20020345 Ver 1_Complete File_20020307

B-3400
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPING SHEET
State Project No. 8.2472401 Right of Way 1-01
Federal Project No. BRZ-1561(3) Construction Let 1-02
Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over Haw River in
Alamance County, B-3400.
Bridge No. 18 LENGTH 43 METERS; WIDTH 7.3 METERS
141 FEET 24 FEET
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 500,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 50,000
TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 550,000
CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route

N
N
87 ( o
n
.
r---:--- ---- -

i ?• __1587 - - - - - -.-
i
1
' 1580, ; 1584 86 `•y ?' I 1614
? p 1586 S

i

-
1578

58
A .4
1611
AV?v
; LAKE
i
5 BURLINGTON
1577 ._
RES

•i
0
0• 1 .
,?
1579 _ 1584N 158 3 ^ '
1609 g
6 1 2
-
ilo
S •
-
,`
C 1581 _ Stony
"'
Creek
'•? N
1 1581
i
1
8 1581
Ch.
i 1610
2
15 .6 -
> ,
1581
• 1571 '•. :
_. _
` `
1587 f?
willom
Ch
X
1
, 576 1582
1.8'

1
15 6 i .5
1583
1 i
1 3
87 N
1 `` 157 2 157 1 9''
1 y ??
.•
• ?
2 N `
i
1560 `
G Alta ow •` i
8 ?
15 3
3
1693 ?.

--A5E34 O 1611 -160c
6 1581
1583
8 9
1584 er?ljj
i _
,._ ._. ,..
Bridge No.18 ~ - .......
1587 /1002
?.
.3
1667 p 3 1. 100
-
i • 4 t, 4 X1587 - 1 -. 581
,
1684 .2 16
1683
2 05 , d-
i 685 6 1,663- ?
•A
`i 159 .2 ;
.3
% 1594
.7 , 1603
M 1602 l lA?tre .. '? •\
1593 ` ` `,` 1604 • 2 \" `•i
?•., 1595 1598
1
S
7• /
' 31
16C
)C - 0
C NS''?-/
19-
a J S±p> it \??' S'\
t e ,\ 14
A N ?V
?Saow Lamy _
00
a, , `` , North Carolina
Department of Transportation
r_r± Division of Highways
A !!?
Planning & Environmental Branch
Ago
Alamance County
Replace Bridge No, 18 on SR 1561
Over Haw River
B-3400
FIGURE 1
,f?
) \\\ V \1l
Q
Y .. ?? ? lYJ'll
.. c.. • 7"00 / / /
o
•J• r
?t,' ??\ • +? 2 ?1y 4008 -:
12'30"
4001
°. • u /? \, ?,\? " x<s J? ;. J? \?C •??? / v / 4006
em'
//111/ U ?- t ? _. _?. •` • j1\
f
\ 't '/l ? _ ?.. ire %, ?\• J?? ?\ ??
Ili G -^1 ;' r
Yi.
wl,
II. ?.I y' \ IIr O ?_\ \ 1 ( 4004
u TO'
DO4
?' 003
v J` ;? ( k i goo a luJ`?
IV'
/? ; 0 II
650
J 705 ; z: 1 _ _ 4002
737
v
a0
I o
0
0
0
0
? O
? O
l ?
I
i
I
a
13_ 3? c
c?
d
D
O
0
O ?
p o
O

o o O
?
a ?
d d o 0
rl?
0
a Cl °
0
0

0
0 Q
O Q
o 0 o O ° ? ? O
000
G
o o a o
O
o a
a
0
o
G7b ? 0
p
w
O
Q
? O o o0
a
'i
} o i
0 c
D
0 0 0
d
e ?

o a O O V
a O d
Q p

I .. -{
J JAN
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
WETLANDS GRo(ip
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATIO WATER UALIIY S f
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NO. TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 22, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1561, Alamance County, Replacement of Bridge No. 18
over Haw River, State Project 8.247240 1,
F. A. Project BRZ-1561(3), B-3400
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 14, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Sid Autry Location & Surveys Greg Mintz Traffic Control
Betsy Cox Structure Design Jay Bennett Roadway Design
Debbie Bevin SHPO David Chang Hydraulics
Tony Houser Roadway Design John Williams Planning & Environmental
Ray McIntyre Program Development
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Right of Way: January 2001
Construction: January 2002
Current Schedule
Bridge No. 18
[Built in 1971] [141 feet long] [24.2 foot wide deck] [23.3 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 20 feet] [Posted 27 tons for SV and 31 tons for
TTST's] [Sufficiency Rating 34.1] [Estimated useful remaining life 6 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1561 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Land use is a mix of agricultural, industrial, and residential.
Current ADT is 1300 VPD
Projected 2025 ADT is 2500 VPD
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
r

Accident Information: (1-1-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Ran off road on east approach in curve
Accident 2) Ran off road on west approach in curve
Bus Information: Four trips a day. No burden to detour
Cross Section of New Bridge According to Bridge Policy:
If Ds <45 mph; Deck width = 28 feet
If Ds >=45 mph; Deck width = 30 feet
SCOPING COMMENTS
Cyndi Bell (who wrote in comments) stated that Haw River is class C waters.
Sid Autry of Location Surveys noted the presence of a Bell South underground
telephone line along the north side of SR 1561 beginning approximately 290 feet east of
the bridge and running east. Duke Power has a three-wire electrical service along the
south side of SR 15671 throughout this project.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated that there are no known archaeological sites of
interest. Therefore, SHPO will not require an archaeological survey. However, the mill
on the southwest corner of the bridge will need to be evaluated for architectural
significance.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission (who wrote in comments)
indicated no specific concerns.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing structure with a
bridge 150 feet long on the existing location with approximately the same roadway
elevation.
Mike Cowan, Division Construction Engineer, recommended replacing the bridge
on the existing location. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
ALTERNATE FOR EVALUATION
Replace Bridge No. 18 on the existing location. Detour traffic offsite during
construction.
Jay Bennett of Roadway Design indicated that construction estimates and sketches will
be available in February.
M?TFp
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIs TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 22, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: File
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1614, Warren County, Replacement of Bridge No. 8 over
Shocco Creek, State Project 8.2410601, F. A. Project BRZ-
1614(1), B-3532
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 10, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Elton Crutchfield Location & Surveys G. Mintz Traffic Control
Neb Bullock Structure Design Ray Moore Structure Design
Debbie Bevin SHPO Greg Brew Roadway Design
David Williams Roadway Design John Williams Planning & Environmental
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule and Charge Information
Right of Way: June 2001
Construction: June 2002
Project No. 8.2410601 Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1614(1)
Bridge No. 8
[Built in 1955] [111 feet long] [20.1 foot wide deck] [19.2 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 17 feet] [Posted 9 tons for SV and 13 tons for
TTST's] [Sufficiency Rating 38.8] [Estimated useful remaining life 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1614 is a Rural Local Route with no posted speed limit in the vicinity.
Land use is primarily agricultural, with scattered residential and undeveloped.
Current ADT is 300 VPD
Projected 2025 ADT is 600 VPD
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
9
Accident Information: (1-1-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Exceeding a safe speed limit, lost control and ran into bridge rail
Accident 2) Hit a deer
Bus Information: Two trips a day. No burden to detour
Cross Section of New Bridge According to Bridge Policy:
If Ds <40 mph; Deck width = 24 feet
If Ds >=40 mph; Deck width = 26 feet
SCOPING COMMENTS
Cyndi Bell (who wrote in comments) stated that Shocco Creek is classified as C-
NSW (nutrient sensitive waters). She also noted that NWI mapping shows wetlands in
the project area.
Elton Crutchfield of Location Surveys noted the presence of a six inch waterline
on the east side of the road running under the creek five feet from the bridge.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated that there are no structures or known archaeological
sites of interest. Therefore, SHPO will not require surveys.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission wrote in comments stating no
fishery concerns. However, there is a potential for federally listed mussels to occur in the
project vicinity.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended that the Bridge No. 8 be replaced with
a new bridge 130 feet long at approximately the same roadway elevation.
Ricky Green, Division Construction Engineer, recommended replacing the bridge
on the existing location and detouring traffic offsite during construction.
ALTERNATE FOR EVALUATION
Bridge No. 8 will be replaced on the existing location with a new bridge approximately
130 feet long with approximately the same elevation. Traffic will be detoured offsite
during construction.
Greg Brew of Roadway Design indicated that construction estimates will be available at
the end of May 1999.
gn.,vo?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovERNOR
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
January 25, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: File
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
FROM: John L. Williams
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: SR 1921, Alamance County, Replacement of Bridge No. 60
over Quaker Creek, State Project 8.2472501,
F. A. Project BRZ-1921(3), B-3401
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 14, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Sid Autry Location & Surveys Veronica Wallace-McGriff Roadway Design
Betsy Cox Structure Design Betsy Cox Structure Design
Debbie Bevin SHPO David Chang Hydraulics
Ray McIntyre Program Development John Williams Planning & Environmental
Jay Bennett Roadway Design
GENERAL PROJECT INFORMATION
Current Schedule
Right of Way: February 2001
Construction: February 2002
Bridge No. 18No. 18
[Built in 1960] [151 feet long] [25.3 foot wide deck] [24 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 19 feet] [Posted 17 tons for SV and 22 tons for
TTST's] [Sufficiency Rating 41.1] [Estimated useful remaining life 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1561 is a Rural Local Route with a posted speed limit of 55 mph.
Land use is a mix of agricultural and residential.
Current ADT is 1800 VPD
Projected 2025 ADT is 3800 VPD
?r
Accident Information: (1-1-95 through 12-31-97)
Accident 1) Vehicle lost control on curved approach from the west, ran into bridge
abutment
Bus Information: Fourteen trips a day. Major inconvenience to detour around.
Cross Section of New Bridge According to Bridge Policy:
If Ds <45 mph; Deck width = 28 feet
If Ds >=45 mph; Deck width = 30 feet
SCOPING COMMENTS
Cyndi Bell (who wrote in comments) stated that Quaker Creek is classified as
WSII-NSW waters.
Sid Autry of Location Surveys noted the presence of a Bell South underground
telephone line along the west side of SR 1921 with an aerial crossing over Quaker
Creek. Time Warner Cable has underground cable lines west of the existing bridge on
the west side. The cable becomes aerial over Quaker Creek and stays aerial east of the
bridge.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO stated that there are no structures or known
archaeological sites of interest. Therefore, SHPO will not require surveys.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resource Commission (who wrote in comments) has
indicated that the project is at the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water supply
reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality large mouth bass
population. NCWRC requests that no in-water work be performed from April 1 to
June 15.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended replacing the existing bridge on the
same location with a new 160-foot long bridge. If a temporary onsite detour were
needed, it would require a structure approximately 150 feet long and 3 feet below the
existing roadway grade. He indicated that the structure should located south
(downstream) of the existing structure to avoid the need for a longer structure.
Mike Cowan, Division Construction Engineer, recommended evaluating both a
new alignment alternate and a replace in place road closure alternate.
ALTERNATE FOR EVALUATION
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 60 on the existing location. Detour traffic along
secondary roads during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 60 on new alignment to the east. Maintain traffic on
the existing bridge during construction.
Jay Bennett of Roadway Design has indicated that construction estimates and sketches
will be available in early March.
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 81 on SR 1216 over an
Cypress Creek in Pender County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1216(11),
State Project No. 8.2271301, TIP No. B-3361
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 10, 1998. The following
persons were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
David Chang Hydraulics
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Craig Parker Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be very low for this project. There are underground telephone lines
and overhead power lines along the side of SR 1216 west of the bridge that stop at a couple of
houses located west of the bridge. There are no known utilities at the bridge site.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated that Cypress Creek is classified as Class C - Sw. There
are probably riverine wetlands at the project site. These wetlands are difficult to replace and
impacts should be minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. 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 the stream. 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. The NC WRC
requests that there be no in-water construction activities from April 1 to September 30. The
length of this moratorium can be reduced by the use of silt curtains.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the National Register
of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore no
surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new bridge will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This bridge should be approximately 32 meters (105 feet) in length.
The new bridge should have a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway and a 1.0 meter (3 foot) offset on
each side for a total bridge width of 8.6 meters (28 feet). This new bridge should be placed at
approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. If a temporary detour is
required, it should have a 27 meter (90 foot) bridge and can be placed as much as 1 meter (3 feet)
lower than the existing bridge.
The Pender County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that three school
buses cross this bridge twice per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during
construction would cause significant delays for these buses, but would not be an insurmountable
obstacle to school bus operations.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with traffic
detoured along other roads in the area would be preferred.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 81, SR 1216 carries 1000
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 1800 vehicles per day by
the year 2025. These traffic figures include 2% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and I% truck-tractor
semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 8%.
A desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) should be achieved on this project. The
roadway approaches will have two 3.3 meter (11 foot) travel lanes and a shoulder width of at
least 1.8 meters (6 feet). The total shoulder width will be 1.0 meter (3 feet) wider where guardrail
is warranted. This section of SR 1216 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The speed limit in the area is 55 mph by statute.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary alignment and typical section information on the following alternatives to the
Project Planning Engineer by July 31, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 81 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on
existing area roads during construction.
Alternate 2: Replace Bridge No. 81 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary detour structure located just south of the existing bridge during
construction.
Alternate 3: Replace Bridge No. 81 on new alignment to the south with a new bridge. Traffic
will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction.
BG/
u? SWFo
aS1 d ,... r..?
u
GtW?+cd?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on NC 241 over
Limestone Creek in Duplin County, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
241(1), State Project No. 8.124220 1, TIP No. B-3165
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 10, 1998. The following
persons were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Ray Moore Structure Design
David Chang Hydraulics
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Bob May Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground telephone and cable
TV lines along the east side of NC 241 that are aerial crossing the creek. There is also a power
line easement that crosses NC 241 approximately 860 feet south of the bridge.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated that Limestone Creek is classified as Class C - Sw.
There are probably riverine wetlands at the project site. These wetlands are difficult to replace
and impacts should be minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. 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 the stream. 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. The NC WRC
requests that there be no in-water construction activities from April 1 to September 30. The
length of this moratorium can be reduced by the use of silt curtains.
• a
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the National Register
of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore no
surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new bridge will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This bridge should be approximately 48.8 meters (160 feet) in length.
The new bridge should have a 7.2 meter (24 foot) travelway and a 1.0 meter (3 foot) offset on
each side for a total bridge width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). This new bridge should be placed at
approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. If a temporary detour is
required, it should have a 30 meter (100 foot) bridge and should be placed at the same elevation
as the existing bridge.
The Duplin County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that five school
buses cross this bridge twice per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during
construction would cause delays for these buses, but would not be an obstacle to school bus
operations.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with traffic
maintained on-site would be preferred.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 11, NC 241 carries 3900
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 6900 vehicles per day by
the year 2025. These traffic figures include 10% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 5% truck-
tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
A desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) should be achieved on this project. The
roadway approaches will have two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes and a shoulder width of at
least 2.4 meters (8 feet). 0.6 meters (2 feet) of this shoulder width will be paved, resulting in a
total pavement width of 8.4 meters (28 feet). The total shoulder width will be 1.0 meter (3 feet)
wider where guardrail is warranted. This section of NC 241 is classified as a Rural Major
Collector Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The posted speed limit in the
area is 55 mph.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary alignment and typical section information on the following alternatives to the
Project Planning Engineer by August 31, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 11 in place with a new bridge. Traffic will be maintained on a
temporary detour structure located just west of the existing bridge during
construction.
BG/
?• Mina.'
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 145 on SR 1333 over an
unnamed creek in Halifax County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1333(4),
State Project No. 8.230100 1, TIP No. B-3182
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 8, 1998. The following
persons were in attendance:
Cyndi Bell DWQ
Ray Moore Structure Design
Ray McIntyre Program Development
David Chang Hydraulics
Chris Howard Traffic Control
Betty Yancey Right of Way
James Speer Roadway Design
Sandra Casey Roadway Design
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are underground telephone lines along
the west side of SR 1333 that are aerial over the creek. There are overhead power lines along the
east side of SR 1333 throughout the project area. There are no water, sewer, or gas lines in the
area.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated that the creek is classified as Class C - NSW. The
creek is identified only as an unnamed tributary of Fishing Creek on NWI mapping. Surface
water impacts and impacts to any wetlands found at the site should be avoided as much as
possible and minimized to the extent practicable.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. 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 the stream. 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. It is possible
that there are populations of at least one federally protected mussel species at the project site. If
these mussels are found further coordination will be required.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the National Register
of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore no
surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a culvert will be required to
replace the existing bridge. This culvert should have three barrels, each measuring 2.7 meters (9
feet) by 2.4 meters (8 feet). This new culvert and roadway fill should be placed at approximately
the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. If a temporary detour is required, it should
have 3 @ 1800 millimeter (72 inch) corrugated metal pipes and can be placed as much as 1 meter
(3 feet) lower than the existing bridge.
The Halifax County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that five school
buses cross this bridge twice per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during
construction would cause delays for these buses, but would not be an insurmountable obstacle to
school bus operations.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with traffic
detoured along other roads in the area would be preferred.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 145, SR 1333 carries
1100 vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 2100 vehicles per
day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include 3% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and 2%
truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 10%.
A desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) should be achieved on this project. The
roadway approaches will have two 3.6 meter (12 foot) travel lanes and a shoulder width of at
least 2.4 meters (8 feet). The total shoulder width will be 1.0 meter (3 feet) wider where guardrail
is warranted. This section of SR 1333 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The speed limit in the area is 55 mph by statute.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary aligninent and typical section information on the following alternatives to the
Project Planning Engineer by February 1, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 145 in place with a new culvert. Traffic will be maintained on
the existing area roads during construction.
BG/
eMSWF°
ti
V+a
+@ pMU ?+
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Bill Goodwin, P. E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 309 on SR 1103 over
unnamed Creek in Columbus County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1103(7), State Project No. 8.2430601, TIP No. B-3144
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 15, 1998. The following
persons were in attendance:
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Ray McIntyre Program and TIP
Betsy Cox Structure Design
Betty Yancey Right of Way
David Chang Hydraulics
Mike Plummer Location and Surveys
Greg Mintz Traffic Control
Jimmy Goodnight Roadway Design
Jason Moore Roadway Design
Bill Goodwin Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be very low for this project. There are no utilities located in the
immediate project area.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated that the unnamed creek is classified as Class C - Sw.
There are probably riverine wetlands at the project site. These wetlands are difficult to replace
and impacts should be minimized to the maximum extent possible. DWQ may require a bridge at
this location instead of a culvert.
Mr. David Cox of NC WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should routinely minimize
adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. 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 the stream. 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.

Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated that there
are no known sites of architectural or archaeological significance listed on the National Register
of Historic Places in the project area. No unknown sites are likely to be found, therefore no
surveys are recommended in connection with this project.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit indicated that a new culvert should be used to
replace the existing bridge. This culvert should be a double barreled RCBC with each barrel
measuring 3.4 meters (11 feet) by 3.4 meters (11 feet). A bridge could be used to replace the
existing bridge, this bridge should be approximately 19.8 meters (65 feet) in length. If a bridge is
chosen, the bridge should have a 6.6 meter (22 foot) travelway and a 0.6 meter (2 foot) offset on
each side for a total bridge width of 7.8 meters (26 feet). This new bridge should be placed at
approximately the same roadway elevation as the existing bridge. If a temporary detour is
required, it should have 2@ 1800 millimeter (72 inch) pipes and should be placed at the same
elevation as the existing bridge. Mr. Chang also indicated that FEMA flood maps show the creek
as Camp Swamp. A decision will be reached as far as the recommended structure type as soon as
possible.
The Columbus County School Bus Transportation Coordinator indicated that two school
buses cross this bridge twice per day during the school year. Closing the bridge during
construction would cause delays for these buses, but would not be an obstacle to school bus
operations.
The Division Engineer has indicated that replacing the bridge in-place, with traffic
detoured off-site would be preferred. SR 1108 needs to be upgraded between SR 1103 and
SR 1104 if it is to be used as a detour. SR 1108 is currently posted at 6.5 tons/axle.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit has indicated that near Bridge No. 309, SR 1103 carries 400
vehicles per day at present [1998]. This figure is expected to increase to 700 vehicles per day by
the year 2025. These traffic figures include I% dual tired vehicles [DUAL], and I% truck-tractor
semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 11%0.
A desired design speed of 100 km/h (60 mph) should be achieved on this project. The
roadway approaches will have two 3.3 meter (11 foot) travel lanes and a shoulder width of at
least 1.2 meters (4 feet). The total shoulder width will be 1.0 meter (3 feet) wider where guardrail
is warranted. This section of SR 1104 is classified as a Rural Local Route in the Statewide
Functional Classification System. The speed limit in the area is 55 mph by statute.
The Roadway Design Project Engineer has agreed to provide construction cost estimates
and preliminary alignment and typical section information on the following alternatives to the
Project Planning Engineer by February 26, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 309 in place with a new culvert. Traffic will be detoured off-
site during construction.
BG/
+`` SfATF o
Ntira
STATE of NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. Box 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOvERNOR SECRETARY
January 25, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3495, Nash County, Replacement of Bridge No. 137 over Stoney
Creek, State Project 8.2321501, F. A. Project BRZ-1435(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 8, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Cyndi Bell
Ray McIntyre
Ray Moore
David Chang
Michael Steelman
Jim Speer
Brain Eason
Betty Yancey
Wayne Elliott
Karen Orthner
Division of Water Quality
TIP Unit
Structure Design
Hydraulics Unit
Traffic Control
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way Branch
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
D.R. Dupree, Division 4 Engineer, recommended replacing Bridge No. 137 on the
same alignment and detouring traffic off-site.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended that Bridge No. 137 be replaced with a
bridge 48.8 meters (160 feet) in length at approximately the same location and elevation.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO commented that there are no architectural or
archaeological concerns at this site.
Cyndi Bell of Division of Water Quality commented that Stoney Creek is in the
Tar Pamlico River Basin. She stated that there are wetlands surrounding the bridge and
that DWQ strongly prefers an off-site detour with replacement in place. Cindy added that
with an on-site detour recommendation, DWQ would require restoration and monitoring
of wetland sites.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission indicated that there were no
specific fishery concerns. However, David stated that there is the potential for federally
listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. WRC recommended that NCDOT
biologists conduct a survey. If mussels are found, WRC requests a field meeting to
discuss special measures to minimize impacts to these animals.
T.E. Tarleton, Area Locating Engineer, commented that underground telephone
cables exist on the east side of the project. He also stated that the power lines were aerial
and located on the east side of the project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 137
[Built in 1967] [161 feet long] [26.2 foot wide deck] [26.0 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 16 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 36.7]
[Posted 15 tons for SV and 18 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1435 is a Rural Local Route
Current ADT is 1300 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 2300 vpd
4% Trucks (3% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: (1/1/95 through 12/31/97)
Accident 1) Vehicle hit animal going north on SR 1435
Bus Information: Eight trips a day.
Cross Section of Proposed Structure: Design Speed of 45 mph or greater - 30 feet
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Jim Speer of Roadway Design agreed to have the
cost estimate completed by March 31, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace Bridge No. 137 with a 160-foot bridge at approximately the same
location and roadway elevation. Detour traffic onto surrounding roads during
construction.
TIP Estimate: $730,000
Construction Estimate: not available yet
r .
„' STA7p o
yd ?w'°on
^Akn .
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 25, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3057, Wake County, Replacement of Bridge No. 480 over Powell
Creek, State Project 8.2405001, F. A. Project BRZ-2226(1)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 15, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Ray McIntyre TIP Unit
Betsy Cox
David Chang
Debbie Bevin
Sid Autry
Jay Bennett
Lisa Shapiro
Betty Yancey
Karen Orthner
Structure Design
Hydraulics Unit
SHPO
Location Surveys
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way Branch
Planning & Environmental
The following are comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Ricky Greene, Division 5 Construction Engineer, recommended replacing the
existing structure in its current location with no specific geometry changes. The Division
also commented that an off-site detour would be sufficient in this location. Ricky stated
that the off-site detour roads are not posted.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced
with a new single span cored slab bridge approximately 18.9 meters (62 feet) in length
with vertical abutments at the same elevation and location.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO recommended that no architectural or archaeological
surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
Cyndi Bell of Division of Water Quality commented that Little River was located
in the Neuse River Basin. Cyndi added that DWQ routinely requests retention of as
much buffer as possible and exclusion of weepholes.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission stated no specific concerns
regarding this project.
Sid Autry, Area Locating Engineer, said that the City of Raleigh has a six inch
sanitary sewer outfall along Powell Creek crossing SR 2226 approximately 50 feet north
of the existing bridge. Also, Sid stated that Bell South has aerial telephone cables along
the west side of SR 2226 and underground cables along the east side.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 480
[Built in 1961] [51 feet long] [25.9 foot wide deck] [24.9 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 7 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 50.3]
[Posted 14 tons for SV and 19 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 12
years]
Traffic Information
SR 2226 is a Rural Local Route with a 55 mph posted speed limit in the vicinity.
SR 2226 intersects US 401 Wake County.
Land use is agricultural and residential.
Current ADT is 1300 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 2900 vpd
6% Trucks (5% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: (1/01/95 through 12/31/97)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Fourteen trips a day. Road closure will not be a problem.
Cross Section of Proposed Structure: Design speed of 60 mph - 30 feet
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Jay Bennett of Roadway Design agreed to have
the roadway cost estimates completed by February 15, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace the existing Bridge No. 480 with a bridge 18.9 meters (62 feet) in
length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation. Detour traffic
on surrounding roads.
TIP ESTIMATE: $247,000
CONSTRUCTION ESTIMATE: not available yet
V
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 25, 1999
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3482, Johnston County, Replacement of Bridge No. 224 and
Bridge No.. 447 over Little River and Little River Overflow, State
Project 8.2312301, F. A. Project BRZ-2301(1)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 8, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Cyndi Bell
Ray McIntyre
Ray Moore
David Chang
Michael Steelman
Jim Speer
Brain Eason
Betty Yancey
Wayne Elliott
Karen Orthner
Division of Water Quality
TIP Unit
Structure Design
Hydraulics Unit
Traffic Control
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way Branch
Planning & Environmental
Planning & Environmental
The following are comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
D.R. Dupree (Division 4 Engineer) recommended that Bridge #224 be replaced on
the same alignment.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended that Bridge No. 224 be replaced with a
bridge approximately 48.8 meters (160 feet) in length at the same location and roadway
elevation. The Hydraulics Unit also recommended that Bridge No. 447 be replaced with
a bridge approximately 27.4 meters (90 feet) in length at the same location and roadway
elevation.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO recommended no architectural or archaeological surveys
be conducted in connection with this project.
Cyndi Bell of Division of Water Quality commented that Little River was located
in the Neuse River Basin. Cyndi added that DWQ requests retaining as much buffer as
possible and excluding weepholes.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission indicated that there were no
specific fishery concerns. However, David stated that there is the potential for federally
listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. WRC recommended that NCDOT
biologists conduct a survey. If mussels are found, WRC requests a field meeting to
discuss special measures to minimize impacts to these animals.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 224
[Built in 1961] [161 feet long] [26.1-foot wide deck] [24.8 feet of clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 19 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 29.1 ]
[Posted 10 tons for SV and 13 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 5 years]
Bridge No. 447
[Built in 1962] [87 feet long] [25.3-foot wide deck] [24.1 feet of clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 7 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 39.1]
[Posted 19 tons for SV and 27 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 5 years]
Traffic Information
SR 2320 is a Rural Local Route
Current ADT is 800 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 1400 vpd
3% Trucks (2% Duals, 1% TTST)
Accident Information: (1/01/95 through 12/31/97)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Two trips a day. Road closure will not be a problem.
Cross Section of Proposed Structure: Design speed of 35 mph or greater - 28 feet
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Jim Speer of Roadway Design agreed to have the
cost estimate completed by March 31, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace the existing Bridge No. 224 with abridge 48.8 meters (160 feet)
in length at approximately the same location and roadway elevation. Replace
Bridge No. 447 with a bridge 27.4 meters (90 feet) in length at approximately the
same location and roadway elevation. Detour traffic on surrounding roads during
construction.
TIP Estimate: $767,000
Construction Estimate: not available yet

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GovExNox
January 25, 1999
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Project File
FROM: Karen T. Orthner
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: B-3460, Granville County, Replacement of Bridge No. 198
over Spewmarrow Creek, State Project 8.2370801,
F. A. Project BRZ-1445(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject bridge was held in the Transportation Building
on December 15, 1998.
The following people were in attendance:
Ray McIntyre TIP Unit
Betsy Cox
David Chang
Debbie Bevin
Sid Autry
Shannon Ransom
Leslie Gordon
Kathy Lassiter
Bruce Payne
Betty Yancey
Karen Orthner
Structure Design
Hydraulics Unit
SHPO
Location Surveys
Traffic Control
Traffic Control
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Right of Way Branch
Planning & Environmental
The following comments were either given at the meeting or received previously:
Ricky Greene, Division 5 Construction Engineer, recommended replacement in
place with an off-site detour. He stated that SR 1445 is posted at 6 1/2 tons.
David Chang of Hydraulics recommended that the existing bridge be replaced
with a three barrel (3.66 in (12 ft.) wide by 3.66 in (12 ft.) high) reinforced concrete box
culvert at the existing location and roadway grade.
Sid Autry, Area Locating Engineer, was unable to locate any utilities at this site.
Debbie Bevin of SHPO recommended that no architectural or archaeological
surveys be conducted in connection with this project.
Cyndi Bell of DWQ commented that Spewmarrow Creek is located in the
Roanoke River Basin. Cyndi also stated that the stream is Class C and that the area
possibly contained wetlands.
David Cox of the Wildlife Resources Commission stated no specific concerns
regarding this project.
PROJECT INFORMATION
Bridge No. 198
[Built in 1957] [53 feet long] [20.2 foot wide deck] [19.2 feet clear deck width]
[Crown of Bridge to bed of river/stream: 14 feet] [Sufficiency Rating 41.9]
[Posted 9 tons for SV and 16 tons for TTST's] [Estimated useful remaining life: 4 years]
Traffic Information
SR 1445 is a Rural Local Route
Land use is agricultural with light residential
Current ADT is 300 vpd
Projected 2025 ADT is 700 vpd
4% Trucks (3% Duals, 1 % TTST)
Accident Information: (2/01/95 through 1/31/98)
No accidents reported.
Bus Information: Eight trips a day. Road closure will not be a problem.
DISCUSSION OF ALTERNATES
During the alternate discussion, Kathy Lassiter of Roadway Design agreed have
the cost estimate completed by January 15, 1999.
Alternate 1: Replace the existing Bridge No. 198 with a three barrel reinforced
concrete box culvert at approximately the same location and elevation. Detour
traffic on surrounding roads during construction.
TIP Estimate: $402,000
Construction Estimate: not available yet

µ STA7F Q
d y.n.n.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
GOVERNOR
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
E. NORRIS TOLSON
SECRETARY
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 292 on SR 1832
over Hunting Creek, Iredell County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1832(1), State Project No. 8.2822101, TIP No. B-3350
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 8, 1998. The
following persons were in attendance:
Ray Moore
David Chang
Larry T. Williford
James Speer
Brian Eason
Chris Howard
Structure Design
Hydraulics
Location & Surveys
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Traffic Control
Susan Cosper Traffic Forecasting
Ray McIntyre Program Development
Cyndi Bell Division of Water Quality
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Betty C. Yancey Right of Way
Wayne Elliott Planning and Environmental
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There are telephone service cables on
the west side of the bridge. There is an electric service along the east side.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ indicated that the project is in the Yadkin - Pee Dee River
Basin, and that NWI maps indicate wetlands to the west of the existing bridge. Hunting
Creek is classified as WS III. She also advised that the project document should address
storm water management; DWQ desires that storm water be handled onto shoulders,
not into the stream.
Mr. David Cox of WRC requested by memo, that no in-stream work be done
between May 1 and June 30, due to smallmouth bass spawning. He also specifically
recommended replacement with a bridge rather than a culvert. Mr. Cox also stated that
NCDOT should 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. Spanning structures allow wildlife
passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality
at highway crossings.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) stated that the
historic Perciphull Campbell House is in the northwest quadrant. The grounds of this
house extend into the northeast quadrant. There will be 4f involvement but no
architectural survey is required. She also indicated that an archeological survey will be
required. Remains of the Perciphull Campbell grist mill and prehistoric remains exist on
the north banks of Hunting Creek.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit recommended that the existing bridge be
replaced with a bridge approximately 220 feet in length, placed downstream (east) of
the existing bridge. The new bridge would be at approximately the same elevation as
existing. An on-site detour is not recommended, but if required, would consist of a
bridge 150 feet in length located to the east (downstream) of existing. The bridge is
located in a FEMA flood hazard zone, but the proposed structure will not have a
significant adverse impact. The bridge is located within a water supply watershed, but is
not in a high quality water zone. Erosion and sedimentation control will be accomplished
through standard control methods. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practical, and groundwater should be evaluated in final design to ensure against
any contamination.
The Iredell County School Bus Coordinator indicated that there are six trips per
day across the bridge. He indicated that road closure would cause some delay problems
because of re-routing of busses.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit indicated that near Bridge No. 292, SR 1832
currently carries 500 vehicles per day (1998). This figure is expected to increase to 900
vehicles per day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include 4 % dual tired vehicles
[DUAL], and one % truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is
12 %. SR 1832 has a functional classification of "Rural Local."
The Division 12 Engineer's Office concurs with road closure. The Division
commented by memo that SR 1832 could be closed to traffic and vehicles detoured
off-site. The Division recommends a detour via SR 1816, SR 1823, and back to SR
1832. The Division also stated that if funds are available, the alignment north of the
existing bridge should be straightened.
Three alternates will be evaluated for replacement of Bridge No. 292 over
Hunting Creek
Alternate 1: Replace the bridge on existing alignment, and detour traffic over
existing local roads.
Alternate 2: Replace the bridge on existing alignment, and maintain traffic on-site
with a temporary bridge.
Alternate 3: Construct a new bridge on new location to the east (downstream) of
existing, and maintain traffic on the existing bridge during construction.
Mr. James Speer of Roadway Design indicated that preliminary cost estimates could be
provided by March 31, 1999. (These estimates will not include R/W costs.)
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $650,000; including $ 600,000 for
construction, and $50,000 for right of way acquisition. The current project schedule
calls for right of way acquisition to begin in August 2001, and construction to begin in
August 2002.
2
t r,
M ?? p
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Dennis Pipkin, P.E.
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No. 11 on SR 1139,
over Bear Creek, Davie County, Federal Aid Project No.
BRZ-1139(1), State Project No. 8.2610501, TIP No. B-3161
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 10, 1998. The
following persons were in attendance:
Ray Moore Structure Design
David Chang Hydraulics
Ron Allen Roadway Design
Bob May Roadway Design
Elton Crutchfield Location & Surveys
G. Mintz Traffic Control
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Utility conflicts will be medium for this project. The following utilities are in the
project area: a water line, a sanitary sewer line, telephone cables and telephone
switching station, a fiber optic cable, electric lines, and cable television service.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ had indicated that the project is in the Yadkin-Pee Dee
River Basin, and there are no wetlands shown in the vicinity on NWI maps. Bear Creek is
classified as WS IV. She also advised that the project document should address storm
water management; DWQ desires that storm water be handled onto shoulders, not into
the stream.
Mr. David Cox of WRC indicated by memo, that NCDOT should 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
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) indicated there
are no known architectural resources present. Therefore, an architectural survey will not
be required. Ms. Bevin also indicated that a potential exists for archeological resources
1
/1
in the project area. Therefore, if the bridge is to be replaced on new location, or if a
temporary bridge is to be used, an archeological survey will be required.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit recommended that the existing bridge be
replaced with a bridge of approximately 135 ft. length at the existing location and
elevation. If a temporary structure is required, Hydraulics recommends a bridge of
60 ft. length placed to the south at approximately 3 ft. below existing grade. The bridge
is located in a FEMA flood hazard zone, but the proposed structure will not have a
significant adverse impact. The bridge is located within a water supply watershed, but is
not in a critical or high quality water zone; therefore erosion and sedimentation control
will be accomplished through standard control methods. Existing drainage patterns will
be maintained to the extent practical, and groundwater should be unaffected.
The Davie County School Bus Coordinator indicated that there is a total of 6
school bus trips per day crossing this bridge. He indicated that road closure would cause
delay problems because of re-routing.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit indicated that near Bridge No. 11, SR 1 139 currently
carries 1700 vehicles per day (1998). This figure is expected to increase to 2800
vehicles per day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include 2 % dual tired vehicles
[DUAL], and one % truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is
10 %. SR 1 139 has a functional classification of "Rural Minor Collector."
The Division 9 Engineer's Office recommended the following in order of priority:
(1) Replace bridge on new location the south, and maintain traffic on existing bridge.
(2) Replace bridge on existing location, close road and detour traffic on other local roads.
(3) Replace bridge on existing location, and maintain traffic with a temporary bridge.
Creek:
Three alternates will be evaluated for replacement of Bridge No. 11 over Bear
Alternate 1: Replace bridge on existing alignment, and detour traffic over existing local
roads.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge on existing alignment, and maintain traffic with a
temporary bridge to the south.
Alternate 3: Construct bridge on new alignment to south, and maintain traffic on
existing during construction.
Mr. Ron Allen of Roadway Design indicated that preliminary cost estimates could
be provided by July 30, 1999.
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $ 660,000; including $ 600,000 for
construction; and $ 60,000 for right of way acquisition. The current project schedule
calls for right of way acquisition to begin in February 2001, and construction to begin in
February 2002.
2
AP IV
eM STA7F'.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 E. NORRIS TOLSON
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
January 26, 1999
MEMO TO: Project File
FROM: Dennis Pipkin, P.E. ?40
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge No.26 on SR 1517,
over North Fork Little River, Orange County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1517(2), State Project No. 8.2501501, TIP No. B-3497
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on December 10, 1998. The
following persons were in attendance:
Art McMillan Roadway Design
Thad Duncan Roadway Design
David Chang Hydraulics
Elton Crutchfield Location & Surveys
G. Mintz Traffic Control
Ray Moore Structure Design
Debbie Bevin SHPO
Utility conflicts will be low for this project. There is telephone service on the
south side of the existing bridge. There is electric service on the north side of the bridge.
Ms. Cyndi Bell of DWQ had indicated that the project is in the Neuse River Basin,
and NWI maps show wetlands to the north (upstream) of the existing bridge. The stream
is classified as WS II, NSW (nutrient sensitive waters). Ms. Bell stated that Neuse River
Basin rules will apply. Replacement on existing location is preferred. She also advised
that the project document should address storm water management; DWQ desires that
storm water be handled onto shoulders, not into the stream.
Mr. David Cox of WRC indicated by memo, that there is a potential for presence
of federally listed mussels. He recommended that NCDOT (Tim Savidge) perform
appropriate surveys. If mussels are found, an on-site meeting should be held to discuss
minimizing impacts. Mr. Cox also indicated that 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.
Ms. Debbie Bevin of the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) advised that a
recorded Middle Archaic archeological site is listed as near the existing bridge in the
en 16
southwest quadrant (downstream). This site is No. 31 OR331. National Register eligibility
is unknown. Precise location is not known. If any construction will affect the area, an
archeological survey should be conducted. Ms. Bevin indicated that there are no known
architectural resources in the project area; thus no architectural survey will be required.
Mr. David Chang of the Hydraulics Unit recommended that the existing bridge be
replaced with a 3 @ 12ft by 10 ft reinforced concrete box culvert at the existing
location, and at approximately the same roadway grade. If an on-site detour is required,
this should consist of three 72-inch corrugated steel pipes placed to the south
(downstream) of the existing bridge. This grade should be approximately 3 ft. lower than
existing.
The bridge is located in a FEMA flood hazard zone, but the proposed structure
will not have a significant adverse impact. The bridge is located within a water supply
watershed, and a high quality water zone. Direct discharge of runoff into the stream
should be avoided to the extent practicable. Erosion and sedimentation control for high
quality waters should be used. Existing drainage patterns will be maintained to the
extent practical, and groundwater should be unaffected.
The Orange County School Bus Coordinator indicated that there are four school
bus trips per day crossing this bridge. He indicated that road closure would cause a
delay problem with one bus.
The Traffic Forecasting Unit indicated that near Bridge No. 26, SR 1517 currently
carries 500 vehicles per day (1998). This figure is expected to increase to 800 vehicles
per day by the year 2025. These traffic figures include 2 % dual tired vehicles [DUAL],
and one % truck-tractor semi-trailers [TTST]. The design hourly volume [DHV] is 10 %.
SR 1517 has a functional classification of "Rural Local."
The Division 7 Engineer's Office, Mr. Mike Cowan, commented by E-mail that
given the low traffic volume, and availability of an offsite detour, the Division
recommends road closure and replacement on existing location. The Division also
recommended consideration of a cored slab bridge.
Two alternates will be evaluated for replacement of Bridge No. 26 over North
Fork Little River:
Alternate 1: Replace bridge on existing alignment, and detour traffic over existing local
roads.
Alternate 2: Replace bridge on existing alignment, and maintain traffic on-site with a
temporary crossing.
Mr. Art McMillan of Roadway Design indicated that preliminary cost estimates
could be provided by March 31, 1999.
The TIP cost estimate for this project is $ 330,000; including $ 300,000 for
construction, and $ 30,000 for right of way acquisition. The current project schedule
calls for right of way acquisition to begin in November 2000, and construction to begin
in November 2001.
2

_0
- ? - UUjA
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
February 27, 2002
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120 02 03 45
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Ms. Jean Manuele
Regulatory Specialist
SUBJECT: Nationwide Permit 23 Application for the proposed to replace
Bridge' No. 18 on SR 1561 over the Haw River in Alamance
County. NCDOT Division 7. Federal Project No. BRZ-1561(3),
State Project No. 8.2472401; T.I.P. No. B-3400.
Dear Madam:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 18 on SR 1561 over the Haw River [DWQ Index # 16(1)]. Bridge No. 18 will be
replaced with a new bridge on existing location. The new structure will be approximately
140 feet in length and 32 feet wide. The bridge deck will include 12-foot lanes and
3-foot offsets. There will be 500 feet of approach work to the northwest and 500 feet to
the southeast. The paved approach will include 12-foot lanes and 8-foot grass shoulders
with guardrail. During construction, traffic will be detoured along existing area roads.
Waters of the United States
With the exception of concrete sills, Bridge No. 18 . is composed entirely of timber and
steel and will be demolished in such a way as not to drop anything into Waters of the
United States. There will be no surface water fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Additionally, no jurisdictional wetlands will be affected by the construction of the
proposed project.
Federally-Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 22 March 2001, the
United States Fish and Wildlife. Service (USFWS) lists no federally protected species for
Alamance County.
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION - FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
..
PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS - - 1 SOUTH WILMINGTONSTREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Summary
Proposed project activities are being processed by the Federal Highway Administration
as a programmatic "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR § 771.115(b).
The NCD.OT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 (65
FR 12817, 12899; March 9, 2000). We anticipate a 401 General Certification will apply
to this project and are providing one copy of this application to the North Carolina
Division of Water Quality, for their review. Please find the attached Categorical
Exclusion Action Classification form and the Natural Resources Technical Report
document.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information please call Ms. Heather Montague at [phone].
Sincerely,
l
William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis
WDG/hwm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDENR, Division of Water Quality
Mr. Calvin Leggett, P.E., Program Development Branch
w/o attachment
Ms. Deborah Barbour, P.E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. Timothy Rountree, P.E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. John Alford, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. David Henderson, P.E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Mike Mills; P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. John Williams, P.E., PD&EA Planning Engineer
020345
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-3400
State Project No. 8.2472401
Federal Project No. BRZ-1561(3)
A. Project Description:
This TIP project proposes replacing Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over the Haw
River in Alamance County. Bridge No. 18 would be replaced on the existing
location with a new bridge 42.7 meters (140 feet) long and 9.2 meters (32 feet)
wide. The bridge deck will include 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.0 meter
(3-foot) offsets. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
There will be 500 feet of approaclrwork to the northwest and 500 feet to the
southeast. The paved approach will include two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and a
2.4 meter (8-foot) grass shoulder and guardrail. The horizontal alignment will
meet the standards for 50 mph design speed. The vertical alignment will meet
the standards for a 40 mph design speed.
B. Purpose and Need:
The existing bridge has a sufficiency rating of 34 out of 100 and a posted weight
limit of 36 tons for single vehicles and no posting `for TTST's. The substructure
in particular has a rating of 4 out of 10 and continues to deteriorate. The cross-
section of the existing bridge does not meet modern traffic standards. Due to a
substandard design and deteriorating structural integrity it is prudent to replace
this bridge.
C. Proposed Improvements:
The following Type II improvements which apply to the project are circled:
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking,
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing
pavement (3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices

b. Installing lights
C. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements including removing
hazards and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
O Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near
a street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support
vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are
required and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of
passenger shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street
improvements) when located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
2
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE only
where the acquisition will not limit the evaluation of alternatives,
including shifts in alignment for planned construction projects, which may
be required in the NEPA process. No project development on such land
may proceed until the NEPA process has been completed.
D. Special Project Information:
Estimated Costs:
Total Construction $ 800,000
Right of Way $ 16,000
Total $ 816,000
Estimated Traffic:
Current - 1300 vpd
Year 2025 - 2500 vpd
TTST - 2%
Dual - 1 %
Functional Classification: Rural Local Route
Division Office Comments: The Division supports the proposed plan of
replacement.
Bridge Demolition: With the exception of concrete sills, the entire structure is
built from timber and steel and will be demolished in such a way as not to drop
anything into the water. There will be no fill resulting from bridge demolition.
Design Exceptions: A design exception will be required for this project due to a
design speed which will not meet the standard. The bridge has an historic
property on the boundary of the right of way and a development on the other
boundary which limits the degree to which the roadway can be improved. Only
two accidents have been recorded in a sampling of a recent three year period.
One accident occurred on the southeast approach and the other on the northwest.
Both accidents occurred at night.
3

E. Threshold Criteria
The following evaluation of threshold criteria must be completed for Type II
actions
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any unique or
important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where federally listed
endangered or threatened species may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than
one-third (1/3) of an acre and have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland takings been
evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6)
(7)
(8)
(9)
Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities?
YES NO
x
x
x

Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters (HQW)?
Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties?
Does the project involve any known underground storage ?
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites?
x
x
x
PERMITS AND COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)? x
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources? x
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required? ?
x

4

(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
(17) Will the project have a disproportionately high and
adverse human health and environmental effect on any minority
or low-income population? X
?
(18) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor? X
regulatory floodway? X
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel
changes? X
SOCIAL, ECONOMIC, AND CULTURAL RESOURCES YES . NO
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area? ? X
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business? X
(19) Will the project involve any changes in access control? a
X
(20) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/or land ?
use of adjacent property? X
(21) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness? X
(22) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/or Transportation Improvement Program (and is,
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)? ?
X
(23) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic ?
volumes? X
(24) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(25) If the project is a bridge replacement project, will the bridge be
replaced at its existing location (along the
existing facility) and will all construction proposed in
association with the bridge replacement project be contained on ?
the existing facility? X
(26) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerning the project? X
5
(27) Is the project consistent with all Federal, State, and local laws
relating to the environmental aspects of the project? X
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
x*
(29) Will the project affect any archaeological remains, which are ?
important to history or pre-history? X
(30) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl refuges,
historic sites, or historic bridges, as defined in
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation Act of ?
1966)? X
(31) Will the project result in any conversion of assisted public
recreation sites or facilities to non-recreation uses, as
defined by Section 6(f) of the Land and Water Conservation ?
Act of 1965, as amended? X
(32) Will the project involve construction in, across, or
adjacent to a river designated as a component of or
proposed for inclusion in the Natural System of Wild and
Scenic Rivers? X
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
lion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E should be provided
Additional supporting documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
(28) Will the project have an "effect" on structures/properties
eligible for or listed on the National Register of Historic Places?
The project is located directly next to Hub Mill which is considered
eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. The project will
hold the existing Right of Way Line on the Mill side of the project so as
not to impact the Mill or any of its property. There will be temporary
construction easement The SHPO concurs that there will be "no
adverse effect' 'under these circumstances.
According to the five criteria listed below, the project does not
constitute a Section 4(f).
A temporary occupancy of land is so minimal that it does not constitute
a use within the meaning of section 4(f) when the following conditions
are satisfied:
1. Duration must be temporary, i.e. less than the time needed for
construction of the project, and there should be no change in
ownership of the land;
II. Scope of work must be minor. I.e., both the nature and the
magnitude of the changes to the section 4(f) resource are
6
minimal.
III. There are no anticipated permanent adverse physical impacts,
nor will there be interference without the activities or purposes
of the resource, on either a temporary or permanent basis;
IV. The land being used must be fully restored, i.e., the resource
must be returned to a condition which is at least as good as that
which existed prior to the project; and
V. There must be.documented agreement of the appropriate
Federal, State, or local officials having jurisdiction over the
resource regarding the above conditions.
This project meets all five criteria and therefore does not have a section
4(f) impact.
7
G. 'CE Approval
TIP Project No.
State Project No.
Federal-Aid Project No.
Project Description:
B-3400
8.2472401
BRZ-1561(3)
This TIP project proposes replacing Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over the Haw
River in Alamance County. Bridge No. 18 would be replaced on the existing
location with a new bridge 42.7 meters (140 feet) long and 9.2 meters (32 feet)
wide. The bridge deck will include 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and 1.0 meter
(3-foot) offsets. Traffic will be detoured offsite during construction.
There will be 500 feet of approach work to the northwest and 500 feet to the
southeast. The paved approach will include two 3.6 meter (12-foot) lanes and a
2.4 meter (8-foot) grass shoulder and guardrail. The horizontal alignment will
meet the standards for 50 mph design speed. The vertical alignment will meet
the standards for a 40 mph design speed.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification:
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
00
j?- Z 2
Date Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
1(? 2I - 00
Date
ect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
For Type II(B) projects only:
N/A
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
8
s
PROJECT COMMITMENTS:
B-3400, Alamance County
Bridge No. 18 on `SR 1561
Over Haw°River
Federal Project BRZ-1:561(3)
State Project 8.2472401
Resident Engineer
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented on
this project.
On the south quadrant of the bridge is a site known as Hub Mill. The mill has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is "off limits" with
regard to this project. All activity on this project is to take place strictly within the
boundaries shown on the plans and flagged in the field. Any activity proposed outside
these boundaries on the mill side must be coodnnated with the Project Engineer from
Project Development &' Environmental Analysis (John Williams 733-7844. ext. 235).
Structure Design
Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented on
this project.
Hydraulics Unit
The attached letter from the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission contains a number of
standard comments regarding design features of the new bridge. As they 'apply to
hydraulics,' these comments are to be considered and acted on where practical and
feasible to do so.
Roadway Design Unit
On the south quadrant of the bridge is a site known as Hub Mill. The mill has been
determined eligible for the National Register of Historic Places and is "off limits" with
regard. to this project., It is understood' that NCDOT owns `60 feet of Right of:Way°along
the project corridor. It is also understood that an addition ten-foot wide temporary
construction easment willbe.necessary for project construction. This is to be the outer
boundary for the project. The boundary is to be flagged prior to and all during
construction A note is to be placed on the plans that construction on the mill side of the
road must take place strictly within the boundaries shown on the plans. Any activity to
take place outside those"boundaries must be coordinated with : the Project Engineer from
Project Development & Environmental Analysis (John Williams 733-7844 ext. 235).
Roadside Environmental
The attached letter from the N.C. Wildlife Resource Commission contains a number of
standard comments regarding design features of the new bridge. As they apply to
Roadside Environmental, these comments are to be considered and acted on where
practical and feasible to do so.
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
Green Sheet
November 21, 2000
i I
I

i

? I
I
j
? ?.
?I
i ? ? _ ?

i ?
-?

j ?
I
I i

!

?
I
t ? ?

I

i

?
,?
i
I j

i

i
!.
i
??

I
I

?

9
'I

?
?

i
i
I' i
I -
?
i.
"i
i.
I
i

f
i I
i
?, j

?

I

I

?

I
li
i

a

a8 O 1611 NAM
/609
b
1582 •.. rJ
D
1581 ?.
1583
1583
9
?
. 8
1584 ?
.,

a-. Bridge No.18 `.-.._.._..?.
)1002
1587

1667 'p .p 1 1 ?'-

1 • 4 t, 4
?l 587
` `O 1581
s '•.
`r 1684
' • 2 1
1683 ' O
C
2

?..? 1685 .6
C^'.
'}
' ! ' 159 p .2 S 'i 1.
?
' 1594 , .. / .,,..
.7 1603
•' ` '
' ?.. 1602 /
`•` .. •
?'^ ?

?
t. '• 1593
., 1595 ti •
1598 '?. 2
1604 a •.
\ ? ?'•.
O
1
2

.
`n N .1587 .-.- ??.?
"
`
"
158
- •?•+•?•?•?•? ?.?.?
'' 614
-? d
1
586 N
•y ,•

S

' 4 .4 161 1 f LAKE
• 158 i
- o BURLINGTON
RES

`
0•

1•
-
9 .
_ 158
1584 1609 g • 6 1 2
1581 Stony
'•, Creek N 1610

• 8
i 1581
Ch. 2
' 1581
•- , 1587 1p
'?•1 7
.5 '
3
1577
i ?l rry
1579

S silo .-- O..p-:'-.._.._ -
C
v? 1581 1 '
i
iO
6
?p 15 .
1571
Gilliam
Ch. 576
1.8

! 15 6
1 i •5
i
3
i 87 N
i
157
X1
ml
1
1
2 57 '
11\
i
. it
156(
L
1563
V.?

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
OF
Xamance County
Replace Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561
Over Haw River
B-3400
FIGURE 1

d,va Sr? o?
.w+v
H!' .pS
ti
?n
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 20, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge #18 on SR 1561 over Haw River,
Alamance County, B-3400, ER 99-7698
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director

On December 15, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, a mill is located southwest of the
bridge. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate this
property for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
The mill located southwest of the bridge should be recorded and evaluated for its
archaeological significance if it may be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ??G
Nicholas L. Graf
January 20, 1999, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
,,d A ?/V/j
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W. D. (Qore
B. Church
T. Padgett.
\) •_ w l op?>
STATE
V i
.4 yin
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
July 11, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation, Division of Highways
FROM: David Brook t_ (?1
Deputy State Histo ' reservation Officer
RE: Replace Bridge No. 18 over SR 1561 over the Haw River, TIP No. B-3400,
Alamance County, ER 00-10079
Thank you for your letter of June 2, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur
that the following eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Hub Mill is eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places under Criterion A for
Event as it played an important role in the economy of the area by providing a market for locally
grown wheat and corn through the 1970's. the Mill is also eligible for listing under Criterion C for
Design/Construction as a good representative of mill construction. We concur with the boundaries
as described on page 13 and illustrated on page 14.
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:kgc
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 [phone] 733-8653
ARCHAEOLOGY 421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] • 715-2671
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] • 715-4801
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] • 715-4801

Federal Aid # BRZ-1561(3) TIP # B-3400 County: Alamance
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over Haw River
On August 17, 2000, representatives of the
® North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
® North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
reviewed the subject project and agreed
7 there are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within
the p . ject's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the reverse.
Signed:
- 1-+ •DO
N
Date
FHWA, for the Division Adm-inistrator,,or other-Federal-Agency - ..... .. .-Date-.-.. - -
Rep esentative, SHPO Date
r 4F/ ?7A
State Historic Preservation Officer /Date

Federal Aid #BRZ-1-561(3) TIP # B-3400 County: Alamance
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
v b ?I i l ??E? - no c?4ecf-
ek5C k )Ae tit ( ? ?(J
Z-
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT FI-IWA
S H PO„
0
"SiA7F °
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
September 26, 2000
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
NCDOT, Project lopment & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re: Archaeological Report, Replacement of Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over Haw River,
Alamance County, TIP No. B-3400, ER 99-7698 & ER 00-9331
Thank you for your letter of August 22, 2000, transmitting the archaeological survey report by
Shane C. Petersen of your staff concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we
concur that the following sites are not eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under
criterion D:
31Am389&389** and 31AM390
The historic and prehistoric site lacks subsurface integrity and the prehistoric site is a redeposited
isolated find.
The report meets our guidelines and those of the Secretary of the Interior. We concur with Mr.
Petersen's recommendation that no additional archaeological investigation is warranted in
connection with this project as currently 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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
cc: Nicholas Graf, FHwA
Thomas Padgett, NCDOT
Shane Petersen, NCDOT
ADMINISTRATION
ARCHAEOLOGY
RESTORATION
SURVEY & PLANNING
Location
507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
421 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC
515 N. Blount St.. Raleigh NC
Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] 733-8653
4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4619 [phone] 715-2671
4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4613 [phone] 715-4801
4618 Mail Service Center. Raleigh NC 2 7699-46 1 8 [phone] 715-4801
t
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission®
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C rdina r
Habitat Conservation Progr
DATE: December 21, 1998
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Haywood, and Warren
counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3400, B-3401, B-3186, and
B-3532.
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.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 21, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
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 Aadromous 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

Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 21, 1998
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
fioodplain. 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-3400 - No specific concerns.
2. B-3401- This project is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water
supply reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality
largemouth bass population. We request that no in-water work be performed
from April 1 to June 15.
3. B-3186 - Richland Creek is a tributary to Lake Junaluska. This section of
stream contains trout and is designated as Delayed Harvest Trout Waters. We
recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge that spans the
entire stream. Although we do not request a seasonal exclusion for this
bridge, we do request that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control
measures for High Quality Waters. We also want to reiterate that NCDOT
should impress upon its contractors and inspectors that they are working in
streams which are public resources and extra care should be taken to insure
that sedimentation and erosion control devices are installed and maintained
properly.
4. B-3057 - No specific fishery concerns. However, there is the potential for
federally listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. We recommend that
NCDOT biologists be contacted and a survey conducted. If mussels are
found, a field meeting should be held to discuss special measures to minimize
impacts to these animals.
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.

? JAR
NATURAL RESOURCES TECHNICAL REPORT
for the 020345
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 18 ON SR 1561 OVER THE HAW RIVER
ALAMANCE COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP No. B-3400
State Project No. 8.272401
NCDOT Consulting Project No. 98-LM-12
LandMark Design Group Project Number 1960024-212.00
Prepared for the
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT of TRANSPORTATION
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Natural Resources, Permits and Mitigation Unit
One South Wilmington Street, Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Attn: Phil Harris
Issued: May 2000
LANDMARK
Engineers . Planners . Surveyors . Landscape Architects . Environmental Consultants
5544 Greenwich Road, Suite 200, Virginia Beach, VA 23462 [phone] FAX: [phone] [e-mail]
_3
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................................................................... I
1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ..............................................................................................................................................1
1.2 PURPOSE ......................................................................................................................................................................1
1.3 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................................................1
IA QUALIFICATIONS OF INVESTIGATORS .......................................................................................................................2
1.5 DEFINITIONS ................................................................................................................................................................2
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES ............................................................................................................................................2
2.1 SOILS ...........................................................................................................................................................................3
2.2 WATER RESOURCES ...................................................................................................................................................3
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics ...................................................................................................................3
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification .....................................................................................................................................3
2.2.3 Water Quality .......................................................................................................................................................4
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ........................................................................................................................4
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES ..................................................................................................................................................5
3.1 TERRESTRIAL COMMUNITIES .................................................................................................................................... 5
3.1.1 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest ........................................................................................................................... 6
3.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest ............................................................................................................... 6
3.1.3 Pool ......................................................................................................................................................................6
3.1.4 Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest ........................................................................................................................6
3.1.5 Maintained Yard .................................................................................................................................................. 7
3.1.6 Agricultural Field .................................................................................................................................................7
3.1.7 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside ........................................................................................................................... 7
3.2 AQUATIC COMMUNITIES ............................................................................................................................................ 7
3.3 SUMMARY OF ANTICIPATED IMPACTS ....................................................................................................................... 8
COMMUNITY ....................................................................................................................................................................... 8
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS ........................................................................................................................................9
4.1 WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES .............................................................................................................................. 9
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters .................................................................................................9
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts ......................................................................................................................10
4.1.3 Permits ...............................................................................................................................................................10
4.1.4 Mitigation ..........................................................................................................................................................10
4.1.4.1 Avoidance .....................................................................................................................................................................11
4.1.4.2 Minimization ................................................................................................................................................................ 11
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation ............................................................................................................................................. 11
4.2 RARE AND PROTECTED SPECIES ..............................................................................................................................11
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species ...............................................................................................................................12
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species ........................................................................................12
5.0 REFERENCES .............................................................................................................................................................13
6.0 APPENDICES
6.1 FIGURES
Figure 1. Alamance County and Project Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Bridge No. 18 Project Area Map (Topographic Quadrangle)
Figure 3. Impacted Biotic Communities (Aerial Photograph)
6.2 RESOURCE AGENCY LETTERS
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1. ANTICIPATED IMPACTS FROM THE PROPOSED PROJECT TO BIOTIC COMMUNITIES ........................................... 8
TABLE 2. FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN FOR ALAMANCE COUNTY ..............................................................................12
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page ii
j
1.0 INTRODUCTION
The following Natural Resources Technical Report is submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical
Exclusion (CE) for the proposed project. The project is situated in northwestern Alamance County
(Figure 1).
1.1 Project Description
The proposed project calls for the replacement of Bridge No. 18 on SR 1561 over the Haw River with a
new bridge on a slightly new alignment (Figures 2 and 3). Traffic will be detoured offsite during
construction.
The existing right-of-way is approximately 18.3 m (60.0 ft). The proposed right-of-way is 24.4 m
(80.0 ft). Project length is approximately 350.5 m (1,150.0 ft).
Bridge No. 18 is 45.7 m (150.0 ft) long. The superstructure and most of the substructure is composed
of timber and steel. The substructure does include concrete sills but these should be removed in such a
way as not to result in temporary fill. Their removal may result in disturbing the streambed.
Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended.
1.2 Purpose
The purpose of this technical report is to inventory, catalog and describe the various natural resources
likely to be impacted by the proposed action. This report also attempts to identify and estimate the
probable consequences of the anticipated impacts to these resources. Recommendations are made for
measures that will minimize resource impacts. These descriptions and estimates are relevant only
in the context of existing preliminary design concepts. If design parameters and criteria change,
additional field investigations will need to be conducted.
1.3 Methodology
Research was conducted prior to field investigations. Information sources used in this pre-field
investigation of the study area include: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) quadrangle map for Alamance
County (Ossipee, 1970), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National Wetland Inventory Map
(Ossipee, 1995), Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS, formerly the Soil Conservation
Service) soil maps and NCDOT aerial photographs of project area (1"=100'). Water resource
information was obtained from publications of the Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources (DEHNR 1996). Information concerning the occurrence of federal and state protected
species in the study area was gathered from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) list of protected
species and species of concern, and the N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NHP) database of rare species
and unique habitats.
General field surveys were conducted along the proposed alignment by LandMark Design Group
environmental scientists Mary-Margaret McKinney and Wendee Smith on 29 March 2000. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified and recorded. Wildlife identification
involved using one or more of the following observation techniques: active searching and capture,
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page I
A
visual observations (binoculars), and identification of characteristic signs of wildlife (sounds, scat,
tracks and burrows). Jurisdictional wetland determinations were performed utilizing delineation
criteria prescribed in the Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual (Environmental Laboratory
1987). Jurisdictional surface water determinations were performed using guidance provided by N.C.
Division of Water Quality ((DWQ), formerly known as the Division of Environmental Management
(DEM)), Field Location of Streams, Ditches, and Ponding (Environmental Lab 1997).
1.4 Qualifications of Investigators
1) Investigator: Mary-Margaret McKinney, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., May 1996 to Present
Education: MS Forestry, Minor in Ecology,
North Carolina State University, 1996
BS Botany, North Carolina State University, 1994
Certifications: Registered Forester (NC Board of Registration for Foresters)
Professional Wetland Scientist (Society of Wetland Scientists)
Experience: Research Assistant, North Carolina State University,
Department of Forestry, June 1994 to April 1996,
Plant Identification Specialist,
North Carolina State University Herbarium
Expertise: Wetland mitigation, NEPA documentation, plant community
ecology
2) Investigator: Wendee B. Smith, Environmental Scientist,
LandMark Design Group Inc., September 1999 to Present
Education: B.S. Natural Resources: Ecosystem Assessment,
Minor in Environmental Science, North Carolina State University, 1999
Experience: Natural Systems Specialist,
N.C. Department of Transportation/ Project Development and
Environmental Analysis Branch, May 1999 to August 1999
Forestry Technician, N.C. Forest Service, Summer 1998
1.5 Definitions
Definitions for area descriptions used in this report are as follows: Project Study Area denotes the
s area bounded by proposed construction limits; Project Vicinity describes an area extending 0.8 km
(0.5 mi) on all sides of the project study area; and Project Region is equivalent to an area represented
by a 7.5 minute USGS quadrangle map with the project occupying the central position.
2.0 PHYSICAL RESOURCES
Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of
water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community.
The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this
section of Alamance County is characterized by gently rolling hills that range from nearly level to
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 2
.i
j
steep. Topography in the project area is relatively flat since it is located within the flood plain of the
Haw River. Project elevation is approximately 179.8 in (590.0 ft) above mean sea level (msl).
2.1 Soils
Five soil phases occur within project study area: Mixed alluvial land, Helena coarse sandy loam,
Worsham sandy loam, Congaree fine sandy loam, and Wilkes soils.
• Mixed alluvial land is a somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained soil. Its fertility is fairly high,
and its content of organic matter is medium. This soil's limitation is its susceptibility to flooding.
• Helena coarse sandy loam, eroded sloping phase with 6 to 10 percent slopes is a somewhat poorly
or moderately well drained soil that occurs on smooth uplands or near the top of slopes. It is a very
permeable soil with rapid runoff. Helena coarse sandy loam's main limitation is erosion.
• Congaree fine sand,, loam with 0 to 2 percent slopes, is a moderately well drained to well drained
soil that occurs along streams and first bottoms. This soil has low natural fertility.
• Wilkes soils, with 2 to 6 percent slope, is an excessively drained soil that occurs on or near the top
of smooth uplands that border stream breaks. The main limitations of this soil include erosion and
the soil's shallow depth.
2.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the
project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to
major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to
surface water resources and minimization methods are also discussed.
2.2.1 Waters Impacted and Characteristics
The Haw River will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project
(Figure 2). This section of the Haw River is located in sub-basin 03-06-02 of the Cape Fear River
Basin. The average baseflow width is approximately 19.8 to 22.9 in (65.0 to 75.0 ft). The average
depth is approximately 1.1 in (3.5 ft). The Haw River substrate is composed of rock and silt.
2.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of this section
of the Haw River (DEM Index No. 16-(l)) is C NSW (NCDWQ 1996). Class C uses include aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation and agriculture. Secondary
recreation includes wading, boating, and other uses involving human body contact with water where
such activities take place in an infrequent, unorganized, or incidental manner. The supplemental
classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 3
J
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watersheds or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
2.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river
basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical
data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years.
Prior to the implementation of the basinwide. approach to water quality management, the Benthic
Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed 'by the DEM) assessed water quality by
sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state.
There is not a BMAN station located on the Haw River within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project
study area.
Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year;
therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different
taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water
quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant
organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are
reflections of long-term water quality conditions.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program. Any discharger is required to register for
a permit. There is a point source discharger (Glen Raven Mills-Altamahaw Division) located on
the Haw River, upstream within 1.6 km (1.0 mile) of the project study area.
2.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost
always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge
replacement on a new location usually results in more severe impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of
24.4m (80.0 ft), anticipated impacts to the Haw River due to the proposed project will be 24.4 m (80.0
ft). Project impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial total 0.77 ha (1.90 ac). The area of aquatic and
terrestrial environments impacted is 0.06 ha (0.15 ac) and 0.71 ha (1.75 ac) respectively. Usually,
project construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be
considerably less.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
1. Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion,
2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and
vegetation removal,
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 4
J
3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface and ground
water flow from construction,
4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal,
- 5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas,
and/or
6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic spills.
Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface Waters must be
strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include,
but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface
water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic
substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced.
3.0 BIOTIC RESOURCES
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems
encountered in the study area, as well as the relationships between fauna and flora within these
ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are
reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area.
Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications
and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora
and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed.
Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant
species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows
Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same
organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with
an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected
to be present within the project area.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Seven distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest, Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest, pool, Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest, Agricultural
Field, maintained yard and maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study
area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur
within the study area will exploit all communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as
movement corridors.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 5
J
3.1.1 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest
The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is present northeast of Bridge No. 18. This community is
composed of red bud (Cercis canadensis), short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), white oak (Quercus alba),
Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), yellow jessamine (Gelsemium sempervirens), cross vine
(Arisostichus capreolata), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense),
American holly (Ilex opaca), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), greenbrier (Smilax
rotundifolia), red maple (Acer rubrum) and black oak (Quercus velutina).
Wildlife species associated with the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest include: white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis),
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), deer mouse (Peromyscus
maniculatus) and raccoon (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer will use this forest community for cover
and will forage on twigs and leaves as well as mast.
Avian species utilizing the alluvial forest include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo
erythrophthalmus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) and white-eyed
vireo (Vireo griseus).
3.1.2 Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest
The Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest is the riparian community northeast and northwest of
Bridge No. 18. Flora within this community includes black cherry (Prunus serotina), river birch
(Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciua), Japanese
honeysuckle (Gelsemium sempervirens), cross vine (Arisostichus capreolata), American holly (Ilex
opaca), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), crane fly
orchid (Tipularia discolor), field garlic (Allium vineale) and black oak (Quercus velutina). This
forested habitat will contain many of the same faunal species found in the Mesic Mixed Hardwood
Forest.
3.1.3 Pool
A pool is located in the Piedmont/ Mountain Bottomland Forest northeast of the existing bridge.
Vegetation adjacent to this pool includes river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis),
- sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Gelsemium sempervirens) and cross vine
(Arisostichus capreolata). The depth of water in the pool averages approximately 10.2 to 15.2 cm (4.0
to 6.0 in). Many species inhabiting the surrounding forested areas will frequent this area.
3.1.4 Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest
The Piedmont/Mountain Levee Forest community is the riparian area south of Bridge No. 18. Flora
within this forest community includes short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), river birch (Betula nigra),
sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), red maple (Acer rubrum), box elder (Acer negundo), musclewood
(Carpinus caroliniana), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and blackberry (Rubus sp.). Many
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 6
.A
of the same faunal species that occupy the other forested communities will frequent this community as
well.
3.1.5 Maintained Yard
The maintained community is located southwest of Bridge No. 18. Flora within this periodically
maintained community includes fescue (Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria media), field garlic (Allium
vineale), dock (Rumex crispa), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), field pansy (Viola
rafinesquii), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), wild strawberry
(Fragaria virginiana) and vetch (Vicia angustifolia).
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the forested
communities.
3.1.6 Agricultural Field
The agricultural field is located northwest of Bridge No. 18 and west of the Piedmont/Mountain
Bottomland Forest. At the time of the site visit, this community appeared to be recently tilled and
contained no vegetation.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the agricultural community will be largely those species inhabiting the forested
communities.
3.1.7 Maintained/Disturbed Roadside
The maintained/disturbed community includes road shoulders along SR 1561 that are present along the
entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes fescue
(Festuca sp.), chickweed (Stellaria media), field garlic (Allium vineale), dock (Rumex crispa), Japanese
honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), field pansy (Viola rafinesquii), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule),
trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) and vetch (Vicia
angustifolia). The width of the road shoulder is approximately 4.6 m (15.0 ft) wide.
The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents
only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal
species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the forested
communities.
3.2 Aquatic Communities
One aquatic community, the Haw River will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical
characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of
aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 7
11
aquatic communities. No submersed or emergent aquatic vegetation was observed within this section
of the Haw River.
Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species.
Fish species likely to occur in the Haw River include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek
-- chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), silver red-horse (Moxostoma anisurum) and channel catfish (Ictalurus
punctatus). Invertebrates that would be present include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera),
mayflies (Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata).
3.3 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources described. Any
construction related activities in or near these resources have the potential to impact biological
functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to the natural resources in terms of area
impacted and ecosystems affected. Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative abundance of each community present
within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 1 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting
from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right of way width
of 24.4 m (80.0 ft) minus the area previously impacted by the existing road. Usually, project
construction does not require the entire right-of-way; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less.
Table 1. Anticipated impacts from the aronosed proiect to biotic communities
Community Alternate 1
Mixed Mesic Hardwood Forest 0.10 (0.26)
Piedmont/ Mountain Bottomland Forest 0.20 (0.51)
Pool 0.02 (0.04)
Piedmont/ Mountain Levee Forest 0.01 (0.03)
Maintained Yard 0.03 (0.09)
Agricultural Field 0.08 (0.21)
Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.28 (0.69)
Total 0.72(l.83)
Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres).
Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for
various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 18 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat
for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this
project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal.
Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will
habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife
wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat.
activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species.
become road shoulders and early successional
further from the roadway while attracting other
Animals temporarily displaced by construction
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page 8
J
Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization,
scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction-related work will affect water quality
and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from
these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects.
Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of
the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside
vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or
feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and
amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These
organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream.
The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the
terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation.
Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation
carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site.
These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream,
thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more
direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species.
4.0 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS
This section provides descriptions, inventories and impact analysis pertinent to two important issues-
"waters of the United States" and rare and protected species.
4.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" as defined in
22 CFR Part 328.3. Any action that proposes to dredge or place fill material into surface waters or
wetlands falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Surface waters include all standing or flowing waters that have
commercial or recreational value to the public. Wetlands are identified based on the presence of hydric
soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and saturated or flooded conditions during all or part of the growing
season.
4.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation
and hydrology. Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils,
hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be
considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project area.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 9
-2
The Haw River is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC
1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the
project area are presented in previous sections of this report.
4.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW width of 24.4 m
(80.0 ft). Considering the proposed project, impacts to the Haw River will consist of a 27.4 m (90 ft)
width and a 21.3 m (70.0 ft) long crossing of the Haw River, for an area of 0.06 ha (0.15 acre). A pool
in the project area is located in the Piedmont/ Mountain Bottomland Forest. Vegetation adjacent to this
pool includes river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), sweetgum (Liquidambar
styraciflua), Japanese honeysuckle (Gelsemium sempervirens) and cross vine (Arisostichus capreolata).
Impacts to this pool total 0.02 ha (0.04 ac). Waters impacts to the Haw River and the pool will total
approximately 0.08 ha (0.19 ac). Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW,
therefore, actual surface water impacts may be considerably less.
4.1.3 Permits
As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project.
As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory
agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources
Nationwide Permit 23 (33 CFR 330.5(a) (23)) is likely to be applicable for all impacts to "waters of the
United States" resulting from the proposed project. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole or part by another federal agency or
department where that agency or department has determined that pursuant to the Council on
Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National
Environmental Policy Act
• the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the human environment, and
• that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination.
- This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of
the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may result in a discharge to "waters of
the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the
duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is
a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
4.1.4 Mitigation
The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation
policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 10

policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the
United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to
include avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over
time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance,
minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
4.1.4.1 Avoidance
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to
"waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable"
measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree
of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall
project purposes.
4.1.4.2 Minimization
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse
impacts to "waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through
project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the
footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes
and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United
States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for
the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing
activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-
establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of
"in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control.
4.1.4.3 Compensatory Mitigation
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the United
States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no
net loss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts that
remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory actions
- often include restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such actions
should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever practicable.
Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to natural
forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law (under the provisions of the
Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect a
species classified as federally protected, be subject to review by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 11
l
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 13 March 2000, the FWS lists no
federally protected species for Alamance County (Table 3).
4.2.2 Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species
There are two Federal Species of Concern listed by the FWS for Alamance County. Federal Species of
Concern are not afforded federal protection 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. However, the status of these species is subject to change, and so should be included for
consideration. Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are defined as a species that is under consideration
for listing but for which there is insufficient information to support listing. In addition, organisms,
which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina
Natural Heritage Program list of Rare Plant and Animal Species, are afforded state protection under the
NC State Endangered Species Act and the NC Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 2 lists federal species of concern, the state status of these species (if afforded state protection),
and the potential for suitable habitat in the project area for each species. This species list is provided.
for information purposes as the protection status of these species may be upgraded in the future.
Surveys for these species were not conducted during the site visit, nor were any of these species
observed. A review of the NCNHP database of rare species and unique habitats on 27 March 2000
revealed no records of North Carolina rare and/or protected species in or near the project study area.
Table 2. Federal Species of Concern for Alamance County.
Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat Present
Lam silis cariosa Yellow Lam mussel T Yes
Monotro sis odorata Sweet Pinesa C Yes
"T"----- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future
throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
"C"----- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state,
generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also
either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the
world.
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 12

.,
5.0 REFERENCES
American Ornithologists' Union. 1983. Check-List of North American Birds (6th ed.). Lawrence,
Kansas, Allen Press, Inc.
Amoroso, J.L. and A.S. Weakley. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Cowardin, Lewis M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classifications of Wetlands and
Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. U.S. Government
Printing Office, Washington D.C.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Technical Report
Y-87-1, U.S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, Miss.
LeGrand, Jr., H.E. and S.P. Hall. 1997. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal. Species of
North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program. Raleigh, N.C.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
NCDEM. 1996. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Management Plan. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards for North Carolina River Basins.
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources. Raleigh, N.C.
NCDEM. September 1999. Division of Parks and Recreation. North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program Biological Conservation Database.
NCWRC. 1990. Endangered Wildlife of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission. Raleigh, N.C.
Palmer, Willham M. and Alvin L. Braswell, 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. Chapel Hill, The
University of North Carolina Press.
Pennak, R.W. 1989. Fresh-water Invertebrate of the United States, 3'. John Wiley and Sons, Inc.
Potter, E.F., J.F. Parnell and R.P. Teulings. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas. Chapel Hill, The University
of North Carolina Press.
Radford, A.E., H.E. Ahles and G.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the Carolinas.
Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
North Carolina Department of Transportation
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00
May 2000
Page 13
J
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina.
Third Approximation. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, NCDEHNR. Raleigh, N.C.
USDA. 2000. Unpublished soils data from the Alamance County NRCS. US Department of
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell and W.C. Biggs. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia and
Maryland. Chapel Hill, The University of North Carolina Press.
L---
North Carolina Department of Transportation May 2000
The LandMark Design Group, Inc. Project No. 1960024-212.00 Page 14
1

.. i
s
j
,i ?.

'. I
I
ail
I
a I
I
1
gJgl
II

s
4T BY,: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 3:05PM; PAGE 39/59
North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
Planning & Environmental Branch
Alamance County
s' Replace Bridge No. l$ on SR 1561
Over Haw River
j' B--3400
F 1 GORE 1
SENT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 3:06PM; PAGE 40/59
MOB
12'30"
C 4001
(N TI I
1 w r r?? L> 1,
106
• `;':??' +? l ? ?• l% ' ,-,.?r.?- .?- ..fir `? \?/ , i ? . ' ? , ?I? -
71/
Cemi
??c? ',1 \J/? Vii. ?u ?Iir"?--? ??, t• . :•'` W'^
Nli
'Ov .1
Q-9 1;
. 1-f
ur T",
le,
)j T
TV 1b J1
• •1 21l]
I Aenc• Orin 1 ff Ao%nn9A_9a7 on ril F AlAAAF AlnrnnnrP unn r rlr

?w
4

r
s o

T
p
Q
C
O
)TT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661;
MAR-10-00 3:09PM; PAGE 41/59
inaNYMAlife Resources Commissions _
North Carol .?
Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
512 N. Salisbury Street, ,
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C rdina r
Habitat Conservation Progr
DATE: December 21, 1998
SUBJEC"1: NCDO North CarReplacements in olina. TIP Nosl B-3400, B Haywood, 401, B-a3 36, andn
counties, No
B-3532.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife; Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary continents on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(0) 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.
?'JT BY: LANDA4ARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 3:10PM; PAGE 42/59
Bridge Replacement Memo
2
December 21, 1998
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
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 Anadromou 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 de invert is bur ed alt 1 ast lp foot belowc the naturalsstream
that the culvert or ptp
bed. If multiple cells ttt msQ re t sttreambankfful stage (similar t oLyonsi"ield
placed so that their bo a Bunn
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or piP duri g
normal flows q accomm ap gravel and p ovide resting a eas for fish and other
systems are required p 8
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are useds t least fe pi e or b xshou d be designed
to remain dry during normal flo
3. Culverts i re uir d. W dening of the stream c ? 1 at the inle orooutlet of
widening is req
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 structu aetouh should be
location with road closure. if road closure is not feasible, a temporary
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need fur clearing and to
.E?NT,BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 3:11PM; rAbt 40/Dy
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 21, 1998
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
floodplain. 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-3400 - No specific concerns.
2. B-3401- This project is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water
supply reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality
largemouth bass population. We request that no in-water work be performed
from April 1 to June 15.
3. B-3186 - Richland Creek is a tributary to Lake Junaluska. This section of
stream contains trout and is designated as Delayed Harvest Trout Waters. We
recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge that spans the
entire stream. Although we do not request a seasonal exclusion for this
bridge, we do request that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control
measures for High Quality Waters. We also want to reiterate that NCDOT
should impress upon its contractors and inspectors that they are working in
streams which are public resources and extra care should be taken to insure
that sedimentation and erosion control devices are installed and maintained
properly.
4. B-3057 - No specific fishery concerns. However, there is the potential for
federally listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. We recommend that
NCDOT biologists be contacted and a survey conducted. If mussels are
found, a field meeting should be held to discuss special measures to minimize
impacts to these animals.
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 infori-nation on
ease contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the
bridge replacements, pl opporrtunity
to review and comment on these projects.
- 9 NT BY: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661;
srntF
T L
MAR-10-00 3:12PM;

PAGE 44159
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
January 20, 1999
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442

Re: Bridge #18 on SR 1561 over Haw River,
Alamance County, B-3400, ER 99-7698
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
M'
On December 15, 1998, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, a mill is located southwest of the
bridge. We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate this
property for National Register eligibility and report the findings to us.
The mill located southwest of the bridge should be recorded and evaluated for its
archaeological significance if it may be affected by the proposed bridge
replacement.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
109 Fsst Jones Street • Raleigh, North C:srnlins 27601-2807
T $Y: LANDMARKDESIGNGROUP JAMIE SHERN; 919 570 0661; MAR-10-00 3:13PM; PAGE 45/5
i Nicholas L. Graf
January 20, 1999, Page 2
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: W. D. ore
B. Church
T. Padgett