Best Management Practices.
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Jeffrey Burleson at [phone], Extension 315.
Sincerely,
William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
Attachments
cc: Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, DWQ
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. John Alford, P.E. Roadway Design Unit
Mrs. Debbie Barbour, P.E., Design Services
Mr. Dave Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tim Roundtree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Ron Linville, NCWRC
Mr. Marella Bunsick, USFWS
T
DEM ID:
CORPS ACTION ID:
NATIONWIDE PERMIT REQUESTED (PROVIDE NATIONWIDE PERMIT #): 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: N. C.
2. MAILING ADDRESS:
artment of Transportation
P. 0. Box 25201
SUBDIVISION NAME:
_ STATE: NC ZIP CODE: 27611
INCLUDING SUBDIVISION NAME (IF DIFFERENT FROM
CITY: Raleigh
PROJECT LOCATION ADDRESS,
MAILING ADDRESS ABOVE):
3. TELEPHONE NUMBER (HOME):
(WORK)
733-3141
4. IF APPLICABLE: AGENT'S NAME OR RESPONSIBLE CORPORATE OFFICIAL,
ADDRESS, PHONE NUMBER: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
5. LOCATION OF WORK (PROVIDE A MAP, PREFERABLY A COPY OF USGS
TOPOGRAPHIC MAP OR AERIAL PHOTOGRAPHY WITH SCALE):
COUNTY: Rockinqham NEAREST TOWN OR CITY: Reidsville
SPECIFIC LOCATION (INCLUDE ROAD NUMBERS, LANDMARKS, ETC.):
US 220; Bridqe NO. 64 over Mayo River in Rockingham Count
6. IMPACTED OR NEAREST STREAM/RIVER
RIVER BASIN: Roanoke
Mavo River
7a. IS PROJECT LOCATED NEAR WATER CLASSIFIED AS TROUT, TIDAL SALTWATER
(SA), HIGH QUALITY WATERS (HQW), OUTSTANDING RESOURCE WATERS (ORW),
WATER SUPPLY (WS-I OR WS-II)? YES [ ] NO [X] IF YES, EXPLAIN:
1
r
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:
0.0
10a. NUMBER OF ACRES OF WETLANDS IMPACTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT BY:
FILLING: N/A
FLOODING: N/A
DRAINAGE: N/A
EXCAVATION: N/A
OTHER: N/A
TOTAL ACRES TO BE IMPACTED: 0.0
0.0
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/A FT
WIDTH AFTER: N/A FT
AVERAGE DEPTH BEFORE: FT AFTER: FT
(2) STREAM CHANNEL IMPACTS WILL RESULT FROM: (CHECK ALL THAT APPLY)
OPEN CHANNEL RELOCATION: PLACEMENT OF PIPE IN CHANNEL:
CHANNEL EXCAVATION: CONSTRUCTION OF A DAM/FLOODING:
OTHER: Causeway will temporarily impact 0.2111 acres of the Mayo
River
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? N/A
12. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED WORK INCLUDING DISCUSSION OF TYPE OF
MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT TO BE USED (ATTACH PLANS: 8 112" X 11" DRAWINGS
ONLY): See attached CE
13. PURPOSE OF PROPOSED WORK: To construct a causeway in the Mayo
River for removal and construction
14. STATE REASONS WHY IT IS BELIEVED THAT THIS ACTIVITY MUST BE CARRIED
OUT IN WETLANDS. (INCLUDE ANY MEASURES TAKEN TO MINIMIZE WETLAND
IMPACTS): n/a
15. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
(USFWS) AND/OR NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE (NMFS) (SEE AGENCY
ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF ANY FEDERALLY LISTED OR
PROPOSED FOR LISTING ENDANGERED OR THREATENED SPECIES OR CRITICAL
HABITAT IN THE PERMIT AREA THAT MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED PROJECT.
DATE CONTACTED: June 17, 1998 (ATTACH RESPONSES FROM THESE AGENCIES.)
16. YOU ARE REQUIRED TO CONTACT THE STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
(SHPO) (SEE AGENCY ADDRESSES SHEET) REGARDING THE PRESENCE OF HISTORIC
PROPERTIES IN THE PERMIT AREA WHICH MAY BE AFFECTED BY THE PROPOSED
PROJECT. DATE CONTACTED: December 3, 1998
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 [ I
3

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].
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? Urban developed
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.
4
??v---
OWNER'S/AGENT'S SIGNATURE
(AGENT'S SIGNATURE VALID ONLY
IF AUTHORIZATION LETTER FROM
THE OWNER IS PROVIDED (18g.))
DATE
LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY
c,7"-w± WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION BELOW
ORDINARY HIGH WATER
DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
• • •• • • • CLEARING -
- FLOW DIRECTION
T?- TOP OF BANK
---WE___ EDGE OF WATER
- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?-- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
NG NATURAL GROUND
PL PROPERTY LINE
-TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-POE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
WATER SURFACE
LIVE STAKES
C2D BOULDER
-- COIR FIBER ROLLS
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
(DASHED LINES DENOTE
EXISTNG STRUCTURES)
SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD
VANE
RIP RAP
RIP RAP ENERGY
OISSIPATOR BASIN
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1511501 (B-3230)
US 220 BUS. REPLACEMENT
OF BRA 64
SHEET ?-- OF 7 / 10 / 00
I
I
z °

q(?
PSI
?? z
~ H .. b o

=
q
4+Cj
F
p
y16
C

J `\?0

?5 O OI
1
o0 0
a
<
o
a
Q.
"
E?

z'
0

M
i
Ca H

® 1
o°o°
1
0 cr
-
N +
V) O
a ?
x 7
o v z
-4
q < C- J
V)
~ x 000 J V1 z ?1 kn 1G
u
y e? © O o C)i 0000 Lr, .?1
I
yl
< <& ' Q o
3 ~ 0%?8 x

7

H W
nj
W z
N ood
pop0 PLO
O Z C
'z U ?? O

~ u ?
?
8 o >Qy
8
a
V N
Z
o 00 O?
Oppp09
00 I E•?
a O
9) ~ ti V)
O p
M
o a a 08 F Q CL LC)
N 0
o00.1 Q C4 a
° H
m
V) + pq
"l11 I` < U Q c
,
`y

1 1 fir'
?p ? I ` pr

rr

o yN I ? _ ?

3 O W? r
c
------- ----- - I --- ---

4
4 I
i
I -

m I
s
``? ?`
?
?H U
I? z
a
o w 4 ?
Y

1 ?
Jti +
?J ±
Mz? I

?
?` 1
C
Cl)

2?

N o
F

o

?

z

O

Q

U

E.
? r+
O

? U

U
U
O
A s~
O
v
?

o

F

a u
ir=1

o
F

W

a
co?

p

? Q
0
c.

0

w

w
x

I
41
r? o W C.0- _ v LO v-

I LLJ co

C
E
o
N W W I ?
LO
?? !:a

pp
jW F
?

00 c?z

x r --- -- o co

N ?

WI
C I
I

W
I
? a
-
a

I , o
I
r
CZZ? ?N
.p
N +

Q- cp

a
o
I ? Uh ?

N I I
I O a
' I
I
I
0

i
b a
0
w
o o
n
.o 10
,o 0 0
1 0
? 0
°
0
N
C
N
o w
U L
C U
W
0

C
U C
O (O
N L
U
0
rn c a?i
C C L) Y
C
f0 w
N f9
N
U .
n
w U E

a

LL
N
N
Q' O_ U) O O
H E C

O
w
u
Q
U) C U
U. C O t6

D ii
C
CD
°- z m
m 7 U
>
Z (9
8
} 0
wm
Q O
5
` N C -
C
G C O U
V N
CO (U
H
?
U U
a C N
g c o
=
CL) m
x
o
_ z w c

O
w N

3 LL c
U
D. N f0
v
N
f" C
O
N
C ?
C U
?
_
f0
LL N
v

N
O
_
O N
O O O

U N
2? _

Ua

CV
b
_
O
O
N
O
U)
LL N
N

J
O F
z Q
F-
FINAL
9-20-99
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Best Management Practices
For Bridge Demolition and Removal
The following Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) was developed in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers (COE),
the Wildlife Resource Commission, the National Marine Fisheries Service, and others
with the goal of establishing a consistent, environmentally sound approach to the
demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road systems. These
Practices shall be an addendum to (not a replacement for) NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters.
The primary objective of these guidelines shall be to protect the water quality and
aquatic life of the affected environment in the vicinity of a project. The Department shall
use these BMP-BDR consistently on all projects involving bridge removal over a water
body.
All projects shall fall into one of the following three categories.
Case 1 - "In water" work is restricted to an absolute minimum, due to the presence of
Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) or Threatened and/or Endangered Species (T&E
Species). All work potentially effecting the resource will be carefully coordinated with
the agency having jurisdiction.
Case 2 - allows no work at all in the water during moratorium periods associated with
fish migration, spawning, and larval recruitment into nursery areas.
Case 3 - there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and the supplements added by this document
on Bridge Demolition. All three Cases are subject to BMP-BDR's.
It is not the intention of these guidelines to prevent the creativity of the contractor
in the removal of the bridge. If the contractor or Resident Engineer devises a means of
removal that retains the spirit of these guidelines but does not adhere to the letter, such a
means will be considered by the NCDOT Resident Engineer, the NCDOT Natural
Systems Specialist, and the federal and/or state agency representative(s). With that
caveat in mind, the following guidelines will be applied as appropriate during the
construction and demolition stages of a project:
• The contractor shall be required to submit a plan for bridge demolition and debris
removal to the Resident Engineer, and must receive written approval from the
Resident Engineer prior to any demolition work beginning.
• If there is a special resource, Case 1 (for example a Threatened or Endangered
Species), pointed out in the document, special provisions will apply to both the
construction of the new structure and demolition and removal of the old structure.
Such special provisions may supersede the guidelines herein.
Page 1 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
Bridge Shall Be Removed Without Dropping Components Into The Water
If a bridge is to be removed in a fashion such that there is a practical alternative
to dropping bridge components into the water, that alternative shall be followed.
In the case of a concrete deck, the bridge deck shall be removed by sawing
completely through the concrete thickness. Removal may be in sections out between
the beams or a cut full length of span between the beams. No part of the structure
will be allowed to fall into the water. The concrete shall be removed from the site
intact and placed/retained in an upland disposal area.
If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, all
efforts will be made to minimize the overall impact to the surface waters. If the
bridge is composed of several spans, the demolition shall occur one span at a time.
Components from a given span which have been dropped into the water must be
removed from the water before demolition can proceed to the next span.
• If it is determined that components of the bridge must be dropped into the water, any
and all asphalt wearing surface shall be removed and not dropped into the water.
• If a CAMA permit is required, dropping any component of a bridge into the water
will not be acceptable unless it is proven that there is no feasible alternative. Such an
activity would require coordination with and approval of CAMA.
Every bridge to be removed which is constructed completely of timber shall be
removed without dropping components of the bridge into the water. If an unusual
circumstance arises where the contractor believes that a bridge component must be
dropped into the water, the contractor must alert the Resident Engineer. The Resident
Engineer shall coordinate with the Army Corps of Engineers and the Natural Systems
Specialist who obtained the permit to discuss the necessary course of action. This is
anticipated to be a rare occurrence.
If the substructure of a bridge includes timber or steel piles, they shall be removed by
cutting them off level with surface of the streambed. In no circumstance are the piles
to remain above the surface of the streambed. This shall be accomplished in a fashion
which minimizes the increase of sediment into the surface waters. As an exception,
piles that are in conflict with the proposed piers may be completely removed by
pulling. Timber or steel piles will be removed in a fashion that does not allow the
pile to fall into the water. In tidal areas it may be necessary to remove the piers
completely or to some depth below the substrate because of sand/current movement
over time. Such a need will be established in the Greensheet(s) Project
Commitments.
Non Shattering Methods
Every bridge demolition shall be accomplished by non-shattering methods.
Shattering means any method which would scatter debris. A wrecking ball is no
longer an acceptable tool for bridge removal. Explosives, a "hoe-ram", or other
comparable tools may be used in such a fashion that fractures but does not shatter and
Page 2 of 3
FINAL
9-20-99
scatter bridge components into the water. A possible exception to this rule might be a
concrete arch bridge in which case a method shall be found which minimizes impact
to the extent practical and feasible. In the case of an exception, the method of
demolition will be developed in consultation with the appropriate federal and state
agencies.
Use of Explosives
In the event that there is not a practical alternative to non-shattering, alternate
methods of bridge demolition shall be discussed with and approved by the Army
Corps of Engineers and other federal and state resource agencies having jurisdiction
over the resource.
• All parties involved recognize that explosives are sometimes required to remove
components of a bridge. However, at the present, the proper means of applying those
explosives is not agreed upon. The various agencies involved agree that over time,
we will come to agreement on the use of explosives in a form that will be included in
these BMP's for Bridge Demolition and will not require special consultation. For
the present, if it is determined that explosives are required to remove any
component of a bridge, that activity shall be coordinated with the Army Corps of
Engineers in addition to the state or federal agency with jurisdiction over that
particular water. This issue shall be revisited at the earliest time possible to
determine appropriate measures to include in these BMP's which shall minimize or
eliminate the consultations required in the future.
General
• Where there are sedimentation concerns the Greensheet Project Commitments may
identify the need for turbidity curtains (or similar devices) in the demolition and
construction phases of a project in the area of concern to limit the impacts.
• If damage is done to the bank as a result of debris removal, the COE shall be
consulted and the bank shall be re-stabilized to natural contours using indigenous
vegetation prior to completion of activities in that period of construction.
• If the new bridge does not go back on the original alignment, the banks shall be
restored to original contours revegetated with indigenous species as appropriate.
• Any machine operating in an area which could leak engine fluids into the water shall
be inspected visually on a daily basis for leakage. If leakage is found, the fluid(s)
shall be contained and removed immediately in accordance with applicable state
regulations and guidelines, as well as the equipment repaired prior to further use.
• When pumping to de-water a drilled shaft pier, the discharge shall be into an
acceptable sediment containment bin to minimize siltation in the water.
Page 3 of 3
a
US 220 Business
Bridge No. 64 on Over Mayo River
Rockingham County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-22013(2)
State Project No. 8.1511501
T.I.P. No. B-3230
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
JUNE 1999
Document Prepared by:
Wang Engineering Company, Inc.
Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
J es ang, F.D., P. E.
rincipal-in-Charge
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G it imes, PX.J Unit Head
Consu t Engin ing Unit
Stacy Y. al n, P.E.
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
?VJ ?J
Z'o SEAL
7521
t ?
US 220 Business
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 64 on Over Mayo River
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-2206(2)
State Project No. 8.1511501
T.I.P. No. B-3230
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DA E
William D. tlmore, P.E., I
Project Development and
Analysis Branch, NCDOT
C' 2 A 9
DATE icholas L. Graf, P. F-.
Division Administrator, FHWA
, A
US 220 Business
Bridge No. 64 Over Mayo River
Rockingham County
Federal-Aid Project No. BRSTP-220B(2)
State Project No. 8.1511501
T.I.P. No. B-3230
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 64 is included in the 1998-2004 North Carolina Department of
Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program and in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial impacts are
anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion."
1. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All Standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management
Practices for Protection of Surface Waters and Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts.
2. Bridge Demolition will be addressed at the time of the permit application.
3. Efforts will be made in the final design phase to avoid bridge deck drains discharging
directly into the stream, if feasible.
4. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least ten feet will remain on each side of the stream
underneath the bridge.
II. PURPOSE AND NEED
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 38.1 out of a
possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete. The
replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
US 220 Business is classified as a rural major collector. Land use in the project area is
predominantly residential and woodlands. Norfolk Southern Railway is located approximately
130 feet downstream of Bridge No. 64. The Town of Mayodan is located approximately 1.5
miles southwest of Bridge No. 64.
The existing bridge was built in 1926 (Figure 3). The overall length of the bridge is 261 feet
The clear roadway width is 20 feet. The superstructure consists of five spans of reinforced
concrete deck girders; 1 @ 51.75 feet, 3 @ 52.5 feet, and 1 @ 51.75 feet. The substructure
on the west side end bent is a reinforced concrete pipe cap and the east side end bent is a
reinforced concrete abutment with concrete wing walls. The interior end bents are reinforced
concrete with pile caps and spread footings. Bent No. 3 has a steel pile crutch. There is no
posted weight limit.
.. ,
Near the bridge, US 220 Business has a 22 foot paved travel width with 6 foot shoulders. The
roadway is approximately 23.5 feet above the creek bed. The approach roadway from the
east has a 5 degree curve approximately 200 feet from the bridge and the approach from the
west has a 6 degree curve approximately 900 feet from the bridge. The approach curves
have a design speed rating of 50 miles per hour (mph). The posted speed limit is 55 mph.
The projected traffic volumes are 5000 vehicles per day (vpd) for the construction year 2001
and 8500 vpd for the design year 2025. The volumes include three percent truck-tractor semi-
trailer (TTST) and five percent dual-tired vehicles (DT).
Located in the northeast quadrant of the US 220 Business and the river is the Stoneville
Region Water System. The Friends of the Dan and Mayo River have a message and
information board placed at the trail entrance to the river access in the northeast quadrant.
There are utility lines on the north and south sides of the bridge. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be low.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from September 1,
1993 to August 31, 1996.
Eight Rockingham County school busses cross Bridge No. 64 daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Bridge No. 64 will be replaced with a new structure approximately 290 feet in length (Figure 2).
A 32 foot clear roadway width will provide a 24 foot travelway with 4 foot shoulders across the
structure (Figure 4).
The proposed approach roadway will consist of a 24 foot travelway with 8 foot shoulders,
including 4 foot paved (Figure 4). The design speed is 60 mph.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis utilizing the 50 year design storm, the elevation of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing bridge. The replacement
structure will maintain a minimum 0.3% grade to facilitate deck drainage. The length of the
proposed bridge and conveyance under the bridge may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined from a more detailed analysis during the
final design phase of the project.
Three "reasonable and feasible" alternatives (Figure 2) that were studied for replacing the
existing bridge are described below.
Alternate A replaces the bridge at the existing location. The approach roadway would extend
approximately 800 feet west and 475 feet east of the bridge. A design exception would be
required for the 5 degree curve located on the east approach. During construction, traffic
would be maintained by a temporary detour structure located downstream of the existing
bridge. Upon completion of the new structure and approaches, the temporary detour bridge
and approaches would be removed. This alternate is not recommended because it would
require a design exception.
2
Alternate B replaces the bridge at the existing location. The approach roadway would extend
approximately 800 feet west and 475 feet east of the bridge. A design exception would be
required for the 5 degree curve located on the east approach. During construction, traffic
would be maintained offsite on existing roads.
Alternate B was eliminated due to the relatively high traffic volume on US 220 Business that
would require detouring approximately 4.2 miles. A road user analysis was performed based
on 5000 vpd and an average of 4.2 miles of indirection travel. The cost of additional travel
would be approximately $2,500,000 during a twelve-month construction period. The estimated
additional cost of replacing the bridge on new location is $510,375. Based on the higher cost,
this alternate is not recommended.
Alternate C (PREFERRED) replaces the bridge on new alignment downstream of the existing
bridge. The east approach curve will be designed to meet a 60 mph design speed. The
approach work will extend approximately 1,000 feet east and west of the bridge. During
construction, traffic will be maintained on the existing structure. Upon completion of the new
alignment, the existing bridge and approaches will be removed.
The Division Engineer concurs with the selection of Alternate C as the preferred alternate.
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by US 220 Business.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates the
rehabilitation of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
V. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternate A Alternate B Altemate C
PREFERRED
Structure Removal (existing) $ 48,000 $ 48,000 $ 48,000
Structure (proposed) 603,200 603,200 603,200
Detour Structure and Approaches 334,300 --
Roadway Approaches 122,700 122,700 440,900
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 332,800 232,100 327,900
Engineering and Contingencies 209,000 144,000 230,000
ROW/Const. Easements/Utilities: 38,750 38,000 48,375
TOTAL $1,688,750 $1,188,000 $1,698,375
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $1,698,375 including $48,375 for right-of-way
and $1,650,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown the 1998-2004
NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program, is $880,000 including $88,000 for right-of-way
and $800,000 for construction.
3
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
The proposed project study area is located in a rural area in Rockingham County,
approximately 1.5 miles northeast of Mayodan, North Carolina. There is a gravel lot and a
fenced structure near the northeast comer of the bridge that belongs to the Town of Stoneville
Water Department. The remaining areas adjacent to the bridge are undeveloped.
A. METHODOLOGY
Informational sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Mayodan, N. C. 7.5 minute
series topographic map (1977); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil Survey of Rockingham
County, NC (February, 1992); United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National
Wetlands Inventory map (Mayodan, NC, 1995); USFWS list of protected and candidate
species (May 13, 1999); North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer
database of rare species and unique habitats (Jan. 1998); and NCDOT aerial photography of
the study area. Research using these resources was undertaken prior to the field
investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on March 9, 1998.
Plant communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scat, and burrows.
Quantitative impact calculations were based on the worst case scenario using the full 60.0 foot
wide right-of-way limits, the width of the replacement structure, and the length of the project
approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific replacement
structure design information the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. PHYSIOGRAPHY AND SOILS
The proposed project lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Fall Line and east of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This province
is underlain by igneous, crystalline metamorphic, or occasionally, sedimentary rocks. The
topography of the project vicinity can be characterized as gently rolling to steeply sloped.
Elevation in the project vicinity ranges from approximately 640 to 900 feet above mean sea
level (msl). The elevation in the project area is approximately 640 to 660 feet above msl.
Current land use in the project vicinity is mainly undeveloped with a small amount of rural
residential.
According to the soil survey for Rockingham County, the Chewacla-Congaree-Wehadkee and
the Mayodan-Stoneville soil associations are found in the project area (USDA-SCS, 1992).
The Chewacla-Congaree-Wehadkee soil association is found within the Mayo River
floodplain. This soil association is composed of nearly level, deep, well to poorly drained
floodplain soils that have a loamy surface layer and subsoil. Soils in the Mayodan-Stoneville
association are well drained and gently sloping to moderately steep upland soils, with a loamy
surface layer and a loamy and clayey subsoil. Field conditions appeared to generally conform
4
to the soil survey mapping in the project area. Individual map units found in the project area
are described below.
Congaree loam is located along the river on both sides of the bridge. It is characterized in the
soil survey as well drained or moderately well drained and is typically found on wide flood
plains. Permeability is noted to be moderate and this soil is sometimes flooded for brief
periods in winter and spring. The soil survey indicates that Chewacla and Wehadkee soils
may be included in the Congaree soil mapping unit. Both inclusions are listed as hydric
(USDA-SCS, 1991) and may occur in small depressions at the contact between flood plains
and upland areas.
Stoneville loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, is found on upland areas to the east and west of the
bridge adjacent to the approaching roadway. This well drained soil is typically found on broad
ridges and erosion is a moderate hazard where the mineral surface is exposed. Stoneville
loam is not listed as a hydric soil. Permeability and shrink-swell potential are moderate.
Stoneville loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes and Stoneville loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes are found
in the project area upslope and adjacent to the Congaree loam. Both phases of this soil are
well drained and usually occur on convex side slopes. Erosion may be a severe hazard where
the surface is exposed and surface runoff in these areas would be rapid. Shrink-swell
potential and permeability are moderate, and this soil is typically strongly acid to very strongly
acid. Efforts will made to ensure that no sediment leaves the construction site by following the
sediment and erosion control plan and the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for
Protection of Surface Waters.
Site productivity as measured by Site Index (Slso) for yellow poplar indicates that the Congaree
floodplain soils (Sl5o=107) are potentially more productive than the upland Stoneville soils
(Slso=90) (USDA-SCS, 1992).
C. WATER RESOURCES
1. Waters Impacted
The proposed project falls within the Roanoke River Basin, with a subbasin designation of
ROA2 (03-02-02) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of Roanoke-03010103.
2. Water Resource Characteristics
The Mayo River is a small, slow flowing river which discharges into the Dan River
approximately 2 miles south of the project study area. The Mayo River flows southeast
through the proposed project area with a width of approximately 60 feet. The depth was
unmeasurable on the day of the site visit due to a high precipitation storm event occurring on
the previous day which created a swift moving current with a high water volume.
The Mayo River has a Class WS-IV rating from the North Carolina Department of Environment
and Natural Resources (NCDENR). Class WS-IV indicates waters protected as water
supplies. These waters are found in moderately to highly developed watersheds where point
source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted pursuant to Rules .0104,
Considerations in Assigning Water Supply Classifications, and .0211, Fresh Surface Water
Classifications and Standards, of this subchapter; local programs to control nonpoint source
and storm water discharge are required; suitable for all Class C uses. A Class C designation
indicates the river's suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. The Classification Date and Index for this portion of the
river is 8/3/92, 22-30-(1).
Point-source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. A search within the project vicinity,
[0.5 miles] was conducted for the NPDES permitted dischargers and one permitted discharger,
Fred D. Mitchell & Son Sand Dredging, permit number NCG520020, was located 0.2 0.10
miles northwest of the project study area.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from US 220 business
may cause water quality degradation. There are no agricultural, residential or commercial sites
within the project study area.
Benthic macroinvertebrates, or benthos are organisms that live in and on the bottom
substrates of rivers and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (DWQ) uses
benthos data as a tool to monitor water quality as benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
subtle changes in water quality. Formerly, the DWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment but phased this
method out approximately six years ago and has converted to a basinwide assessment
sampling protocol. Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the
number of sampling stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for
biological, chemical and physical data. The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic
Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to determine general water quality in the basinwide
sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the Index of Biotic Integrity initially proposed by Karr
(1981) and Karr, et. al. (1986). The IBI method was developed for assessing a stream's
biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community. The Index
incorporates information about species richness and composition, trophic composition, fish
abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI summarizes the effects of all classes of factors
influencing aquatic faunal communities (water quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow
regime, and biotic interactions).
According to Ms. Nancy Guthrie, the DWQ has a sampling station located at SR 2177 at the
Mayo River and is about a mile south of the project study area. This station was last sampled
in September of 1994, with a DWQ sampling identification number of 6714. The NCIBI rating
of the Mayo River at this location was determined to be Good.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-l: undeveloped watershed, or WS-11:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.0 mile of project study area.
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities,
which may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts will be minimized by the
6
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
D. BIOTIC RESOURCES
1. Plant Communities
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants
and animals in the project area (Figure 2). These descriptions refer to the dominant flora and
fauna in each community and the relationship of these biotic components. Classification of
plant communities is based on the system used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are used for the plant and
animal species described. Subsequent references to the same species include the common
name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al. (1968) unless
more current information is available. Terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were determined through
field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of field guides and other documentation.
a. Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community within the project area includes the road shoulders and
embankments, the area between US 220 Business and the railroad on the west side of the
river, as well as gravel lots on the northeast and northwest sides of the bridge. Also included
in this community is a modified flood plain on both sides of the bridge west of the river. An
unpaved road under the bridge goes through the flood plain and leads to a sand mining
operation to the north of the project area. Soil from the unpaved road has been used to create
a levy in the flood plain area, and a man-made ditch leading from the sand mining operation
drains into the river via a culvert under the road. A few species remain here that are commonly
found in flood plains, but the disturbance is such that most of the natural community has been
removed.
The road shoulders consist of white clover (Trifolium repens), plantain (Plantago sp.),
dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and planted grass. Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica) and blackberry (Rubus argutus) are on embankments next to the road shoulders or
leading to the river at the bridge, and Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana) is growing on a bank at
the roadway approach on the southwest side of the bridge. The modified flood plain on the
west side of the river includes blackberry, tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), and a few river
birch (Betula nigre) and sycamore (Platanus occidentalis). This area contains discarded trash
and on the northwest side leads to a steep embankment that consists mainly of tree-of-
heaven. The area on the southwest side of US 220 Business that leads to the railroad has a
similar overstory and a very disturbed shrub layer that includes blackberry and honeysuckle.
b. Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest
This flood plain community occurs adjacent to the river on both sides of US 220 Business east
of the river. The northeast side is the least disturbed but both areas of this community contain
species that are indicative of past disturbance. The flood plain is small and is dominated by
river birch, sycamore, red maple (Acer rubrum), tree-of-heaven, ash (Fraxinus sp.), greenbriar
(Smilax sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, and river oats (Chasmanthium latifolium). Yellow-poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera) is abundant on the southeast side.
A review of aerial photography suggests that flood plain areas in the project vicinity vary in
disturbance. In some instances, human intervention appears to have disrupted the flood plain
all the way down to the edge of the river and in other more isolated areas it still appears to
remain intact. Even though this community has endured disturbance at the bridge in the
project area, wildlife typical of this type of habitat could possibly utilize it to forage or reside in.
C. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
This community occurs on the northeast side of the bridge adjacent to the Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest. It has been subjected to some disturbance as well, as evidenced by
the abundance of weedy species growing there. A sewer line is located near the edge of this
community adjacent to the flood plain. The elevation increases where the flood plain grades
into the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. Species composition here includes Virginia pine,
yellow-poplar, red maple, sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), and poison ivy (Toxicodendron (Rhus) radicans).
2. Wildlife
A turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) was sited in the Man-Dominated community on the day of the
visit. Other birds of prey such as red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis) and American kestrel
(Falco sparvedus) may utilize this area for feeding on small mammals, reptiles, small birds, and
insects. Additional wildlife that might reside or forage within the Man-Dominated community
include song sparrow (Melospiza melodia), common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), mourning
dove (Zenaida macroura), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus).
In the Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest on the day of the visit, small snails were found
under the leaf layer on the forest floor, and a cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis) was sited. Other
species that might exist in this community include white-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia
albicollis), which may feed here on seeds and insects, and blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila
caerulea), which may nest here, feeding on flies, gnats, and other insects. The worm snake
(Carphophis amoenus) may burrow here in search of worms or reside under logs or other
ground cover, and the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis) might utilize this habitat in
search of earthworms, fish, and amphibians. The golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalh) may
find suitable habitat to reside in among the vines, and raccoon (Procyon lotor) could forage for
food in this community.
No wildlife was sited in the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest on the day of the visit. Species that
might utilize this community include white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), which might
use this community to nest or forage in, and long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), which may
den here and hunt for rodents and bird eggs. Red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus) may breed
here and search for insects, and the red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus) could find
suitable nesting and feeding habitat White-throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis) may
reside in this community in the winter and the five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) could reside
here and search for food items such as spiders, crickets, and snails.
3. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Mayo River. Within the
project study area of Bridge No. 64, the Mayo River channel flows southeast and is
approximately 60 feet wide. The Mayo River and US 220 business cross at this location
perpendicular to each other. On the day of the field investigation, the river had swift moving
currents due to a high precipitation storm event occurring on the previous day. The river flow
volume was high and heavily silt laden. Investigation of the river depth and composition of the
river bottom substrate was impossible due to the high flow volume and rate.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussel and clam species.
Asiatic clam shells (Corbicula fluminia) were found along the riverbanks, but no other signs of
mollusks were found.
According to Shari Bryant, District 5 Fisheries Biologist for the NCWRC, fish found in the Mayo
River at this location include largemouth bass (Micropterus salmoides), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis auritus), smallmouth bass (Micropterus dolomieu), carp (Cyprinidae spp.), suckers
(Catostomidae spp.) and catfish (Ictaluridae spp.). She described the river at this location as
both pool and riffle habitat with a substrate consisting primarily of bedrock and some boulders
with cobble, gravel and sand. Bridge replacement recommendations include placing the new
structure as close as possible to the existing structure, deck drains not discharging directly into
the river, wet concrete not being allowed to contact the water and a clear bank (riprap free)
area of at least ten feet remaining on each side of the stream underneath the bridge. An
additional NCWRC comment from a scoping letter concerning this project requested that a
riffle area located 70 to 100 feet upstream of the bridge be avoided during construction
because it provides an excellent fish habitat.
4. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
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 slopes can result in the aquatic community receiving heavy
sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. Efforts will made to ensure that no sediment
leaves the construction site by following the sediment and erosion control plan and the
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
9
Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic communities by habitat type.
TABLE 1
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO
TERRESTRIAL and AQUATIC COMMUNITIES
Bridge'No 64 Man- Piedmorit/Low Mesic Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Mountain,Alluvial Mixed Community Total
Impacts Community Forest Hardwood acre < acre
acre acre Forest
acre
Alternate A 0.50 0.10 0 0.16 0.76
Temporary; 0.73 0.09 0 0.16 0.98
Alternate B. 0.50 0.10 0 0.16 0.76
Alternate-:C. 1.65 0.11 0 0.16 1.92
NOTE. Impacts are based on 60 feet right-of-way width.
a. Plant Communities
The Piedmont Alluvial Forest, Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, and the Man-Dominated
communities serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for fauna. The loss of these
habitats will result in the displacement of faunal species in residence. Individual mortalities
may occur to some terrestrial animals from construction machinery used during clearing
activities, and from loss of habitats.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community
present in the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Often, project construction does not require the entire right-of-
way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
b. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Mayo River channel. The
replacement of Bridge No. 64 over the Mayo River will place the structure over 60 x 30 feet or
0.04 acres of river bottom under the footprint of the proposed new bridge. Note that by
definition bridging avoids impacts to jurisdictional waters. Additional downstream impacts may
also occur and should be avoided. This represents worst case conditions; actual disturbed
area will likely be less. Impacts to the adjacent Man-Dominated and forested communities can
have a direct impact on aquatic communities. Construction of the bridge and approach work
as well as the removal of trees will likely result in an increase in sediment loads and water
temperature, and a decrease in dissolved oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can
also increase the possibility of toxins, such as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the
waterways and impacting aquatic organisms. These factors can potentially cause the
displacement and mortality of fish and local populations of invertebrates which inhabit these
10
areas. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be
strictly enforced to minimize potential adverse impacts due to this project.
E. SPECIAL TOPICS
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
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).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods
of the 1987 USACOE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetland areas were found within the
project study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACOE. Up to 60 feet
linear or 0.08 acres of jurisdictional surface waters impacts may occur due to the proposed
replacement of Bridge No. 64.
2. Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USACOE 1344), a
permit will be required from the USACOE for the discharge of dredged or fill material into
"Waters of the United States". Since no substantial impacts are expected from this project, a
Categorical Exclusion level study is applicable. Categorical Exclusions are subject to the
Nationwide Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 33-.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. It states 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. A Section 404 permit
is not anticipated to be required for this project; however, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the USACOE. A nationwide permit will likely be required.
Bridge demolition and removal will be addressed at the time of the permit application.
Since a Section 404 permit should not be required, a Section 401 Water Quality Certification,
administered through the NCDENR, should also not be required. This certificate is issued for
any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal permit is required.
3. Mitigation
Since no wetland impacts are anticipated, mitigation is not expected to be required by the
USACOE. Mitigation for impacts to surface waters of 150 feet or less is generally not required
by the USACOE. NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will
be implemented, as applicable, to minimize adverse impacts to surface waters.
11
F. RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of plants and animals are in the process of decline due either to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with humans. Rare and protected species listed for
Rockingham County, and any likely impacts to these species as a result of the proposed
project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The United States Fish
and Wildlife Service lists one federally protected species for Rockingham County as of the
May 13, 1999 listing (Table 2). Information pertinent to this species and the possibility of
impact due to the proposed project is listed below.
TABLE 2
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
FOR ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
NOTE:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a
significant portion of its range)
Species: Echinacea laevigata (smooth coneflower)
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 10/8/92
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that reaches a height of approximately 5
feet. Basal leaves are larger than mid-stem leaves, often measuring 7.9 inches in length and
3.0 inches in width. Leaves are elliptical or broadly lanceolate in shape and flower heads are
usually solitary. Flowers are light pink to purplish with drooping rays. Flowering occurs from
May through July.
Habitat for smooth coneflower includes open woods, roadsides, and power line right-of-ways.
This species prefers areas with low competition and abundant sunlight and is often associated
with magnesium and calcium rich soils. Some form of disturbance is needed in order to
maintain the open habitat necessary for the coneflower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Several sources of published information available at the time of this report suggest that
the smooth coneflower is associated with basic or circumneutral soils. According to the
12
county soil survey, soils in the project area are strongly acid. Although there is open
habitat available in the Man-Dominated community, inappropriate soils may be a limiting
factor for suitable habitat. The NCNHP has not reported any occurrence of the smooth
coneflower in the project vicinity; however, since field work was conducted during a time
of year when the presence or absence of this species could not be confirmed. A survey
was conducted on September 18, 1998, in the project area for smooth coneflower. All
areas of potential habitat were thoroughly searched for this species and it was not found.
In addition, no species of the genus Echinacea was observed.
2. 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 or 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. Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special
Concern by the NCNHP database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state
protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection
and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 3 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Rockingham County and their state
classifications. The NCNHP database showed no recorded occurrences of FSCs in the project
area.
TABLE 3
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES
OF CONCERN IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Scientific North Carolina Habitat
(Common?Name) ,Status, Present,
Lotus helled C No
(Carolina birdfoot-trefoil)
NOTE:
C Denotes Candidate (species for which population monitoring and conservation action is
recommended).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Habitat does not exist in the project area for Carolina birdfoot-trefoil, which is an FSC, and the
NCNHP database shows no occurrences of this species in the vicinity of the project.
13
VII. CULTURAL RESOURCES
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historical Preservation
Act of 1966, as amended, 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 for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties
listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given the opportunity to comment.
In a concurrence form dated May 28, 1998, and a memorandum dated June 18, 1998, the
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are no historic architectural
resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places located
in the project's area of potential effect. A copy of the concurrence form is included in the
Appendix.
The SHPO, in a memorandum dated December 3, 1998, stated that "given the results of
previous archaeological surveys in the area and the fact that the new right-of-way is near the
railroad, it is unlikely that the bridge replacement will have an effect upon significant
archaeological resources" and therefore recommends that "no archeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project". A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in
the Appendix.
VIII. 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 a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of significant
environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of current NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
significant change in land use is expected to result from 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 anticipated. 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.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime and important farmland soils by all land acquisition and
14
construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the Natural
Resources Conservation Service (NRCS). The completed form is included in the Appendix.
According to NRCS, the proposed project will impact 1.1 acres of soils defined as prime and
statewide or local important farmland soils. This accounts for very little of the 250,448 acres
of prime or important soils found in Rockingham County. The impact rating determined
through completion of Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact Rating indicates that the
site's assessment and relative value score is 125 out of a possible 260. A score higher than
160 would indicate that mitigation should be considered.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Rockingham 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 traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be significant.
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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This
evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part
772) and for air quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) 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.
Rockingham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. This
site on the Mayo River is included in an approximate F.E.M.A. study. Attached is a copy of the
Flood Insurance Rate Map, Figure 5, on which are shown the approximate limits of the 100-
year flood plain in the vicinity of the project.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no significant adverse environmental
effects will result from implementation of the project.
15
N
O
S
?I /-,, 4e;
Jt 1300
J I 1 395 1340
I
BRIDGE NO. 64
MAYODAN
POP. 2,552
?
i r or 2
15 05
1 0 2
SCALE

m 2178
2150
LEGEND
Ink Stuld ?etour
ou e
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
ROCK17VGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO 64 ON US 220 BUSINESS
OVER MAYO RIVER
TIP NO. B-32.30
FIGURE I
2263
2264
Km
3 4 MILES
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 64
B-3230
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
NORTHSIDE OF
BRIDGE
FIGURE 3
h
x a
h O?? ?? M
xo
a ?
"NL
M
?a ? oo a
HwNy ? N _J
V
a
0
Q
U a h ao M h
Li
? ,? g N h U
~ ti ? N a
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
B-3230

am
,S
v
(? ?'R• ?199 I
r p04 ti ? i

ZONE A
BRIDGE #64
? ZONE ASR 11
4 1( ?\c
L
\LL
' ?f
APPROXIMATE FEMA FLOOD STUDY MAP
II SCALE 1:240M
1 7 0 1 MILE
1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET
1 .5 0 1 KILOMETER
FIGURE 5
1 y^.
1
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
December 3, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NC Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook 6_?a
Deputy State His ric Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XVII, Bridge 64 on US 220 Business
over Mayo River, Rockingham County, B-3230,
State Project No. 8.151150 1, Federal-Aid No.
BRSTP-2206(2), ER 989264
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Thank you for your memorandum of November 4, 1998, concerning the above
project.
We have reviewed the plans that accompanied your memorandum and note that
sixty feet of additional new right-of-way south of the existing bridge will be
necessary to complete the project as proposed. Given the results of previous
archaeological surveys in the area and the fact that the new right-of-way is near the
railroad, it is unlikely that the bridge replacement will have an effect upon
significant archaeological resources. We, therefore, recommend no archaeological
investigation in connection with this project as proposed.
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: Nicholas Graf
IXee Novick
109 Fast Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
??
Federal.4id 9 BRSTP-220B(2) TIP 4 B-3230 County: Rockingham
CONCURRENCE FORNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 64 on US 220 Bus. over vlavo River (Bridge Group 17)
On May 28, 1998. 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
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
7 there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
® there are properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects, but based
on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, the property
identified as Bridge #64 is considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
evaluation of it is necessary.
® there are no National Register-listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
Signed:
Represe to ve, CDOT Date
FHW or the Divisi Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
A ?
e:.
Representative, 5 PO

Date
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
A? SWF°?
J
?ww+?
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 18, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of rTr-ansportation
FROM: David Brook :
p y
De ut State Hlstorlc t?reserv
atlon ffice
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XVII, Bridge 64 on
Mayo River, Rockingham County,
9264
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
1VE0
040
Iz-
UN 2 2 ?99? z
J p1??S10? ??
US 220 Bus. over B-3230, ER 98-
Thank you for your memorandum of June 5, 1998, concerning the above project.
On May 28, 1998, members of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation to review photographs of properties within
the project's area of potential effect. Based upon our review of the photographs,
we are aware of no historic structures in the area of potential effect, and
recommend that no additional historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
The floodplain east of the bridge replacement was previously surveyed for
archaeological resources in connection with a sewer line project. Although sites
were located, none were directly adjacent to the existing bridge. As soon as it is
available, please forward information concerning the location of the proposed bridge
replacement and any necessary realignment, approach work, or temporary detour
structures so we may complete our review.
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 ???
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 9
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Cp" ator -i?
Habitat Conservation Progra?n?? ??
DATE: July 27, 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Group XVII Bridge Replacements
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 July 27, 1918
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 July 27, 1998
floodpWn. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-2938 - The bridge should be replaced with a spanning structure, in place
with an off-site detour. This area of the White Oak River is a primary nursery
area and is closed to shellfishing. There is a fringe of salt marsh adjacent to the
bridge on the North/West side which should be avoided. The White Oak River
supports anadromous runs of striped bass, river herring, and American shad.
No in-water work should occur from February 15 to September 30. This
moratorium is longer than the standard anadromous fish moratorium due to the
primary nursery area designation.
2. B-2950 - This bridge should be replaced with a spanning structure, in place
with an off-site detour. Tulls Creek is designated as a primary nursery area.
This creek is known to support anadromous runs of striped bass as well as
quality runs of largemouth bass, sunfish and other gamefish. Our agency
collects brood fish for largemouth bass restocking efforts from this section of
Tulls Creek. Turbidity resulting from in-water work could damage critical
freshwater spawning habitat not only in Tulls Creek but also in Tulls Bay. No
in-water work should occur from February 15 to September 30. This
moratorium is longer than the standard anadromous fish moratorium due to the
primary nursery area designation. There are also several Bald eagle nests along
Tulls Creek. If any trees are to be removed eagle nest surveys should be
performed.
3. B-2965 - This bridge should be replaced in place with an off-site detour if
possible. The Tar river supports important runs of anadromous striped bass,
hickory shad, American shad and river herring. The standard anadromous fish
moratorium, February 15 to June 15, will be required. Also the federally listed,
endangered, Tar spineymussel occurs in the Tar River in the vicinity of the
bridge. A survey for this species should be performed 100 meters above the
bridge to 400 meters downstream of the bridge. Based on the results of this
survey additional conservation measures may be required. (Contact NCDOT
Biologist, Tim Savidge.) -
4. B-3013 - No specific concerns.
5. B-3045 - No specific concerns.
6. B-3214 - No specific concerns.
v7' B-3230 - Nice riffles which provide excellent fish habitat are located 20-30
meters upstream of Bridge No. 64. This area should be avoided during the
bridge replacement.
8. B-3231 - No specific concerns.
9. B-3256 - No specific concerns.
Bridge Replacement Memo 4
10. B-3380 - No specific concerns.
July 27, 1998
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
to review and comment on these projects.

Y9 , DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH.CASOLINA28402-1890
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF September 29, 1998
Planning Services Section
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
R'E
z 0 4
czi 02 9
/96
S r,
This is in response to a letter from your office dated June 5, 1998, subject:
"Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge
replacement projects are located in various Eastern and 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,
C. Alex Morrison, Jr., P.E.
Chief, Technical Services Division
Enclosure
September 29, 1998
Page 1 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
,Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L Willis Planninq Services Section at
[phone]
All of the bridges- are within counties and communities which participate in the
Nai:ional Flood !nsurarno Prcgram. From the. various. Flo d InsL!rance Rate A1aps.
(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, if
controlled by riverine flooding, normally have floodways defined. Of these bridge
crossings, only the Tar River in Edgecombe County has a floodway defined.) Based on
a review of the FIRM's and pertinent United States Geological Survey topo maps, none
of the bridges over railroads appear to be in identified flood hazard areas. A summary
of flood plain information pertaining to the other bridges is contained in the following
table. The FIRMs are from the county or countywide flood insurance study unless
otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. Count Stream Type Firm
49 SR 1101 Carteret White Oak River Approx 8/85
" SR 1442 Onslow 7/87
4 SR 1222 Currituck Tull Creek Detail 11/84
24
Y US 64 Bus
y Edgecombe
„ Tar River Detail 2/88

17

NC 89

Stokes Y

Dan River

Approx
4/80
9/88
64 US 220 Bus Rockingham Mayo River Approx 5/9

Map is Town of Tarboro FIRM.
*" Map is Town of Princeville FIRM.
September 29. 1998
Page 2 of 4
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS WILMINGTON DISTRICT COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group XVII Bridge Replacement Projects" in various
Eastern and Piedmont North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: (Continued)
For the Tar River crossing, we refer you to the Federal Emergency Management
Agency's "Procedures for *No Rise' Certification for Proposed Developments in
Regulatory Floodways", copies of which have been furnished previously to your office.
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.
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Washington and Wilmington Field
Offices. Regulatory Division (Individual POC's are listed followina the comments.)
Based upon a review of Projects B-3013 and B-3231 (bridge replacements over
railroads), it appears that the proposed work is not likely to impact any jurisdictional
waters subject to Department of the Army (DA) permit authority. In addition, from a
review of submitted information and all available maps for the bridge-over-railroad
Project B-3214, it was determined that no jurisdictional wetlands will be impacted by
this proposed project. Accordingly, no DA authorization will be required in this case.
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, DA 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. Specific permit requirements will depend on design of the projects, extent of fill
work within waters of the United States, including wetlands (dimensions, fill amounts,
etc.), construction methods, and other factors. Also, please be reminded that Stokes
County is one of the twenty-five mountain counties of North Carolina that contain trout
waters. Review and comments are required from the North Carolina Wildlife
Resources Commission prior to any action being taken on DA permit authorization for
identified trout water counties.
U.S. Department Commander
' of Transportation United States Coast Guard
V I Atlantic Area
United States
U Coast Guard
Mr. Richard Davis. P.E.
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
431 Crawford Street
Portsmouth. Va. 23704-5004
Staff Symbol: Aowb
Phone: [phone]
1690
July 7. 1998
r

Dear Mr. Davis: pyp
This is in response to your letter dated June- 5, 1998 requesting the Coast Guard to review the
proposed projects to replace ten bridges of which five are over waterways. The following are the
five bridge numbers and their to tions: #49 White Oak River; #4 Tull Creek; #24 Tar River;
#17 Dan River; and #64 May 'ver. P>?g33 FjZ95D gZ?(O'
F5? 0i4 5 8323
The Coast Guard Authorization Act of 1982 exempts bridge projects from Coast Guard bridge
permits when the bridge project crosses nontidal waters which are not used, susceptible to use in
their natural condition, or susceptible to use by reasonable improvement as a means to transport
interstate commerce. Ms. Pam Williams confirmed such conditions in a telephone conversation
on June 30, 1998. Due to this, the bridge projects on the Dan and Mayo Rivers are exempt, and
will not require Coast Guard Bridge Permits.
Tull Creek, and the White Oak and Tar Rivers are subject to tidal influence and thus considered
legally navigable for Bridge Administration Purposes. However, these waterways also meet the
criteria for advance approval waterways outlined in Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 115.70. Advance approval waterways are those that are navigable in law, but not
actually navigated by other than small boats. The Commandant of the Coast Guard has given his
advance approval to the construction of bridges across such waterways; therefore, an individual
permit will not be required for these three projects.
The fact that Coast Guard permits are not required does not relieve you of the responsibility for
compliance with the requirements of any other Federal, State, or local agency who may have
jurisdiction over any aspect of the project.
Sincerely,
ANN B. DEATON.
Chief, Bridge Administration Section
By direction of the Commander
Fifth Coast Guard District
?1 C 1 0 `f' / 1 ?)
C
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636.3726
June 17, 1998
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611-520
Dear Mr. Gilmore:

•-, ??;t 1 9 199a 1QC
? ?,, ICI•i 0' c`
Thank you for your letter of June 5, 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
B-2938, Carteret/Onslow Counties, Replace Bridge No. 49 on SR 1101/SR 1442 over the
White Oak River;
2. B-2950, Currituck County, Replace Bridge No. 4 on SR 1222 over Tull Creek;
3. B-2965, Edgecombe County, Replace Bridge No. 24 on US 64 Business over the Tar River,
4. B-3013, Person County, Replace Bridge No. 48 on US 501 over the Norfolk Southern
Railway;
5. B-3045, Stokes County, Replace Bridge No. 17 on NC 89 over the Dan River;
6. B-3214, Northampton County, Replace Bridge No. 64 on US 301 over the CSX Railway;
7. B-3230, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 64 on US 220 Business over the Mayo
River;
8. B-3231, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 243 on SR 1378 over the North/Western
Railway;
9. B-3256, Wake County, Replace Bridge No. 337 on SR 1105 over the Norfolk Southern
Railway; and,
10. B-3380, Richmond County, Replace Bridge No. 43 on Rice Street over the CSX Railn-ay in
Hamlet.
This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U. S. C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-15-13). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects. The following is applicable to all the
projects listed above except Item #5, B-3045. Stokes County is in an area of the state under the
jurisdiction of the Services' Asheville Office. They should be contacted for resource information
pertinent to this project.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with detailed site-specific comments at this
time. However, the following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate, construction in sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.
2

We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
1. A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;
2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing bridges, new bridges on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative,
3. A description of.the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corns of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps);
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include 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. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,

If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective Counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas 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. Listed species have been known to occur in the vicinity of two of
the bridge replacement sites.
The red-cockaded woodpecker (RCW) (Picoides horealis) is known from the vicinity of project
B-2938, Carteret/Onslow Counties. In addition to the recommendations listed below, if the
proposed project will be removing pines 9" DBH or greater, or 30 years of age in pine or
pine/hardwood habitat, surveys should be conducted for active RCW cavity trees in appropriate
habitat within a 0.5 mile radius of project boundaries. If the RCW is observed within the project
area or active cavity trees are found, the project has the potential to affect the RCW, and you
should contact this office for further information.
The Tar spinymussel (Elliptio steinstansana) has been recorded upstream of project B-2965,
Edgecombe County. A mussel survey should be conducted at the proposed bridge replacement
site, covering 100 meters upstream, and 400 meters downstream of the crossing. In addition, the
applicant must implement the following measures to insure protection for all aquatic resources
occurring downstream:
Installation of instream silt curtain weighted at the bottom, and stringent bank erosion
control. If tree removal is required, stumps and roots should remain intact for bank
stabilization;
2. instream construction activities should be initiated only during low flow conditions that
permit the effective deployment of the silt curtain; and,
3. Before stream crossings are to begin, the contractor should notify the Service within one
week of the construction initiation date. The Service would like the opportunity to inspect
the installation of the silt curtain and check any possible changes in stream flow conditions
when scheduling allows.
4
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts;
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections;
An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat;
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area;
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart from the action under consideration);
and,
The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation;
4. A description of the manne in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including project proposals to reduce/eliminate adverse effects. Direct
mortality, injury, harassment, the loss of habitat, and/or the degradation of habitat are all
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected,
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
5

6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
John N1. Hefner
Field Supervisor
Enclosures
cc:
COE, Mike Bell, Washington, NC
COE, Eric Alsmeyer, Raleigh, NC
COE, Scott McLendon, Wilmington, NC
NCDWQ, John Dorsey, Raleigh, NC
FHWA, Nicholas Graf, Raleigh, NC
EPA, Ted Bisterfield, Atlanta, GA
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:06/16/98:919/856-4520 extension 32:\10-brdge.rpl
6
Mapping Symbols f or
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
(7 Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
Roseate Tern
p Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
V Waccamaw Silverside
Plants
? American Chaffseed
Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
Seabeach Amaranth
;a Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Coneflower
Mussels
x Dwarf-wedge Mussel
66, Tar Spinymussel
Mammals
. Eastern Cougar
Red Wolf
Seaturtles are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In ROCKINGHAM County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
804 79'45' 74•Znl
36'30'
Edm
4C
a
C r
i
I
Rd&r& I
I
n I

&A
36'15'
3 4
.,.,.. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service ° ? 2? s MILES
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program o 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
,?t•r' D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
expires 1/31/99
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE SCS-CPAa106
SOIL CONVERSION SERVICE
FARMLAND COIF RSION IMPACT RATING
WnR CORRMOR TYPE PROJECTS
Part I (To be Completed by Federal Agency) _ 3. Date of Land Evaluation Request ff Shed 1 of _I_
10n198
1. Names of Project 5. Federal Agency Involved
FIiWA
NCDOT
&3230 ,
2. Type of Project
BRIDGE REPLACEMENT 6. County and State
ROCKINGHAM,NC
PART II (To be completed by SCS) 1. Date R u Received by SCS. Z. Perin Completing Form
%7. Lb - C_ WcoWk
3. Does the corridor contain prime unique statewide or local important farmland? Yes 4. Acres Irrigated Avenge Farm Size
f this form No
t
l a /J L` \ rJ
ddi
l
i
par
s o
ona
t
A
(If no the FPPA does not apply -Do not complete a
5. Major Crop(s) 6. Farmable Land in Government Jurisdiction: 7. zArgg O of F?nnlarV Defined in FPPA
O `J ?F-4
Co 2b (A
o of Land Evaluation System Used 9. Name of Local Site Assessmont System 10. Date Land Evaluation Returned by SCS
o
8.
AJ
Q tJV
t
t
.
oek? I Na NE 17.1ZI
PART III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Corridor for Segment
Corridor A Corridor B Corridor C Corridor D
A Total Acres to be Converted Directly 0.0 0.0 1.1
B. Total Acres to be Converted Indirectly or to Receive Services
C. Total Acres in Corridor 0.0 0.0 1.1
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A Total Acres Prime and Unique Farmland A
B. Total Acres Statewide and Local Important Farmland O
C. Percentage of Farmland in County or Local Govt. Unit to be Converted a. o 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 Serviced or Converted (Scale of 0-100 Points) 1 o D
PART VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Corridor Nlaximum
Assessment Criteria ese criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(c)) Points
1. Area in Nonurban Use 15
2. Perimeter in Nonurban Use 10
3. Percent of Corridor Being Fanned 20
4. Protection Provided by State and Local Government 20
5. Size of Present Farm Unit Compared to Average 10
6. Creation of Nonfarmable Farmland 25 O
7. Availability of Farm Support Services 5 G
8. On-Farm Investments 20 O
9. Effects of Conversion On Farm Support Services 25 O
10. Compatibility with Existing Agricultural Use 10
TOTAL CORRIDOR ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 2-?
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value of Farmland (From Part V) 100 I o O
Total Corridor Assessment (Form Part VI above or a local site 160 ZS
t
assessmen

TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines

Total Acres of Farmlands to
2
260
3. Date of Selection:

4. Was a Local Site Assessment Used?
.
1. Corridor Selected:
be Converted by Project: Yes No
5. Reason for Selection:
Signature of Person Completing this
Late
Complete a form for each segment with more than one Alternative Corridor
RE'LOCAT10N REPORT
"J E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
OJECT: 8.1511501 COUNTY Rockingham Alternate A of 3 Alternates
NO.: B-3230 F.A. PROJECT N/A
SCRIPTI ON OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 64 on US220 Business over Mayo River

.. ,. ..

.•. lcs nmATED D15PLACEES :.:. ,:.... .

......
.
.
.

.
INCOME..F:E'i/EL ::... ...
:)e of
s lacee Owner Tenant Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
!sidential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
siness 0 0 0 0
YALUE'GF
DVVEI:LING
ASS DW LUN .... ,
G AVAILABLE::...........
rm 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
,r-p--)fit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M p $ 0-150
1

p
gpg1N1:R:?iLL g1JES t1pNg .; 2040M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
to Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250-400 0 40-70M 0 250400 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400-800 0
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 Goo UP 0 100 up 0 600 UP 0
displacement?
TOTAL
0 0 0 0
3. Will business services still be available after REMARKS Res and b .Number
......
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, This Is a negative report There are no dispiacees on this
Indicate size, type, estimated number of project
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X
I 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X ll. Is public housing available?
12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? NIA NM I

L
Relocation A e Date Approved b Date
rm 15.4 Revised 02196 d I V
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RELOCATION REPORT 11
E.I.S. 0 CORRIDOR F? DESIGN

North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
DJECT: 8.1511501 COUNTY Rocking ham Alternate B of 3 Alternates
NO.: B-3230 F.A. PROJECT N/A
'CRIPTION OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 64 on US220 Business over Mayo River

..::ESTINFATED. DISAI:AC> ES; .. ..: , ..:, :. INCOME E:EVEL ....'......... :
le of
placee I Owner Tenant Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
5idential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
5iness 0 0 0 0 ? : YAttlE:OF DVVEt LII+IG ?.p SS DWELL'11+b G AVAILABLE :...:.::.i
'm 0 0 0 0 Owners Tenants For S ale For R ent
n-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M Q $ 0450 0
<•::94NSWEli:'ALI •ir?IlESTl0111S`;:. ... . .: . 20-d0A1 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 Q
No Explain all "YES" answers. 40-70M 0 250400 0 40-70M 0 250-400 Q
X 1. WIN special relocation services be necessary? 70400m Q 400.800 0 70-10CM 0 4004800 Q
X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up Q 800 up Q 100 up Q Goo UP 0

displacement?
TOTAL 0
0 1 of, 0
3. WIII business services still be available after RE1VI?tRft Res and b . NU tier
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, This is a negative report. There are no displacees on this
Indicate size, type, estimated number of project.
....................
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X
T
7.
Will additional housing programs be needed?
X X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
...................
families?
X 10. WIN public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
12 . Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
housing available during relocation period?
X 13 . Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14 . Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15 . Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? NIA ??i..
17
(!

Relocation nt Date
-9
roved b
Ap
Date
,an 15.4 Revised 02/9 d Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office
RAEL6CATION REPORT
I " I E.I.S. F? CORRIDOR F? DESIGN
North Carolina Department of Transportation
AREA RELOCATION OFFICE
ROJECT: 8.1511501 COUNTY Rockingham Alternate C of 3 Alternates
D. No.: B-3230 F.A. PROJECT N/A
ESCRIPTI ON OF PROJECT: Replace Bridge No. 64 on US220 Business over Mayo River

.:_ .
. .
ESTIN1AT® Dt0.LAcEES ...:
INCOME.: LEVEL.''
ype of
lis lacee Owner Tenant Total Minority 0-15M 15-25M 25-35M 35-50M 50 UP
residential 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Wsiness 0 0 0 VALUE Of DWELLIt+tG OWDWEL1;N GAVAIL,ABLE:.. .....
arm 0 0 0 0 Owners Tena nts For S ale For R ent
Ion-Profit 0 0 0 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0 0-20M 0 $ 0-150 0
>;ANSWEP t:ALL CiJESTIONli 20-40M 0 150-250 0 20-40M 0 150-250 0
es No Explain aU "YES" answers. 40-70m 0 250400 0 40-70M 0 250400 I 0
X 1. Will special relocation services be necessary? 70-100M 0 400-600 0 70-100M 0 400.800 0
I X 2. Will schools or churches be affect by 100 up 0 600 UP 0 100 UP 0 600 up 0
displacement? TOTAL 0
0
0
X I 3. Will business services still be available after
REI?AIi14s> Res ortc! b :Number..
project?
X 4. Will any business be displaced? If so, This is a negative report. There are no displacees on this
indicate size, type, estimated number of project.
employees, minorities, etc.
X 5. Will relocation cause a housing shortage?
6. Source for available housing (list).
X 7. Will additional housing programs be needed?
X 8. Should Last Resort Housing be considered?
X 9. Are there large, disabled, elderly, etc.
families?
X 10. Will public housing be needed for project?
X 11. Is public housing available?
X 12. Is it felt there will be adequate DSS housing
..................
housing available during relocation period?
X 13. Will there be a problem of housing within
financial means?
X 14. Are suitable business sites available (list
source).
15. Number months estimated to complete
RELOCATION? NIA

Relocation ant Date F == '' Approved b Date
:ortn 15.4 Revised 02/96'd
Original & 1 Copy: State Relocation Agent
2 Copy Area Relocation Office