20050407 Ver 1_Complete File_20051013

q?o
1 OCT 1 3
9-
DkI IF
WETI.AiJDSANDSTgRMW TERFiRANCH
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS LYNDO TIPPETT
GOVERNOR SECRETARY
October 6, 2005
Contract No.: C201185
WBS Element: 33335.3.1(B-3899)
F. A. Project: BRZ-1001(23)
County : Rockingham
Description: Bridge over Troublesome Creek and Approaches on SR 1001(Woolen Store
Rd.)
Subject : Permit Conference
Joe Coleman
Mountain Creek Contractors, LLC
P. O. Box D
Catawba, NC 28609
Mr. Coleman:
This letter is to advise that in accordance with the permits and our conversation with Ms. Sue
Homewood, NCDENR Division of Water Quality we have scheduled a Permit Conference for the above
referenced project on Thursday, October 13, 2005, at 10:00 AM for the above referenced Project Site.
As a reminder the special provisions state no work in permitted areas will be allowed until a permit
conference has been held. If there are any questions please advise. Mr. John Thomas with the US Army
Corps of Engineers has granted permission to hold this meeting in his absence.
Sincerely,
DEG
B. L. Norris, Jr., PE
Resident Engineer
Cc: J. M. Mills, PE
L. L. Puckett, PE
V. G. Davis, PE
J. A. Parker
D. L. Hundley
H. L. McDowell
Mathew Gant, P. E. (DENR)
John Thomas(ACOE)
Beth Barnes(DWQ)
Sue Homewood (DWQ)
Barry Harrington
File
P. O. Box 1318, Reidsville, NC 27323-1318 Telephone No. [phone] Fax No. [phone]
? SUlf o
for d.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GovERNoR
March 3, 2005
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615 0 ? 0 ` I
ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
"V
v? ?D
P
LYNDO 1`;
SECRET
SUBJECT: Application for Nationwide Permit 33 for the proposed replacement
of Bridge No. 21 on SR 1001 (Woolen Stone Rd.) over Troublesome
Creek, Rockingham County. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ- 100 1 (23),
State Project No. 8.2511201, Division 7, TIP No. B-3899.
Dear Sir:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace Bridge
No. 21 over Troublesome Creek. The current bridge is 138 feet long, and was
constructed in 1952. Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 21 has a
sufficiency rating of 16.3 out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is
considered structurally deficient and functionally obsolete. For your review, please find
enclosed three copies of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, Pre-construction
Notification (PCN), % size plans, permit drawings.
As proposed, the replacement structure will be a new bridge constructed adjacent to the
existing location. The new bridge will be 135 feet long with a 30 ft clear roadway width.
The roadway approaches will provide two 12 ft. travel lanes with 8 ft. grassed shoulders.
The roadway approach and bridge grades will approximately match existing bridge and
roadway elevations. Total length of roadway approach work will be approximately 2,370
ft. The existing bridge is to be used as a detour during construction.
MAILING ADDRESS: LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION TELEPHONE: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD.
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS FAX: [phone] PARKER LINCOLN BUILDING, SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
General Description: One surface water, Troublesome Creek, will be directly impacted by
the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 21. Troublesome Creek has been assigned a best
usage classification of WS-III NSW. Troublesome Creek is listed as an impaired water
due to sediment under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. The substrate consists of
sand and silt. There are no impacts to jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Permanent Impacts: According to the proposed plan, the bridge will span the creek and no
permanent impact to surface waters is expected.
Temporary Impacts: As proposed, 0.03 acres of temporary fill within the Troublesome
Creek channel will be required for construction of a temporary work causeway. The
temporary fill will consist of suitable materials in accordance with applicable Nationwide
Permit and 401 Water Quality Certification conditions. After construction, the temporary
fill will be removed and disposed of in accordance with applicable regulations.
o Schedule: The project schedule calls for a Let date of August 16, 2005. It is
anticipated that the contractor will begin construction around September 21, 2005.
NCDOT will request the contractor to complete construction in a timely manner
in order to minimize impacts to Troublesome Creek.
o Restoration Plan: The material used for fill to control erosion within the banks of
Troublesome Creek will be removed after the purpose has been served. The
contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal of and
disposal of all material off-site.
Utility Impacts: There is an aerial crossing of telephone cable over Troublesome Creek.
An underground crossing, drilled by directional bore, will replace the aerial crossing. No
other utilities will be impacted during the replacement of Bridge No. 21.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 21, constructed in 1952, consists of a continuous
reinforced concrete deck on timber joists. The overall length of the structure is 138 feet
and is approximately 10 feet above the creek bed. It has been determined that the bridge
can be removed without any concrete being dropped into Troublesome Creek. In
addition, NCDOT and its contractors will adhere to Best Management Practices for
"Bridge Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 21.
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 January 29, 2003
USFWS lists two federally protected species for Rockingham County, James spinymussel
(Pleurobema collina) and smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata).
2'
I
Troublesome Creek is in the Cape Fear River Basin. No James spinymussels have ever
been found in the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDOT biologists surveyed the project study
area on April 17, 2001. No James spinymussels were found during the survey. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) records do not document any James
spinymussel populations within 3.0 miles of the project study area as of April 8, 2003.
Therefore, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for the James spinymussel.
The project area contained what appeared to be potential habitat for the smooth
coneflower, however, no specimens were found during a species-specific survey. This
project will not impact any coneflower populations. NHP records do not indicate any
coneflower populations within 3.0 miles of the project area as of April 8, 2003.
Therefore, a biological conclusion of "No Effect" was issued for Smooth Coneflower.
AVOIDANCE AND MINIMIZATION
NCDOT is proposing to utilize the existing structure as a detour, thereby eliminating
additio7.ial temporary impacts required to install a temporary crossing structure. The
propos.-d design spans the stream with no bents in the water.
o The proposed design spans the stream with no bents in the water
o NCDOT will make use of pre-formed scour holes (PSH) and silt fences in order to
prevent erosion and sedimentation into Troublesome Creek.
o NCDOT will adhere to Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds
Construction impacts will be minimize or avoided through implementation with
applicable Best Management Practices. For instance, during demolition NCDOT will
adhere to Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal which will
reduce or eliminate temporary fill materials from entering Troublesome Creek.
Additionally, adherence to NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of
Surface Waters will minimize construction impacts since these practices require the use
of appropriate sediment and erosion control measures. NCDOT will also adhere to
Design Standards for Sensitive Watersheds in order to avoid further degradation of water
quality.
COMPENSATION
Since the proposed project will have only a temporary impact on jurisdictional waters, no
compensatory mitigation has been proposed.
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 77.11.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit. The project requires
construction of a temporary work causeway. Therefore, we will propose to proceed under
3
a Nationwide 33 as authorized by the Nationwide Permit 33 (FR number 10, pages 2020-
2095; January 15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification number 3366 will apply to
this project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met.
Therefore, written concurrence from the NCDWQ is not required. In accordance with
15A NCAC 2H, Section .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their records.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. If you have any questions or need
additional information, please contact Eric Adrignola at [phone] or at
[e-mail].
Sincerely,
Grego qDe Ph. D., Director
Pojecopment and Environmental Analysis Branch
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan,USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E.
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
PDEA Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Ms. Beth Harmon, EEP
Mr. Carl Goode, PE
4
Office Use Only:
USACE Action ID No.
" '50
No.
Form Vc, ay3g2
0 y O?
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".) z pG OS O
0
1. Processing
II.
?A
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit El Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 3
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name:
Mailing Address: NCDOT
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:- -gthorpe(a,dot.state.ne.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name: NA
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 21 Replacement
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3899
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Rockingham Nearest Town: Reidsville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.):
Bridge No. 21 crossing of Troublesome Creek on SR 1001
(please refer to attached maps)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres):Please refer to attached drawings
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Troublesome Creek
8. River Basin: Cape Fear
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at htip://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The project area lies in the Piedmont Physiog_raphic
Province and consists of agricultural land, maintained/disturbed land and forested land
Page 6 of 12
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replace
Bridge No. 21 over Troublesome Creek with a 3 span, cored slab bridge
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: To replace a structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete bridge crossing over Troublesome Creek.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
N/A
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: The replacement of the bridge
Page 7 of 12
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name of Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.): N/A
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.): N/A
Size of watershed draining to pond: N/A Expected pond surface area: N/A
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The preferred alternative was selected since it proposed using the existing structure as a
detour therefore does not require additional impacts of a temporary onsite structure. During
demolition, adherence toNCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal will reduce temporary fill materials from entering Troublesome Creek. In addition,
adherence to NCDOT Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will
minimize construction impacts since these BMPs require use of erosion and sediment control
measures.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
Page 9 of 12
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
httn://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
N/A
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at httn://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 10 of 12
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify activity is exempt )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Miti ation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 11 of 12
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 213 .0242 or.0260.
N/A
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
NA
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
NA
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).

510
Ap3licant/Agent's Signature I Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12

2356 ? 1001
2 3
2 91 '
- 2395 .4 .5
1 ?_f? ' & ?97 24P3 ' .
btaso
B-3899 a
2402
2394 "2x98 2927 y
I\j y 2481 r
2442 t 2480 ° 5 ?? o• \`
.2
g ?.2 , , 2 I .1
2468\ 2401
\ t
158 Midways 79
o
x.2930
9 2? '
s ? 2934 J 10012399 2 00 ?µA?RtJER
240 i
5'•,2475# Q? s
X239'1 J
\ 392
t5 tj
ROCKINGRAU
COUNTY
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
SCALE IN MILES
1 0 1
AREA LOCATION MAP
BRIDGE NO.21
ON SR 100 1
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
ROCKINGHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3899
toot
P
7 406
PROPERTY OWNER
NAME AND ADDRESS
OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS
01 EUGENE MASON 1441 WOOLEN STORE ROAD
REIDSVILLE, NC 27320
NV ETLAN D LEGEND
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
Cw?L >

TLAND
WE

PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
DEI10TE5 FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
DENOTES FILL IN (DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
SURFACE WATER EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND) SINGLE TREE
R DENOTES TEMPORARY
WO
/ FILL IN WETLAND WOODS LINE
DENOTES EXCAVATION
® IN WETLAND DRAINAGE INLET

® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE

WATER ROOTWAD
•• • DENOTES MECHANIZED
• •" •" • CLEARING
-? FLOW DIRECTION RIP RAP
TB
_-
- TOP OF BANK

WE ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
EDGE OF WATER O
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
C- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
F El PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
- - -
- - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
A -PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
LEVEL.SPREADER (LS)
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
-? DITCH /
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE GRASS SWALE
EASEMENT
-PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
- -? WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
E2D BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
WETLAND & SURFACE WATER
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2511201 (B-3899)
BRZ-1001(23)
Replaceinnef Bridge X21 over
Troublesome Creels on SR 1001
SHEET OF 7 DATE 11 / 2004

7
O

a) U)

W N
Q?

?

z M
rl
w
j
VI
y C? 0 C)
¢
zm o°
3 a -4
L) M o c]
C7U??
F

?xcq U
O
CL U,
E o 0
C)

0
>
?
AI0
4 G..
LL G
I
,
O

U)

U)

D

CL
LL?N

O

U) 7

0
0
v
U
O
CL
ID
a
E
a?
F-

Fo z Q

C
? f9 O)?
v

m a? ?
N r C V O
C) p
U x L a` ?
a wU E

?
W - z
? I ? M
M
0

?_v
W
U
Q

? tn??
N o a m

m
in

c 2
3
- O U
Z

}

Q V
N ?_
?
=
r
O
L (13
? Q

U
c N

v
0

?

H Q

a
>

d U
?? m
w c
?
W O
?
g =.

Z w n??

W
N

-
a
LL
O N
v

m a N
?
U
?
=

? N W
? O
E
F-
O
v
o
O ?
. +
N
76 O O

v
N
J

N

l1
W
Q
LL 0 r-:
C,snt
W
z
Q o?
J
W
?F
E
O
I-

2-Nov
. 4 pro,
sign\Proj\b3B99_ds-p sh5_per msLdgn
rrros+ZL Zr15 -7- 3Nn HI1VH

? 1
_ ti ??
,
J

l
?D
a
N
V
Q
y
O
z
1' 1 lil
?I-
' 1 II 1 .il..?? l r1
?m x - _ 11I -
?
r it
(7 ? v - - - _ ?? (111 I / IIII
O . . _ 11111 1
?T5 n ? 1111 1 III 11
•l ? _ _ - - - _? - - Il,j 1, I , li I
l4
_-- 1111] I 11
5a1 '` - `p 111+ III _
'7 ? K ` 111 ' A
? x\111 I? ? 1 +`I
F I /
P p _ - - - \ ~` . III III I I II7
flyJ?,? x„'11 O 1 rlf 111
a? 11. ? II
? o - ? IVA ? I II
o o ? r 1?„ I' 1 I'I
,^, r i ? ,?11 I II
°' ?n _ Nhl i1°
I
V1? ?-- 'ti 1111 ' 1
i ti ; ' 1 M4 , 1,
1 ' 11111 '1
a I / / r,1 III IyyIII 111
'' / 'AIJ' I 'll
I 1 / III s'J
... '1 1 ; ? Ill I, ll
"?i 1 I? it 1
/ 1 1\ t / /' 1/111' 1 1
/ Il / r 1 II I,
11 .. _
11 ?I -
?0 111 _ _ I_ ??_
11 \ \ r ,?' - it ` \ ?
II
0 1 1 , Irl `?- ?7 '
,111 / , / ?,MMII??}ji 11 00%
,
\P . i T+?\(y_]?rCt.???t 0 I';
/ 1 ' l l R ?f _
tI
is
of

30
O'
e s? w
0

esagn\Proj\b3B99_ ds_psh5. per mi Ldgn

i
ts, ?.; g
iii

A
N
V
q m o
a ?
m --? Z?m
?
N

m
74 o

W z?
l

x
! !
4 •a
o m 4 va

O
n
g
AA
o?
y
y

PI
O

0905+n dl5 -7- 3Nn HOlvil
I+?
I I I
O I I
W ?
\, w \ si IT
Qilk
' I
d

?w
W D
O
? a m Ygi?• \'Rx? anwl
a mo
.,? ? 1 O I
1
?? I 1 ? ro? I m
I M I
I e
I 1 ?n I 9 ??
/
. m? •• I II 1 ??
I \
•I I
. 11
I ,
I II ?
I I I ?Q
1 zpp
I I ?a
11
•.• I I 1
"I
I ? 1
1
I
1
I ,
? I
r I I I
f ,
I ,
1 f
f ,
1 '
!I r
f
m r,p I ,
11 +
x f
m I
x?l
x
? I f
1
I /// m 1
x ? /
.\ I
h A al ??
/ v

o
-11i
po
2r
?N
"n t
n?
a?
m
0
A
{
is
o ay
i
a
O

30
{
o ?

ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 21 ON SR 1001
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1001(23)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2511201
TIP NO. B-3899
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
APPROVED:
DATE Gregory J orpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
571211o2)
DATE VJohn F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 21 ON SR 1001
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1001(23)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2511201
TIP NO. B-3899
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Document Prepared by Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
4928-A Windy Hill Dr.
Raleiah.,NC 27609
aS-Z5-0-5
Date
Ramey Kemp & Associates, Inc.
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
J41,00o- J fJl?,
Theresa Ellerby, Project Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
f-2?-03
Date
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 21 ON SR 1001
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1001(23)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2511201
TIP NO. B-3899
The NCDOT agrees to follow the standard Nationwide Permit #23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design
Standards for Sensitive Watersheds, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions for Certification.
No other special commitments are required for this project.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion
May 2003
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 21 ON SR 1001
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
FEDERAL-AID PROJECT NO. BRZ-1001(23)
STATE PROJECT NO. 8.2511201
TIP NO. B-3899
INTRODUCTION
The replacement of Bridge No. 21, located on SR 1001 over Troublesome Creek in Rockingham County, is
included in the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) 2002-2008 Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP) as B-3899 and in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program as BRZ-
1001(23). The location is shown in Figures 1 and 10.
No substantial impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED
The NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate Bridge No. 21 has a sufficiency rating of 16.3 out of
a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered structurally deficient and functionally
obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
Bridge No. 21 is located approximately 2.5 miles (4.0 km) north of US 158 at Midway on SR 1001 in
Rockingham County. Refer to Figure 1 and 10 for the project location and Figures 2, 3 and 4 for photos of
the existing project area.
Bridge No. 21 was constructed in 1952. It is currently posted to restrict weight limits at 15 tons (13.6 metric
tons) for single vehicles and 22 tons (20.0 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers.
The overall length of the seven-span structure is 138.0 ft (42.1 m). It has a clear roadway width of 22.2 ft
(6.8 m) that includes two 11.1 ft (3.3 m) travel lanes over the bridge. The superstructure consists of a
reinforced concrete deck with an asphalt wearing surface with timber joists on the approach spans and
steel I-beams on the main span. The substructure of the bridge is a combination of timber caps and timber
piles (bents 1, 2, 3 and 6) and reinforced concrete caps and timber piles (bents 4 and 5). The height from
the crown to stream bed is 16 ft (4.9 m). The scour at pier 5 is within 1 ft (0.3 m) of the scour critical
depth.
SR 1001 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification System. The
2005 average daily traffic volume (ADT) on SR 1001 is estimated to be 2500 vehicles per day (vpd). The
percentages of truck traffic are 1 percent TTST vehicles and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles. The projected
2030 (ADT) is 4200 vpd.
The two-lane facility measures approximately 21 ft (6.4 m) in width and has 5-ft (1.5-m) grassed shoulders
on each side of the roadway. The existing bridge is in a short tangent section between opposing curves.
The vertical alignment is generally flat at the bridge with both the north and south approaches rising on a
2
gentle grade away from the structure. The speed limit in the immediate vicinity of the bridge and toward
the south is posted at a precautionary 45 miles per hour (mph) (72 km/h) due to the horizontal curvature
approaching the bridge from the south. Existing right-of-way is approximately 60 ft (18.3 m) in width.
This section of SR 1001 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the Transportation
Improvement Program as needing incidental bicycle accommodations. There is no indication that an
unusual number of bicyclists use this roadway.
There are underground telephone utilities along the west side of SR 1001. The line is aerial over
Troublesome Creek. On the south approach, the line is fiber optic cable. There are no other apparent
utilities that would be affected by the proposed project. Utility impacts are expected to be low.
Land use within the immediate project area is primarily swampy wooded areas with large cultivated fields
to the north and south of the low areas associated with Troublesome Creek. Approximately 1600 ft (490
m) south and 800 ft (250 m) north of Bridge No. 21, there are several residences and outbuildings
associated with farming operations.
Three school buses cross Bridge No. 21 twice daily, for a total of six bus trips per day.
There have been five crashes reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 21 during the period from December 1,
1999 and November 30, 2002.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
Based upon a preliminary hydraulics analysis, the proposed replacement structure will be approximately
140 ft (42.7 m) long with a 30 ft (9.1 m) clear roadway width. The bridge will include two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel
lanes with 3 ft (1.0 m) of lateral clearance on each side of the bridge.
The length and opening size of the proposed structure may increase or decrease as necessary to
accommodate peak flows as determined by a more detailed hydraulic analysis to be performed during the
final design phase of the bridge.
The roadway approaches will provide two 12 ft (3.6 m) travel lanes with 8 ft (2.4 m) grassed shoulders.
The roadway approach and bridge grades will approximately match existing bridge and roadway
elevations. The design speed is 60 mph (100 km/h).
B. Build Alternatives
Four (4) build alternatives studied for replacing the existing bridge are described below:
Alternative A
Altemative A consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by using an off-site detour. The total length of roadway approach work for this alternative is
approximately 750 ft (229 m). SR 1001 will be closed within the project limits for approximately 12 months
during the construction of the bridge. Refer to Figure 6 for illustration of this alternative.
Two off-site detours were studied. The "west" detour is SR 1001 (Sandy Cross Road), US 158, SR 2351
(Witty Road), SR 2392 (Brown Road) and SR 2406 (Iron Works Road). The length of this detour is 12.9
miles (20.8 km): There are no posted structures on this detour. The "east" detour is SR 1001, SR 2406,
SR 2422 (Monroeton Road), SR 2423 (Meadow Branch Road) and US 158. The length of this detour is
11.0 miles (17.7 km). There is one posted structure on this route, 18 tons (16.3 metric tons) for single
vehicles and 23 tons (20.9 metric tons) for truck-tractor semi-trailers. Refer to Figure 5 for illustration of the
temporary off-site detour routes.
Alternative A was not selected because of the long detour route and heavy commuter traffic.
Alternative B
Alternative B consists of replacing the bridge in-place with a new bridge. During construction, traffic will be
maintained by an on-site detour parallel to and east (downstream) of the existing bridge. The total length
of permanent roadway approach work for this alternative is approximately 750 ft (229 m). Refer to Figure 7
for illustration of this altemative.
The on-site detour structure will be approximately 130 ft (39.6 m) in length and will have a clear roadway
width of 28 ft (8.6 m) including two 11 ft (3.3-m) travel lanes and 3 ft (0.9 m) of lateral clearance on each
side of the bridge. The detour roadway approaches will provide two 11 ft (3.3-m) travel lanes with 3 ft (0.9-
m) grassed shoulders. The detour roadway approach and bridge may be lowered to provide a minimum
1.0 ft (0.3 m) freeboard for the 5-year event. The length of the temporary detour will be approximately
1,100 ft (335 m).
Alternative B was not selected as the preferred because of the cost and environmental impacts associated
with the on-site detour.
Alternative C
Altemative C consists of replacing the bridge with a new bridge on new alignment east (downstream) of the
existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The total length of
roadway approach work for this altemative is approximately 1,905 ft (577 m). Refer to Figures 8A and 8B
for illustration of this altemative.
Altemative C was not selected as the preferred because of the higher environmental impacts at the
northern end of the project.
Alternative D (Preferred)
Alternative D consists of replacing the bridge with a new bridge on new alignment west (upstream) of the
existing bridge. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. The total length of
roadway approach work for this alternative is approximately 2,370 (718 m). Refer to Figures 9A and 9B for
illustration of this altemative.
C. Altematives Eliminated From Further Consideration
A "Do-Nothing" altemative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge due to its poor condition. This is
not desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1001.
Investigation of the existing structure by the NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
4
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative D, replacement on new alignment to the west (upstream) of the existing bridge, was selected as
the Preferred Alternative because it eliminates the need for a long off-site detour and the cost associated
with maintaining traffic off-site.
The Division Engineer concurs with Alternative D as the Preferred Alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs, based on current dollars, are shown below:
Table 1
Estimated Project Costs
Alternative A Alternative B Alternative C Alternative D
(Preferred)
Structure Removal (existing) $ 24,512 $ 24,512 $ 24,512 $ 31,000
Structure (proposed) 273,000 273,000 273,000 336,000
Detour Structure and Approaches 0 595,118 0 0
Roadway Approaches 246,468 246,468 701,706 583,297
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 244,020 462,682 449,782 317,534
Engineering and Contingencies 137,000 273,220 251,000 232,169
Right-of-Way/Easements and Utilities 28,300 38,400 53,500 71,000
Total Project Cost $ 953,300 $1,913,400 $1,753,500 $1,571,000
The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program is $1,030,000, including $150,000 spent in prior years, $80,000 for right-of-way and $ 800,000 for
construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Natural resources within the project study area were evaluated to provide: 1) an assessment of existing
vegetation, wildlife, protected species, streams, wetlands, and water quality; 2) an evaluation of probable
impacts resulting from construction; and 3) a preliminary determination of permit needs.
A. Methodology
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources.
The Bethany NC, United States Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5-minute topographic quadrangle map
(USGS 1971) was consulted to determine the physiographic relief and to assess landscape characteristics.
Additional resources utilized include U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory
mapping, and the Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North Carolina (USDA 1992).
Aerial photography served as the basis for mapping plant communities and wetlands. Plant community
patterns were identified from available mapping sources and then field verified in May 2001. Plant
community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the NC Natural Heritage Program
(NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better
5
reflect field observations. Vascular plant names typically follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968).
Jurisdictional areas were identified using the three parameter approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric
soils, wetland hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) delineation guidelines (DOA
1987). Jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme established by
Cowardin et al. (1979). Jurisdictional stream channels were identified using criteria outlined by the USACE
and the NC Division of Water Quality (DWQ).
Water resource information for Troublesome Creek was derived from the most recent versions of the Cape
Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan (DWQ 2000), Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River
Basin (DWQ 1999) and several DWQ intemet resources. Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to
support existing data.
At the time of the field investigation, the most current USFWS list of federal protected species listed for
Rockingham County was dated April 12, 2001. This list was reviewed prior to the field investigation and
included only smooth coneflower, James spinymussel, and Heller trefoil. The most recent USFWS list,
dated February 25, 2003, now includes the green floater as a Federal Species of Concern. In addition,
NHP records documenting occurrences of federal or state-listed species listed within the project study area
were consulted before commencing the field investigation. An updated NHP records search was
conducted on December 20, 2001, October 21, 2002 and April 8, 2003 and no protected species are
known to exist within the project study area.
Direct observations of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife were documented. Expected population distributions
were determined through observations of available habitat and review of supportive documentation found
in Martof et al. (1980), Webster et al. (1985), Menhinick (1991), Hamel (1992), Rohde et al. (1994), and
Palmer and Braswell (1995).
B. Physiography and Soils
The project study area is located in the Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. The
topography in the project study area is generally characterized as semi-level. Elevations in the •project
study area range from 700 to 800 feet (213 to 244 m) above mean sea level (MSL) (USGS 1971).
The project vicinity contains undisturbed forest, agricultural land, residential areas, and other
maintained/disturbed areas.
The project study area crosses five soil mapping units (USDA 1992). The only hydric soil mapped within
the project study area is the Wehadkee (Typic Fluvaquents) series. Non-hydric soils mapped within the
project study area that may contain hydric soil inclusions includes the Chewacla (F/uvaquentic
Dystrochrepts) series. Non-hydric soils are mapped as the Appling (Typic Kanhapludults) series, Cecil
(Typic Kanhapludults) series, and Pacolet (Typic Kanhapludults) series (USDA 1992).
C. Water Resources
C.1. Waters Impacted
The project study area is located within sub-basin 030601 of the Cape Fear River Basin (DWQ 1999, DWQ
2000) and is part of USGS hydrologic unit 03030002 (USGS 1974). Troublesome Creek originates west of
US 220, flows east into Lake Reidsville, and then flows into the Haw River. The drainage area at the
6
bridge crossing is 25.5 square miles (65.7 square kilometers). The DWQ has assigned Troublesome
Creek Stream Index Number (SIN) 16-6-(0.3) (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a).
C.2. Water Resource Characteristics
Troublesome Creek is a perennial stream with moderate flow over substrate consisting of sand and silt.
Water clarity was moderate to good at the time of the site investigation. The main channel width ranges
between 15 feet (6 m) and 60 feet (18 m). Mean depth ranges from 0.25 feet (0.08 m) to 3.0 feet (0.9 m).
A geomorphic characterization of the stream section within the project study area indicates Troublesome
Creek is an "F" type channel (Rosgen 1996). The stream occurs on alluvial valleys and has moderate
sinuosity. The "F" designation indicates that the stream has an entrenched meandering channel on a low
gradient with high width/depth ratio (Rosgen 1996).
Troublesome Creek has been assigned a best usage classification of WS-III NSW (DEM 1993, DENR
2002a). The WS-III designation indicates waters protected as water supplies, which are generally in low to
moderately developed watersheds. Point source discharges of treated wastewater are permitted in these
waters; however, local programs to control non-point source and stormwater discharge of pollution are
required. The NSW designation refers to Nutrient Sensitive Waters, which require limitations on nutrient
inputs.
Troublesome Creek is listed as an impaired water under Section 303(d) of the Clean Water Act. From its
source to SR 2423, Troublesome Creek is considered biologically impaired. This stretch of stream is listed
as impaired due to its historical listing caused by sediment from potential agricultural sources and is listed
as a high priority for improvement (DWQ 2000b).
No Outstanding Resource Waters (ORR, High Quality Waters (HQW), WS-I, or WS-II Waters occur within
1.0 miles (1.6 km) upstream or downstream of the project study area (DEM 1993, DENR 2002a).
Troublesome Creek is not designated as a North Carolina Natural and Scenic River, or as a National Wild
and Scenic River.
One method used by DWQ to monitor water quality is through long-term monitoring of macroinvertebrates.
The closest benthic monitoring station on Troublesome Creek is located approximately 3.0 miles (4.8 km)
downstream from the project study area on SR 2423. This site was sampled in 1998 and received a bio-
classification rating of Good-Fair (DWQ 2000).
Another measure of water quality being used by the DWQ is the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity
(NCIBI), which assesses biological integrity using the structure and health of the fish community.
Troublesome Creek has been sampled at Bridge No. 21 on SR 1001, which is within the project study
area. This site was sampled in 1998 and received a NCIBI rating of Poor (DWQ 2000).
Discharges that enter surface waters through a pipe, ditch or other well-defined point of discharge are
broadly referred to as 'point sources'. There is one permitted discharger located on an unnamed tributary
to Troublesome Creek and one permitted discharger located on Troublesome Creek (DWQ 1999, DENR
2002b). No obvious sources of non-point source discharges were observed in the project study area.
C.3. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality, such as sedimentation and turbidity, may result from construction-
related activities. Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be minimized
through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule and the use of BMP's. These measures
include: the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other containment measures to control runoff and
7
elimination of construction staging areas in floodplains and adjacent waterways. Disturbed sites will be
revegetated with herbaceous cover after any temporary construction impacts.
Other impacts to water quality, such as changes in water temperature as a result of increased exposure to
sunlight due to the removal of stream-side vegetation or increased shade due to the construction of the
bridges, and changes in stormwater flows due to changes in the amount of impervious surface adjacent to
the stream channels, can be anticipated as a result of this project. However, due to the limited amount of
overall change in the surrounding areas, impacts are expected to be temporary in nature.
No adverse long-term impacts to water resources are expected to result from the alternatives being
considered. The proposed bridge replacement project will allow for continuation of present stream flow
within the existing channel, thereby protecting stream integrity.
CA. Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the NCDOT and all
potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and removal. These guidelines
are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled Pre-Construction Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and
Removal, Policy. Bridge Demolition and Removal in Waters of the United States, and Best Management
Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
The superstructure of Bridge No. 21 consists of a reinforced concrete deck with an asphalt wearing surface
with timber joists on the approach spans and steel I-beams on the main span. The bridge has seven (7)
spans and totals 138 feet (42.1 m) in length. All bents consist of either timber caps and piles or reinforced
concrete caps and timber piles. The maximum resulting temporary fill associated with the removal of
Bridge No. 21 is approximately 29.0 cubic yards (22.2 cubic m). It has been determined that the bridge
can be removed without dropping any concrete into waters of the United States. After construction
activities are completed, any abandoned existing approaches associated with the existing structure should
be removed and revegetated in accordance with NCDOT guidelines.
Because no moratoriums apply, this project falls under Case 3 (no special restrictions) of the Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
D. Biotic Resources
D.I. Plant Communities
Terrestrial distribution and composition of plant communities throughout the project study area reflect
landscape-level variations in topography, soils, hydrology, and past and present land use practices. When
appropriate, the plant community names have been adopted and modified from the NHP classification
system (Schafale and Weakley 1990) and the descriptions written to reflect local variations within the
project study area. Four plant communities were identified within the project study area: Piedmont alluvial
forest, mixed hardwood forest, agricultural land, and maintained/disturbed land.
Piedmont Alluvial Forest - The Piedmont alluvial forest community is located in river and stream
floodplains in which separate fluvial landforms and associated vegetation zones are too small to distinguish
(Schafale and Weakley 1990). Tree species encountered include American sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), river birch (Betula nigra), green ash (Fraxinus americanus), and paw-paw (Asimina triloba).
Groundcover species include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) and poison ivy (Toxicodendron
radicans).
8
Mixed Hardwood Forest - Mixed hardwood forest is located on mid-slopes, low ridges, upland flats, and
other dry-mesic upland areas. This community type is dominated by a mixture of oaks and hickories
including northern red oak (Quercus rubra), black oak (Quercus velutina), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and flowering dogwood
(Comus florida). Groundcover species include Japanese honeysuckle and Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Agricultural Land - These areas are currently in production of cash crops or have recently been in
production of livestock and/or crops.
Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land include road rights-of-way, maintained
residential yards, powerline right-of-way corridors, and areas where other human-related activities
dominate. Roadsides and powerline right-of-way are maintained by mowing and/or herbicides. Species
observed include various grasses such as fescue (Festuca sp.) and broomsedge (Andropogon virginica),
and unidentified ornamentals.
D.2. Wildlife
The project study area was visually surveyed for signs of terrestrial and aquatic wildlife. The project study
area is surrounded by busy roadways, agricultural fields, and residential yards. Alluvial forests along
streams such as Troublesome Creek provide cover and food and allow animals to travel between more
optimal habitats. Wildlife species likely to be found here are those adapted to ecotones between the
maintained roadsides and agricultural fields and adjacent natural forest.
One reptile was positively identified in the project study area. A black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) was
found dead on the road. Other species expected to occur within the project study area include the eastern
box turtle (Terrapene carolina), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and eastern fence lizard
(Sceloporus undulatus).
No terrestrial amphibians were observed in the project study area. Species expected to occur in the study
area include the gray treefrog (Hyla chrysoscelis), spring peeper (Pseudacris crucifer), American toad
(Bufo americanus), white-spotted slimy salamander (Plethodon cylindraceus), and marbled salamander
(Ambystoma opacum).
Bird species documented in the project study area include green heron (Butorides virescens), pileated
woodpecker (Dryocopus pileatus), red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), American crow (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), ovenbird (Seiurus aurocapillus), and indigo bunting
(Passerina cyanea).
Two mammal species were documented within the project study area; white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus) and Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana). Other mammal species expected to occur in the
project study area include the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), gray fox (Urocyon cinereoargenteus),
and eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floddanus).
D.3. Aquatic Communities
Limited kick-netting, seining, dip-netting, electro-shocking and visual observation of stream banks and the
channel within the project study area were conducted in Troublesome Creek. Benthic macroinvertebrate
samples were collected pursuant to current DWQ Aquatic Insect Collection Protocols.
9
Benthic invertebrate organisms collected within Troublesome Creek were identified to at least Order and
Family if possible and include dobsonflies (Megaloptera: Cordylidae), beetles (Coleoptera: Gyrinidae,
Hydroptilidae, Haliplidae), mayflies (Ephemeroptera: Heptageniidae, Ephemeridae), dragonflies (Odonata:
Gomphidae, Aeshnidae), caddisflies (Trichoptera: Hydropsychidae, Polycentropidae), stoneflies
(Plecoptera: Perlidae), marsh flies (Diptera: Sciomyzidae), midges (Diptera: Chironomidae, Nematocera),
mosquitoes: (Diptera: Culicidae), segmented worms (Oligochaeta), leeches (Hirudinea), scuds
(Amphipoda), and crayfish (Decapoda). Identifications are based on McCafferty (1998). In addition to the
above macroinvertebrates, Eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) shells were observed along the banks of
Troublesome Creek.
In addition to the above microinvertebrates, eastern elliptio (Elliptio complanata) shells were observed
along the banks of Troublesome Creek. NCDOT documented the notched rainbow (Villosa consticta) and
Asiatic clam (Corbicula fluminea) during a mussel survey conducted on April 17, 2001.
Fish species documented in the segment of Troublesome Creek within the project study area include the
margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), rosefin shiner (Lythrurus
ardens), and crescent shiner (Luxilus cerasinus).
The only aquatic reptile observed in the project study area was northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Other species expected to occur in the project study area include the common snapping turtle (Chelydra
serpentina), eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys picta), and eastern mud turtle (Kinostemon subrubrum).
Unidentified salamander larvae and an unidentified frog (Rana sp.) were observed in the project study
area. Aquatic amphibian species expected to occur in the project study area include the northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), green frog (Rana clamitans) and bullfrog (R. catesbeiana).
DA. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
DA.a. Terrestrial Community Impacts
Potential impacts to plant communities are estimated based on the approximate area of each plant
community present within both the proposed 100 ft (30.3 m) right-of-way and the temporary construction
limits of the on-site detour or easement that falls outside the proposed right-of-way limit. A summary of
potential plant community impacts is presented in Table 2. Impervious surface and open water areas are
not included in this analysis.
Permanent community impacts for Alternative A represent the least amount of the four alternatives. The
highest amount of permanent plant community impacts result from Alternative C.
DA.b. Aquatic Communities Impacts
The proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or displacement of known aquatic
wildlife populations. Potential down-stream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by bridging
Troublesome Creek to maintain regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to
downstream habitat from increased sediment during construction will be reduced by limiting in-stream work
to an absolute minimum, except for the removal of the portion of the sub-structure below the water. BMP-
BDR will be followed to minimize impacts due to anticipated bridge demolition.
10
Table 2
Potential Impacts to Plant Communities
POTENTIAL IMPACTS
PLANT acres hectares
COMMUNITY ALT A ALT B ALT C ALT D
Impacts Impacts Temp. Impacts Impacts Impacts
Piedmont Alluvial Forest 0.60 (0.24) 0.40 (0.16) 0.82 (0.33) 0.94 (0.38) 0.89 (0.36)
Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.14 (0.06) 0.13 (0.05) 0.06 (0.02) 0.31 (0.13) 0.07 (0.03)

Agricultural Land 0.0 0.0 0.10 (0.04) 0.90 (0.36) 0.35 (0.14)
Maintained/Disturbed 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.23 (0.09) 0.06 (0.02)
Total: acres (ha): 0.74 (0.30) 0.53 (0.21) 0.98 (0.40) 2.38(0.96) 1.37 (0.55)
TOTAL FOR ALT.
acres ha 0.74 0.30 1.51 0.61 2.38 0.96 1.37 0.55
Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the proposed right-of-way limits.
E. Special Topics
E.I. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Troublesome Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). The surface
waters within Troublesome Creek exhibit characteristics of riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated
bottom, permanently flooded, (R2UBH) waters (Cowardin et al. 1979).
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are defined by the
presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology within 12
inches (31 cm) the soil surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing season (DOA 1987). Based on
this three-parameter approach, jurisdictional wetlands do occur within the project study area in the form of
bottomland hardwood forest. There are four small areas of jurisdictional hardwood forest delineated within
the project study area. These jurisdictional features exhibit characteristics of palustrine, forested, broad-
leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded (PF01A) wetlands (Cowardin et al. 1979). These wetland areas
appear to be riverine (i.e., riparian) wetlands in that they receive occasional over-bank flooding from
Troublesome Creek. These areas are located in the forested corridor that runs parallel with Troublesome
Creek. Two of the delineated wetlands are isolated.
Dominant wetland vegetation includes tree species such as river birch, green ash, sycamore, ironwood
(Carpinus caroliniana) and red maple. Groundcover is comprised of such species as spotted touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), false nettle (Boehmaria cylindrica), netted chain fem (Woodwardia areolata), and
poison ivy. Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands will be assessed by the area impacted. Soil in these
wetland areas is mapped as Wehadkee silt loam. The soil was saturated at the surface and the depth to
free water in a pit was approximately 6 inches (15 cm) on May 22, 2001.
E.2 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the United States
Temporary and permanent impacts to wetlands and surface waters are estimated based on the amount of
each jurisdictional area within the project limits. Permanent impacts are those areas that will be in the
construction limits and/or the proposed right-of-way of the new structure and approaches. Temporary
impacts include those impacts that will result from temporary construction activities outside of the proposed
right-of-way and/or those associated with staging areas and/or temporary detours. Temporary impacts will
11
be restored to their original condition after the project has been completed. Potential wetland and surface
water impacts are included in Table 3.
Table 3
Jurisdictional Wetlands and Surface Waters
POTENTIAL IMPACTS WITHIN EACH ALTERNATIVE
JURISDICTIONAL
AREAS ALT A ALT A ALT B ALT B ALT C ALT C ALT D ALT D
Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp. Perm. Temp.
Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts Impacts
PF01 acres ha 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
R2UBH acres (ha) 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.08 0.0 0.04 0.0 0.04
0.01 0.03 0.01 0.01

Perennial Channel 0.0 30(9) 0.0 58(18) 0.0 30(9) 0.0 30(9)
feet m
R2UBH - riverine, lower perennial, unconsolidated bottom, permanently flooded
PF01A-palustrine, forested, broad-leaved deciduous, temporarily flooded
Note: Temporary construction impacts are based on the portion of the impacts that fall outside the proposed right-of-way limits.
Bridging Troublesome Creek will result in no permanent fill placed in jurisdictional areas. Alternative A,
which replaces the bridge in-place while using an off-site detour, incurs 0.04 acre (0.01 ha) of temporary
surface water impact along 30 feet (9 m) of stream channel. Alternative B, which replaces the bridge in-
place with a temporary on-site detour on the northeast side, incurs 0.08 acre (0.03 ha) of temporary
surface water impact along 58 feet (18 m) of stream channel. Alternative C, which replaces the bridge on
new alignment east of the existing bridge, incurs 0.04 acre (0.01 ha) of temporary surface water impact
along 30 feet (9 m) of stream channel. Alternative D, which replaces the bridge on new alignment west of
the existing bridge, incurs 0.04 (0.01) of temporary surface water impact along 30 feet (9 m) of stream
channel.
None of the four jurisdictional forested wetland areas are affected by any of the four alternatives.
E.3. Permits
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act - In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit is required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill
material into "Waters of the United States". The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A
general permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category or categories of activities
when: those activities are substantially similar in nature and cause only a minimal individual or cumulative
environmental impacts, or when the general permit would result in avoiding unnecessary duplication or
regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state, or local agency provided that the environmental
consequences of the action are individually and cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not
appropriate for a particular activity, then an individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are
authorized on a case-by-case evaluation of a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general permit.
Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. This permit authorizes any activities,
work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
12
by another federal agency and that the activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor
cumulatively have a significant effect on the environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits
must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the USACE.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification - A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the
DWQ, will also be required. This certification is issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into
waters for which a federal permit is required. According to the DWQ, one condition of the permit is that the
appropriate sediment and erosion control practices must be utilized to prevent exceedances of the
appropriate turbidity water quality standard.
E.4. Mitigation Evaluation
Avoidance - Each project alternative avoids impacts to jurisdictional wetlands, but contains jurisdictional
surface waters, which will be crossed. Open water areas will be bridged from high ground to high ground.
Minimization - Bridging jurisdictional surface waters from high ground to high ground will minimize
impacts. Best Management Practices should be implemented during all phases of construction to further
minimize detrimental environmental effects. Further efforts to minimize jurisdictional impacts will be made
during the final design phase of this project.
Mitigation - Compensatory mitigation is not expected for this project due to the limited nature of project
impacts. Temporary impacts associated with the construction activities could be mitigated by replanting
disturbed areas with native species and removal of any temporary fill material within the floodplain upon
project completion. Final compensatory wetland and stream mitigation requirements will be determined by
the USACE.
F. Rare and Protected Species
F.1. Federally Protected Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE),
and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The following federal
protected species are listed for Rockingham County (USFWS list dated February 25, 2003):
Table 4
Federally Protected Species Listed for Rockingham County
Common Name Scientific Name Status Biological Conclusion
James spinymussel Pleurobema coUina E No Effect
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigafa E No Effect
Endangered - any native or once-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
James spinymussel - The James spinymussel is a freshwater mussel with a 2 inch (5.1 cm) long oblong
shell. Young specimens usually have three short spines on each valve. This species range currently
includes the upper James River basin in Virginia and West Virginia (Terwilliger 1991). A newly found
population occurs in the Dan River in Stokes County, North Carolina. Although no specimens have been
13
discovered in Rockingham County, this species is listed for Rockingham County because portions of the
Dan River occur in Rockingham County.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION - NO EFFECT
Troublesome Creek is in the Cape Fear River Basin and no James spinymussels have ever been recorded
from the Cape Fear River Basin. NCDOT biologist surveyed the project study area for the James
spinymussel on April 17, 2001. Survey methodology included wading using visual (view bucket) and tactile
methods. No James spinymussels were found during this survey. No impacts to the James spinymussel
are expected as a result of this project. NHP records do not document any James spinymussel
populations within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area as of April 8, 2003.
Smooth coneflower - Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows up to 4.9 feet (1.5
m) tall from a vertical root stock. The stems are smooth, with few leaves. Mid-stem leaves have shorter
stems or no stems and are smaller in size than the basal leaves. The rays of the flowers are light pink to
purplish, usually drooping, and 2 to 3 inches (5 to 8 cm) long. Flower heads are usually solitary and
flowering occurs from May through July (USFWS 1995)
The habitat of smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone bluffs,
and power line rights-of-way. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and little competition in
the herbaceous layer. Natural fires, as well as large herbivores, are part of the history of the vegetation in
this species' range (USFWS 1995).
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION - NO EFFECT
The project study area contains what appeared to be potential habitat for the smooth coneflower, however,
none were found during a species specific survey. Areas representing potential habitat were surveyed for
smooth coneflower in May 2001 during the field investigation. No smooth coneflower plants were found
within the project study area. This project will not impact any smooth coneflower populations. NHP
records do not document any smooth coneflower populations within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study
area as of April 8, 2003.
F.2. Federal Species of Concern
The February 25, 2003 USFWS list also includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of
concern" (FSC). The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for the species listed.
The presence of potential suitable habitat (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand et al. 2001) within the project study
area has been evaluated for the FSC listed for Rockingham County and are listed in Table 5.
An updated NHP records search was performed on April 8, 2003. NHP records show no documentation of
FSC species occurring within 3.0 miles (4.8 km) of the project study area.
F.3. State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC), receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species Act (G.S.
113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G.S.106-202 et seq.). A freshwater
mussel species, the notched rainbow (Villosa consbicta), that is listed by the state as SC was found during
the mussel survey conducted by NCDOT on April 2001.
14
Table 5
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) for Rockingham County
Common Name Scientific Name Potential
Habitat State
Status*
Green Floater Lasmigona subviridis Y E
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri Y SR-PT
Endangered (E) - any native or once-native species in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Threatened (T) - any native or once-native species which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable
future throughout all or a significant portion of its range.
Proposed (P) - a species which has been formally proposed for listed as endangered, threatened, or special concern, but
has not yet completed the legally mandated listing process.
Significantly Rare (SR) - species which are very rare, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, and generally reduced in
numbers by habitat destruction.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as
amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance
with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account
the effect of their undertakings (federally funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties included in or
eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings. This project has been
coordinated with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) in accordance with the
Advisory Council's regulations and FHWA procedures.
B. Historic Architecture
In their August 6, 2001, letter, the SHPO stated "We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of
no structures of historical or architectural importance located within the planning area". Based on the
SHPO's comments, no survey is required and compliance with Section 106 is complete. However, a
survey had already been conducted and three properties were reviewed with the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) on August 30, 2001. All three properties were determined not
eligible. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
In their August 6, 2001, letter, the SHPO stated "There are no known archaeological sites within the
proposed project area. Based on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources, which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by
the project construction. We, therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Based on the SHPO's comments, no survey is required and compliance with
Section 106 is complete. A copy of the SHPO memorandum is included in the Appendix.
15
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of inadequate bridges will result
in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and lack of substantial
environmental consequences.
Replacement of Bridge No. 21 will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural
environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of Transportation standards and
specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use
is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No
relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely
affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority
Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine whether minority or low-
income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse human health and environmental
impacts as a result of this project. The investigation determined the project would not disproportionately
impact any minority or low-income populations.
The studied route does not contain any bicycle accommodations, nor is it a designated bicycle route;
therefore, no bicycle accommodations have been included as part of this project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Department of Agriculture, Natural Resources
Conservation Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland for all land acquisition and construction
projects. The NRCS has responded "Unfortunately, we regret to inform you that at this time we will not be
able to complete the Farmland Conversion Impact rating form for the above project".
No publicly owned parks or recreational facilities, wildlife and waterfowl refuges, or historic sites of national,
state or local significance in the immediate vicinity of the project will be impacted.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land protected under
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
No adverse effects to air quality are expected to result from this project. This project is an air quality
"neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional emissions analysis (if applicable), and a
project level CO analysis is not required. Since the project is located in an attainment area, 40 CFR Part 51
is not applicable. If vegetation or wood debris is disposed of by open burning, it shall be done in
accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan
(SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520 and 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the
16
National Environmental Policy Act. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for air quality,
and no additional reports are required.
Ambient noise levels may increase during the construction of this project; however this increase will be
only temporary and usually confined to daylight hours. There should be no notable change in traffic
volumes after this project is complete. Therefore, this project will have no adverse effect on existing noise
levels. Noise receptors in the project area will not be impacted by this project. This evaluation completes
the assessment requirements for highway noise set forth in 23 CFR Part 772. No additional reports are
required.
During the site visit, observation revealed no evidence of underground storage tanks or hazardous waste
sites in the project area.
Rockingham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The project is
located in a Detailed Study Area. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in
Figure 11. There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. The replacement structure is
proposed as an in-kind replacement and in the absence of historical problems, increased flood impacts
associated with this bridge replacement are not anticipated. All reasonable measures will be taken to
minimize any possible harm.
Geotechnical borings for the bridge foundation will be necessary.
Based on the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental impacts will
result from the replacement of Bridge No. 21.
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Due to the isolated nature of this bridge replacement project, no formal public involvement program was
initiated. Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process (June 2001) to contact local officials to
involve them in the project development with scoping letters.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
Agency comments were received during the scoping process and can be found in the Appendix.
17
X. REFERENCES
Amoroso, J.L. 1999. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Plant Species of North Carolina. North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 85 pp.
Cowardin, L.M., V. Carter, F.C. Golet, and E.T. LaRoe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater
Habitats of the United States. USFWS/OBS-79/31. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of the
Interior, Washington, DC. 103 pp.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. Tech. Rpt. Y-
87-1. US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS. 100 pp.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1993. Classifications and Water Quality Standards
Assigned to the Waters of the Cape Fear River Basin. North Carolina Department of Environment, Health,
and Natural Resources, Raleigh.
Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR). 2002a. North Carolina Waterbodies Listed
by Subbasin. http: //h2o.enr.state.nc.us/bims/reports/basinsand waterbodies on 21 January 2002.
DENR. 2002b. Active NPDES Permits. Web Address:
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/NPDES/documents/permits.xls on 21 January 2002.
Division of Water Quality (DWQ). 1999. Basinwide Assessment Report-Cape Fear River Basin. NC
Department of Environment and Natural Resources. Raleigh, NC. 420 pp.
DWQ. 2000. Cape Fear River Basinwide Water Quality Plan. NC Department of Environment and Natural
Resources. Raleigh, NC. 274 pp.
Hamel, P.B. 1992. Land Manager's Guide to the Birds of the South. The Nature Conservancy,
Southeastern Region, Chapel Hill, NC. 437 pp.
LeGrand, H.E., Jr., S.P. Hall, and J.T. Finnegan. 2001. Natural Heritage Program List of the Rare Animal
Species of North Carolina. North Carolina Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation,
N.C. Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources, Raleigh. 90 pp.
Martof, B.S., W.M. Palmer, J.R. Bailey, and J.R. Harrison III. 1980. Amphibians and Reptiles of the
Carolinas and Virginia. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 264 pp.
McCafferty, W. P. 1998. Aquatic Entomology. Jones and Bartlett Publishers, Sudbury, MA. 448 pp.
Menhinick, E.F. 1991. The Freshwater Fishes of North Carolina. North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, Raleigh. 227 pp.
Palmer, W.M. and A.L. Braswell. 1995. Reptiles of North Carolina. The University of North Carolina
Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 412 pp.
18
Radford, A. E., H.E. Ahles, and C.R. Bell. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of The Carolinas. The
University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 1183 pp.
Rohde, F.C., R.G Arndt, D.G. Lindquist, and J.F. Parnell. 1994. Freshwater Fishes of the Carolinas,
Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware. The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 222 pp.
Rosgen, D. 1996. Applied River Morphology. Wildland Hydrology, Inc., Pogosa Springs, CO. 365 pp.
Schafale, M.P. and A.S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North Carolina:
Third Approximation. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and Recreation, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Raleigh. 325 pp.
Terwilliger, Karen. 1991. Virginia's Endangered Species: Proceedings of a Symposium. Virginia
Department of Game and Inland Fisheries. Richmond, Virginia. 672 pp.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1992. Soil Survey of Rockingham County, North Carolina. USDA
Soil Conservation Service. 152 pp.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1995. Recovery Plan for Smooth Coneflower (Echinacea
laevigata). U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Atlanta, GA. 31 pp.
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS). 1971. Bethany, North Carolina 7.5-minute series topographic map.
USGS. 1974. Hydrologic Units Map, State of North Carolina.
Webster, W.D., J.F. Parnell, and W.C. Biggs, Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas, Virginia, and Maryland.
The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, NC. 255 pp.
19
FIGURES
f
,S
h X240
.5i' 475
v
X289'1\ ?392' i
2356
2394 h .?2398 29 7
2442 2481 2580 5 0
•2
?
1?
2 ?
9 •
e? .
.

Midway
4 •1 79 2468 • 2401
158
b) p is .1

ti
s 2934 / CO `IN 2399

1001 2 00 R10

µP`N

c
I ?
r
J
J
2 Z23
0
s.,4. - 24153 ' .
'a
2402
1001Nz
4
7
i_
1001 IN
0
2391 J
2395
ub1e500 •
B-3899
PROJECT LOCATION
ROCKINGHAY r
COUNTY SCALE IN MILES
1 0
FIGURE I
North Carolina Department of AREA LOCATION MAP
Transportation BRIDGE NO. 21
Division of Highways ON SR 100 1
Project Development & Environmental
Analysis Branch OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
ROCKINGHAM. NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3899
9 L S ? M1 w
8
r<_ ?
ce' 1
? I 9
"j
5rt}+, ?? ? ?r MM ? ?r?,}(,,y. l?..??"?M1Sy ?f'? ?.?i? ' atlI a?l?•'q?Q,i? ''fr??.
Nr?? ? ?? ? { r L?,//i'W. l.A "re""._,._•N P.i17YTdAls.>y.?;. r,.yra?SosY?!'..? ?? ?..f"t l' _. Y,, s...
I LOOKING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE NO. 21 I
B-3899 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY FIGURE 2
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 21 OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
i
i
pt ?u
9 d
LOOKING ALONG THE WEST SIDE OF BRIDGE NO. 21
ra j±t ?? 7a; 'Y?
4
R 5
LOOKING ALONG THE EAST SIDE OF BRIDGE NO. 21
B-3899 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY FIGURE 3
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 21 OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK PROJECT PHOTOGRAPHS
s

LOOKING ACROSS BRIDGE NO. 21 FROM THE SOUTH APPROACH
1 $
rlt f, 4- i ?k? V' ? !1
1. (
t
-AT
LOOKING ACROSS BRIDGE NO. 21 FROM THE
B-3899 ROCKINGHAM COUNTY `
REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 21 OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK PROJE(
4

? 2382
- ?
I -tan
•.,
r
0 i -
,_ . 23.
,, t 1 91
z3?5
,

V
l ; J 23.93
2491! _
23fl5

l
(Z2L7 I ?23gg \ 2993
c
z354 QD1
2406 c.
2359 O 1
2475 2495
2341 \ 1091
t
Zju Z.IU 21g1 ( 2999

' Z
2355 r .?

,7 J
2391 - ??
2351 _. i
L ' 2m ziu ! 2443

B-3899 r
" ,a
-- - -- 23491
242 I
v
2399, 2942 i 2425
?2491 J
2351 `\ 7Af11
2439 c 1 2344 2400 zm _
294
Z143 6 / 14Il2 I \ l ' I- /
2925 1Q91
,? ? 2439 \ ,, r \ ? .
2.912 2991 J 233 ?/'"
Z99b
PROJECT LOCATION
ldh AL STUDIED DETOUR
North Carolina Department of
Transportation
Division of Highways
Project &wlvpnremt f7 Environmental
Analysis Branch
1
FIGURE 5
STUDIED OFF-SITE DETOURS
BRIDGE NO. 21
ON SR 100 1
OVER TROUBLESOME CREEK
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
TIP PROJECT B-3899
ROCKINGHAM
COUNTY SCALE IN MILES
1 0
A _
b
> a
-c
z;
0
10,
x^? ?f
L
Ig ? ?
3
C~ i
ryt ? i
pai
3
0
C
O0
0
g
CW4
?`i?oDrn
uu'IUa?"
11a11n"m?
$?L4 n
rn
'J
J
ttj
b19? ? a????p?OQ
@7JIG
???opv I
II II 'I II 4 ` ?
MA 0. 0. 2
to m
i°
0
a
•4 7 //,4/

tJ
!II
n
I
I
?p a
tai
PT Sto.109634 g
8
1s
15

I
to
Ly
I I a
I

N
n
po
N t?
?y

rn
'O
n
rn
Z
?n
?rn
rn
OO
i
N
rn
v
O
000,
I
6
r2a
fi
q
I I I
?
I ? ?
i I g

A O'\
old
Ir.
? r?r
nr?
^yTr
S
-?C
7
s4
nQ
a9
!
-T
C
3t

?

R

z -
s _
b•

i

0
gN
L
m
C
1T1
V
@I4
3 7
VI
0
I I
az at"
7, m
m
-o
J
m
z
+u
m rn
zg
>_
m
?O
z
i
CA
m
v
O
v
A? ?

i
i;
F
2
?Y
Y
2
47
Z

? Ou
nr
r
1
?Te i

1 '

?
Q
Z
O
` O
/ Z
rn?
rn ?
Z
G?
ao
v
rn
i?
W
D
0
0

3? L ID
J gel IT

Nmn?
7
O
z
nV
m?
?- e
e
x
5
in
a
c?
c
W
fq
o G-
J?
j i
3
3
_. JInIN

25
0
25 (-L-)
T
0m
0
Z
O
yz
rn
Z?
-n
rn?
z
ov
v
rn
?a 8 vl
In

?z ar
-e
? ?r
z R?

0

4
F

4 .
!na?
U
c
ion
D
NORM

?
? ?ti
?
J69
m I
A

/
/
w
?I
I
a i.
a ?
kid

o?
1 _
? n
A?
?l
} 4 ?bT srQ b
eFc?N
$T A
l JP ??
15°3
b•
r
/S O
z
rn rn
Z ?
Y?
?-i?op? ? peeps ?
nu??nn?? ???ryN rn 'f'1
o?

v
V ,
20 V

'old' ?Nn N?1dY?
? d la`
1
8( C4
k ?

4
a
9
2
T
y 't
0
8
0
m
i
0
s
rn
z
G1
c
W
r
O
O
m
ci
m
Z (A
DI
4 0
O ?n
to
z
0
00
C1

8? ?? m Q
b
? xk $ t
y ?" ??.gg rr.l , i a5 ly 3 ti ?-
-_?? g F ,_ `F i(( tar Yg.,a " ri`yr
>J n n 4 Ig" r! ' r
's
14'" f',°?#?` r rt7}? f f, wo- ` `t' rl>'??fn€:N r `?rN'a
a"' S' xy_ s 1, ,111 1p ,4 ?f t !r ' }?° 1r . C
t ? of , pY?si i?.in ?` - ? to °v )?? ????.i?} a???t` ???s Y r f ? y??? ? ? `? S" ?'??' r .
'r ra "' y ?!?, r' r b?sta:. ?•€ }"' ? '}? ?? ? c i ''? `
y. ,
si,{? t { ? x .rJl'2 >?t '':w? .p ? 1x '? r I t as+ i
'. ,:?? ?,: {s; a ¢ ?v# aF :r o-fi " -? ?!; ?? f ":• a *r , av rgf?r e Erb t
s'" x?rz+° K ?v rd 4" r t? e gRl'x?{ i iF?kf few ( A k ? v ° x=
?;yr r 4 7 ,y r a ?'s yi: d A ?Fwa ?t
1 $greef "r-
r
at? , ? ear 4 $ ypf «.° ?}§
at
r?r t4
?n r s t ? a } Y+ i,y !rl ??
'f+JJ Tj
i t IKK 1I n., A Q{ t e! '?'? t N.?'7
R
v tt ? x ?f m? ,. .r t r ? s> a ? sue' a? ' t? .
aY')?dia ,,. ?i p ?.. Wit. i _±!(. ?a. J ?ir? '>kr!( ! 7 Y•? -? - , ???' ? Ltf': tt ,?°rr?
y i'?p&r • 31 `? `'N. ,?Jf? , ? ,'7? J. e . f,. ,7 r; °? + $ I .+ ??. ,,?" ? ` ?' r
?Fr;•?':*?,,,.?, ,r?aJl, :r"" 1?,_ .1'. +d}'-1'`} '?•` +,?* °4•J ;?'c ?? ? ?ia?a s
,
I
;'1+„. 1 w f i1{° i. x' fnt" „? ,?. ,eY'' +7' ,ke,•"i. LM ?r r"*`:
,t ,aY;'?°ry r '? a 'J 'ir"' ? ,' ?L?? d •? / * s '{, t{, iJ lgt4b f???»! y ?r! a ?-`.: F6'
,
.i .?y ,R...: ,«,t? ?? ??d 4 .1 y•i., a ?f?=. "?i,. ,5
irj V•. ? 7i,?: Mf 1 / ,' J ??? K" "d It fi? `y i" {; ?J ?, .; q:J! .a •. ??t, h? ??P F s}8 v.
•
^r
l x I'
a; x ( J
•5 r, {... i+
•
Y,
! fat ^? r; p?A a rs. ,?. ,';? ,.a ?:? . ? ;:a?; ,,• .
.,,j'? ., t..: . 11 d ,e':f' ;a: ', ? ,r. '. r.'n. ?. r:, ..a, ",' .,. ;tWb a. t: '4. ??. •.¢ ".t-• d s;. '? ??'E ?-¢.
'?? , ,,, i ?'A:; ., ,; , z f?.4 .. 'r .r :,rt Jf•, ,?. 1 ?,{? : r! ?,r' "I I i ,?' ?>
} w
•;Y rf. t. g? rlx:, ,;:?. .x ,?'Akl, ?i., a? .M'. ?W `S'+ p:rr : •.I ? ?,4.:°p1? s:'
e r
1f ? 1
' -'v rf Zi ?., :>tf ?..,? i., ,-• F ? . ,:'! '..? Jfi i'. :? . -r ?' "::. 1.1 y^} ? 1 Y'. ?' ? a ^3.
I ° ,'• ..r, f, . , rat' - : ,.. •(A. .,: .t•.* - "y .. ,,X Y.'¢' .a.
TS t
t.1rv?,v 15?:.,
:t- ? A. , r> ?:? ? 5 a E ' 1 =,tt?r., ti,t ??1, ,. cii °f i` ,? b ;:r t• r,
r ;
I
p f ,,
!, '.; y.; y . 7 .'? a ...4'? •,r t '.J; of f
fit.' ! ,Tf L( ^ ,t t y 'r'. •: e . "N, ,l ' 9? r ..'+?'' >? ' p?? d
• 'e.r, r` "S. f t ,7. u^?. f ^{sf?t,' 1 ,?'.', ??'?I.,,'vd °°?•. ;: 'N r. .i • ? .£.,. ..r` CC..
!p e
I s "?
;! ? ?- r ,.r? .. I,.Y • Aii / ,l, ? vy -,1 :r t .9 ? ai. i,i ? , ?1w4
?! S .1 T t
;;, ,. ;.,. r.:?? {? .:.:,.1}: ..r. t,. rIk .reel .>. ,, 1' f •? ;t' 4 ? 'P'
¢',.. ? ,p? ? 9 ,e?., .... +., •ra. ?T,.p ,-.» :.'?.. .,.• .<, ,:,, x s ?.: 4 ..,. - a Id ? ?? , 1' ? ?_d,ra t .I ,° •.,."C7i a b? `4?? 1'- 1' J, di 1 f ,1•,-'.. f
.- ? ,.. I;f}' ,, ,, :., ; ..?. y_..:. ..8.., ?..,.. , -'e ?`. I.ff;?? ...... : .:...:.. .??? y ( ??..,.: ,.. ;P+ t ,P'..<? r: „1 : a...•9•T',? ?i 9r
914'
1 ?r6't / ',''?' '-. .,, •?.; PI• n ?, ..- 7,r`iq I .i?;.., ?" +€. ,#i +,':a,l'w? ,r, /'t, "r. e?ir. 'v
4z pr,A:_. .. 'J i. r?a., tip:,; 1e ,:: .Rr PrW ,", „' ;..., )y :a,,.::.,, ,S'},.l.r.. ;;: ? •rj:i a. ,ti.(,. f-'?'?
•.,.t ,. a, ": , .? ?, : I ,.:. ,I. :? .,- x ,N ,a ,-, d ..q ... ? :It ,?( r> .f? i' r:r. ?,r ? y , ab. ?! It Y ;?.
to?, dJ?? :?:.r:. , ?. ,.,:v K_ .fie ? ..; ". ha .• '?? '1' ?r :r?. `, F. r I ?;r' i- i{ s.
L j ?? a q, .{ ? t.: ,?n' r' -??!T."* ? t' ,;fib e 'r •' ,... f ?.,? E. ?'.
liri , •' . i `d4:.. ,+ ,/?}' i efI^'a a , .' ,c.; .:.'.r. J XJF' ' v j' ., r.. f ,y, ??gg e ?, _';
,
o, a}:?'• rPa r a °t' t. r },) ? ,d .ar, 1 J`?,?+ ? ? - ,, ??q t?((?!,
?'. , .,d yl?{?.. ,., ril...a p ., _i ?•'',:;_? ?-;:' .,, ,, ,.'•t? r; <td-1.' i.r, 7 s -9?, "f ,e, eY:':• t ':,
i
?` ,e«:.., :.?? ? X +''•? }} ? +, w,, r[a ?i7 `?'"+?? ' a:,:"'tT I.`Si ?J((:?f?? _:?' :$:,» ? 1r'.J. .lfePiiy+, 5??,.i:fq I 1. °'?? Ij.J';8,;.
?, ? n'' Er< ? d ? p ? ;i? ? ts! i ?rl,: }) ?{ i '' ???.:// !?. ?/' •°," J- ' f ? q ,? ,'/,/?+ l? }...
r.l t
P •? ' 4
m
r. .,6.
v
f
r?
r
J
' M
k ?.
u
r
?t e???l J x?y ry t
f
j J 6
r.:
:f
t. t P
yd ? ?.d rt I
'B.
•f 4
y 8}
} ,4
Yr ?J a ,
,r
,w ? Jt
11, 1 r :',J I Y1 ?`,
M ifl
O Al
try "D
Y'.i 7 ; li?
_ (p 4
Z M C') SE U3
r! c (rJ
p m
<
-? •,.
M Z
a,
A O
did py 0 :'f .rr 1 Iystto?.'. 1/t(.
p1 r. ry'e' ? J? ,.??. . •+ {. ? f; +v.. ? ?.rt ? n71 :f .J I 4 , i, y, v /, ? v?.: r
ak /1
t ? ?? l e ? i ?, t F ')
?' `? ii ) f t! f !f t rb i
i P? f}! t I ff 1 a ff t r1
v.'-?:5' k. ? ?tiJ..e,.. I. i:??fT r'r ?',1 xx - ?•-:111 f r I'I itt/'! A f ??l' .f V , ..
7 T M1 7
e t° w a rr K
b
ES o 1
t^
Y r
r
? ?. r t 1' t 'rF ,t ,. sfra`
r ?: a a v
IT,
( s
ill 1?j
i ?$? / yry 1
b.rt.
1 f
j ' r 1
`?. "` ?.C. •. F:"? * x,.; l` zirr ??'.r- i,: r, t» ; f 1 ,i ,,.{i,h l;I
1' t
?yt' of r, r •'? ? f " ? ?1 • t t ? ?r ?? ? ?" 1 ? ? t I} ? y ? ?,
r ?:?• f ,1, :,P , j:•, y}i? ! I ?; a,1ff+-? t" d ! ? r??4 s{,
l.,b'e'. }s l:{ :? IFS f(';? ?fi' ',??u , t: a • ? ? ? . ?t ?? e# ,}l '?? ? dg ?i` , !? . -
r? DIY i it t ',,r'." la
c :.{ +.ll
'('? .,f1 '^? J ( I } t'y. t+?i {? ,.. 9i it p?(X t y.' } ,.,a•;. ?"'. ,?' ?.AW ,ry, ?'.A
;z. ?i1JJ11J.'U• ".f!'/1,{•tt :irj??? t, J ,?.. 4 '4 „f} r???M t :?? "rv..i'
T y,r, I
°s?'r i erlt?. J 1 ki } b r l !o. '?e a `
'r"•• I , ?r , I '?!rp ?'6' -`ii ;tli. ? kw" ?,?. '.,it J:'<;''?
tk_ tr{? j? 1 `11??+'1i:9 //y,t ?i ,pt`.t 1 a.P; r S '! ''`• 'y' r ?, "•$.. "v??l "(?.t? 'I, ,'A
' aa' 'K! iyq toy rd"S' ,
a ?r 1 N t1P1'+ ?? „F as 1 { '411
Tio 'v i4,<
r 1 ty? }
11 q
yy?, v
.I ( ? (? ! l I d ?q• qt y ?. ?a }? t?? i+'.?:: ? air 7f A S'+tx y??
?h V? 1w t ;
e P1111 t
j0j
spy 7, ,..
? V ? ? " -.tie a +•'d
t '? ? t 4 ? • ? 1 ' R x};" k?` '?' ti 1O? ? e.?d.? iTM A i J"
Y` 4
y ((( r :: I7 '?Jt, 1 r, pig ta? ,? `K`4t + ?. a. ' A 0
3f 1?e• I " ??iil { J s, r y y
q
,fit 1
! ,.rtryl .{ .d t
WI
?i f6+)at?r i €ii i.
T
c
r
h
713 1
Q
-Bridge Site Troublesome Crrek
4 n
a
?v
x347 L Q ---
Q S. P,
? o
h
0
FIRM
FLOOD IFISURANCE RATE WO
ROCS INGHAM
COUNTY,
NORTH CAROLINA
(UMNCORPORATFD AREAS)
PMEL 200 OF 225
COUNNTY-PANEL WHOM-
310350 0200 B
EFFECTIVE DAE:
W 15, W1
Fede d Flat pwy Alaamcmwt As=y
NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
SR 1001
Replace Bridge No. 21
over Troublesome Creek
Rockingham County, North Carolina
TIP NO. B-3899
FEMA 100-YEAR FLOOD PLAIN
MAP
Not to Scale FIGURE 11

APPENDIX
-uotlou aql jo Matnai gOnoiogl u 3lultltou3 of Itulap luatog3ns ut gutMoll03
aql opnlout loa fold stgl ioj uotluluatunoop tuluautuottnua aql lugs puauzuiooai am `oouuptn3 anoqu aql
of uotltppu ut `ato3atagL X3olopoglatu uoguogtssulo puullam alquldooou uu 3utsn louuos.tad poured
Xq uojluautlop puullaM poltulap u jo nail ut uodn patlai oq lou plnogs Aogl `uatu uantS u3o MatAiano
uu 3utptnoid io3 In3asn on sdum IAAN aql altgm `.tanamoH •uaiu :l.zoM ogtoads aql ut sooinosai
puullom smogs al3umpunb alnutW S-L AumpoEl aql jo duui (IMI) faOIuanul spuul13M iuuotlul`I aq,L
•suosuas 3utlsau pitq faoleu2tut puu 3utumuds qsg opts;no inooo plnoqs sua.M antltsuas ut uotlonilsuoo
`aluudo.tddu.I0A;)IagM •sanbtugoal puu saotnap loiluoo uotso.ta aluudoiddu 3utsn Aq poztltquls aq
plnoqs sumo tig puu sluaunluugtua Xumpuog •suaiu puullaM g3noigl paonpai aq plnogs sg;ptm uutpaut
puu aaplnogs XuMgStH -p;)Xoldtua oq plnogs 1a3ussud a3tlpltm puu qsg gutpodutt .to `3uunoos lnogitm
s;)wtSai otlnuipXq puu smolt iolum luinluu urelututu lugl samlongs InAlno `algtsuaj 1ou st 3ut2puq
asagM algtsua? .tanatagM Wnlotuls u uo mooo io/puu sJutssoio zupstxa asn plnogs stualsAS puullaM
palutoossu puu swua.ls jo sgutssoiD •paptonu oq plnogs uot3ai puu pagsialum aql of luullodutt anluA
luotsolooa so A4!S.Iantpotq g2lq 3utltgtgxo suaiy -luatugouotoua puu uotlulumifug lultquq azttututut of
.tapzo ut suam padolanap Xlsnotnaid io `sioptuoo c4tltln `sXumpuoi 3utlstxa o1 luaouCpu io Suolu p allu
aq sloaCosd Aumg3tq pasodoid lugs puatuutooai am `sloudwijo uotlt:ztuttuttu puu aouuptonu 01 piuffai
uI 'LL6I 3O sluautpuoutd 1od .ta1uM uuolD agl jo (l)(q) t,Ol, uotloaS ut pautllno su Inilousd lualxa
tuntutxutu aql o1 paznututtu puu paptonu aq sloudu t puullom lugl spuotutuooai QOLUaS aql `XIluioua0
•13aCold aql jo Matna.t Xl;)Wll puu q'tlnoiogl
u alultltouj o1 puu ssooo.td 3utuuuld moX ut noX istssu 01 paptnoid on suotlup owwooat 3utmollo3 aq,L
•lo3foid
stgl io3 sassaooid uotluogpiao io/puu 2ut;;tuuod itagl ut asn ioj sat3ua2u aoinosai oluls puu luiap33
of sluaututoo 3utdoos tutltut su saAias oslu liodai sit LL -(£t7SI-I£SI -D'S-fl 91) Papuaure su `£L6I JO
(dSa) 1od satoadS pa.t33uupug ag1 Jo L uotloaS puu (pL99-I99 'O'S'fl 91) (dDM3) lad uotluutpioo?
a3tlpltM puu gs1q aql jo suotstnoid q;tm aouupiooou ut paptnold st puu uotlutuiojut 3utdo3s saptnoid
liodai sttLL '(668£ 'oN dU) uutloiu0 gpoM `X4unoD utug9utjood `:pain otuosalgnoll iano IOOI 2IS
uo IZ -oM aSpug jo luautaouldai pasodold aql jo slouduit tuluautuoltnua lutluolod oql uo (axmoS)
aotnlaS a3tIP[tM puu gst3 'S'fl ag1 uto tj uotlutuio3ut lob ;sonbai I OOZ `I Z aunt .tno,C lo3 nM NumLL
:aiowlin -ilnt norT
8b5 I-669LZ uutl0-tu0 g11ON `148talu2I
033
? pl??yyo
?a0/1
O"e
0?7y
Q? flu
AMINO
looz r any

13lu30 3OIA13S ItuW 8bS I
gouu.tg stsSluttd ILIUautu011AUU puu luatttdolanaQ loafotd
.L000N
za?uuuy?i `•g•d `aiomltrJ 'Q LUutIUAM '1W
IOOZ `61sn!?nd
9Z4£-9£949 eug01c0 quON'g3I-IM
9Z4££ xoq J:)WO Isod
IJUJO P[1[3 g9iam
TMAIKIS UdI'IQ'IIA1 UNV HSId
lopoluI auj Jo luowliudaQ sojujS pollun

X00'jIZ#2Pzq\:Z£ uoisualxa OZ917-998/616:10/80/80:Wi,:XDUUUOaW,L:b2USM3
(xoD plnU(j) OI.I `soourpaaiD `UM(jD l
(AssauuaH UIof) DN `gsialuU `aM(jDN
(saXaursid oug) DN `g5i;)jgd `ROD :oo
.uospuodnS saoinaoS Iuoigoloog
anp/iud •g puulit:J -1Q
?/? ?ClaiaouiS
amsoloug
'Z£ IX `OZSb-998-616
lu Aouytt:OoW woZ louluoo asuald `sluaururoo asagl fuiptu,33i suoilsanb SUL' anug noXj1 -loafotd situ
jo slot:dtui atpjo uoiluuiuualap lulogjo inoX 3utpnloul `ssaoold 3umuUld agl3o uolssiBold aql 3uunp
sn astnpU of anuiluoo osuald -loafold sigl uo luatutuoo of,Cliunlioddo aql solutoarddu ootn.raS agZ
-uotloolo.td
aluls iopun saioads uo uotluuuojut so3 palouluoo aq plnogs tuul2old a3UluaH IMIMUN uuiloiUO glloN
agZ -punoj 3i uugl ansasuoo of l.uojja alquuosuai f I;)Aa 31BLU of put; `aouosaid Iuilualod my of lsalU
oq of ZOQON aql a3Umooua plnom am `vSg aql tapun uotlooloid Siolnluls ou an10oa1 s,OS3 ggnoglly
•Uxul asagj JO Snluls uoilun.tasuoo aql anlosal of popaau alt: Apnls plag put: goiuzsai IuotSojoiq
.taglin3 lnq `pautaouoo sutuuui aotniaS agl goignn ioj saioads IUt.uim put: luuld asogl alt: s,OS3
•luauILLtoo put: Mahal io3 aogjo slgl
of papinoid aq plnogs `sllnsa t asogl uo pasUq suotlupu;)wtuooai s,,I,OCIDM put: `sllnsa.r `sai3olopoglauz
ttaAms sapnloui lugl uoiluluotunoop Ieluautuoltnug -patu.uo3iad oq plnogs saioads polsil aql
loj sXoAins luoifoloiq `loafold agl3o uaiu uotlou aql uiglim luasald si lt;luquq alqulins3l 'salts loafo.td
antloodsa.r oql lu sluliquq alqultunt: aql glim ponduroo oq saioads palsil aql toj sluauiaiinboi luliquq
lugl spuowwooa.i ooiniaS ags -,,ClunoO urugSutAoog ui rnooo of umou:l on lugl (OSd) woouo33o
satoadS lu.rapa3 puu `saioads poualuorgl puu paia3uupua palsti-AIluiapa3 oql sagiluapt isil pasoloua als,
-.inolop alts 33o uu glim luoLuailu 2upsixa oql
uo paouldai oq 33puq goua lugs spuatuuroooi a3ma;)S a LL -sunolap ails 3jo puu alts-uo glim `uotlUOolol
of could-ui tuotj "IutVutu `a"Upuq gotta 3ui:Ulda.u l,03 soiiruoos jo i;)qunn: U sluosaad luau:noop aqj,
-laslno all lie pa.roldxa
oq plnogs `luatuasua uotluntasuoo utn Xlquiajaid `fllnlodiod ui sua.tu uotlu3iltur loaloid
of satltunlioddO -slordtut puullom alquplonuun Sutllasjjo ioj uuld uoiju2ilitu Xiolusuadtuoo
populap u opnloui plnogs 3ulumId loafoid •aouunpU ut salis uoilU2illur frolusuoduroo Xj!luopi
of opmu aq lto33a lraAa lUgl puauzuzoooi am `posodozd a.rU sloudtui puullom alqupionUun3I -Z
-(sdioD)
siaautSug3o sdloO Ruud -S•fl agl Xq pagiian puU junuUW uoilt:aullaQ spuUllaM sraaui ug
3o sMOD L861 oql fulsn Xq pouiuuolop aq plnogs sauupunoq puUllaM 'faOluanul spuullaM
IuuolluN agl jo auiagos uotluogissgo puullom agl uo posuq odXl luliqug Xq palUilua.iajjlp
oq plnogs loudmi puUllam3o s;)13V •fuiuiUlp so `0uigolip `5uuUalo `3ui0paip `Sutllg
Xq paloudtui oq of ;)lu lull `spuullom Suipnloui "S'fl agl jo s.talum jo a3UaloU puU lualxo aq L -1
COMMON NAME SCIENTIFIC NAME STATUS
Southern hognose snake Heterodon simus FSC
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides borealis Endangered
Carolina gopher frog Rana capito capito FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia indigo-bush Amorpha georgiana var. georgiana FSC*
Sandhills milk-vetch Astragalus michauxii FSC*
Venus flytrap Dionaea muscipula FSC
Dwarf burhead Echinodorus parvulus FSC
Bog spicebush Lindera subcoriacea FSC
Carolina bogmint Macbridea caroliniana FSC
Awned meadowbeauty Rheria aristosa FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
ROCEJNGHAM COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
ROWAN COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus FSC
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
RUTHERFORD COUNTY
Vertebrates
Green salamander Aneides aeneus FSC
Cerulean warbler Dendroica cerulea FSC
Peregrine falcon Falco peregrines anatum Endangered
Eastern small-footed myotis Myotis leibii FSC
Indiana bat Myotis sodalis Endangered
Southern Appalachian woodrat Neotomafloridana haematoreia FSC
Northern pine snake Pituophis melanoleucus melanoleucus FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
Divided-leaf ragwort Senecio millefolium FSC
January 15, 1999 Page 39 of 49
K2 North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: Theress Ellerby
Project Development Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Coor ' or
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: October 8, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Rockingham County of North Carolina. TIP
No. B-3899.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the
information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our
comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
(42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16
U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require
work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal
and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage
beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by
canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to
original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the 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
Mailing Address: Division of Inland Fisheries - 1721 Mail Service Center - Raleigh, NC 27699-1721
Telephone: [phone] ext. 281 - Fax: [phone]
Bridge Memo 2 October 8, 2001
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be
required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for
information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled
"Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should
be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, 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 could be
Bridge Memo 3 October 8, 2001
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to
remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is
required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually
causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future
maintenance.
4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location
with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and
located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to avoid destabilizing
stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed
and the approach fills removed from the 100-year 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-3899 - Rockingham County- Bridge No. 21 over Troublesome Creek. Standard
comments apply. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project
vicinity.
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.
OG
\
y
Q-?7-j G
Michael F. Easley
Governor
William G. Ross, Jr., Secretary
Department of Environment and Natural Resources
O Kerr T. Stevens
Division of Water Quality
July 18, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: Ms. Theresa Ellerby, Project Development Engineer
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
THROUGH: John R. Domey, NC Division of Water Qua
FROM: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele, NCDOT Coordinndlclo
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacement of Bridge No. 21 on SR 1001 over
Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1001(23), State
Project No. 8.2511201, TIP No. B-3899.
In reply to your correspondence dated June 21, 2001 (with vicinity map received July 9, 2001) in
which you requested comments for the referenced project, preliminaryanalysis of the project reveals
that Troublesome Creek [16-6-(0.3)] is rated as WS-III NSW; however, it may lie within the critical
area, but was not able to be determined with the vicinity map provided. The Division of Water
Quality requests that NCDOT consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges, particularly in higher quality waters (i.e.
trout streams, water supply watersheds, high quality and outstanding resource waters).
However, if the new structure is to be a culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded
fish and other aquatic organisms passage through the crossing. Please be aware that floodplain
culverts are required.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts to
wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation plans
will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. Since the impacted water is classified as WS-III NSW and may lie within the critical area, the
DWQ requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled, "Design
Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout design and
construction of the project. This would apply for any area that drains to streams having a WS
(Water Supply) classification. In addition, stormwater and buffer requirements specific to WS-
III waters are applicable [ 15A NCAC 2B .0215]. You should be aware that local communities
may have their own requirements in regards to water supply watershed buffers, stormwater and
sedimentation and erosion control.
E. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with road
closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the NCDWQ
North Carolina Division of Water Quality, 401 Wetlands Certification Unit,
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1650 (Mailing Address)
2321 Crabtree Blvd., Raleigh, NC 27604-2260 (Location)
919-733-1786 (phone), 919-733-6893 (tax), hftpl/h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncweUandsi
Page 2 of 2
requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33 (Temporary
Construction, Access and Dewatering) must be followed.
F. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
G. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternatives that
minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will be
required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in excess of
150 linear feet.
H. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory mitigation
will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
I. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical work
is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6 for Survey
Activities.
J. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules 115A NCAC 21-1.0506(b)(6)), mitigation will
be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream. In the
event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to replace
appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A
NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3) ), the Wetland Restoration Program may be available for use as stream
mitigation.
K. Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
L. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the proposed
methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not be permitted
to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed to drain to a
properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
M. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful office
tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite wetland
delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401 Water
Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water quality
standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions or require
additional infonnation, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
Maryellen Haggard, NCWRC
Jeff Coutu, DWQ
Central Files
File Copy
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources:
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor DivisiongT:Archives and History
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary Jeffrey J.:tow, i7icec>gt_
August 6, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Histo ' Preservation Officer
Re: Replace Bridge No. 21 on SR 1001 over Troublesome Creek,
B-3899, Rockingham County, ER 01-10079
Thank you for your memorandum of June 21, 2001, concerning the above project
We have conducted a search of our files and are aware of no structures of historical or architectural
importance located within the planning area.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our present
knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources, which may be eligible for
inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places, will be affected by the project construction.
We, therefore recommend that no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: John Wadsworth, FHwA
T. Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh. NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 [phone].715-4801

Federal Aid # BRZ-1001(23) TIP # B-3899 County: Rockingham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 21 on SR 1001 over Troublesome Creek
011,P/20:110, representatives of the
51' North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
f d/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
Fj Other
Reviewed the subject project at
Scoping meeting
Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Fj Other
All parties present agreed
R There are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
LK There are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G within the
project's area of potential effects.
There are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based on the
historical information available and the photographs of each property, the properties identified as
pQlXyie5 I are considered not eligible for the National Register and no further
eval ation of them is necessary.
5101 There are no National Register-listed or Study Listed properties within the project's area of potential effects.
2 All properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation, and based
upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
There are no historic properties affected by this project. (Attach any notes or documents as needed)
Signed:
.? 813z) is
Represel:Ytativej4tDOT bate
?t 9 b
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency ate
o?
Representative, HPO ate
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
Wilmington District
Action ID: 200121176 County: Rockingham
Notification of Jurisdictional Determination
Property owner: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Attn: Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone]
Size and Location of Property (waterbody, Highway name/number, town, etc.): Bridge No. 21 on
SR 1001, north of NC Highway 158, southwest of Reidsville, North Carolina. The property is
located adjacent to, and below the headwaters of, Troublesome Creek.
Indicate which of the following apply:
* There are wetlands on the above described property which we strongly suggest should be
surveyed. The surveyed wetland lines must be verified by our staff before the Corps will
make a final jurisdictional determination on your property.
* Because of the size of your property and our present workload, our identification and
delineation of your wetlands cannot be accomplished in a timely manner. You may
wish to employ a consultant to obtain a more timely delineation of the wetlands. Once
your consultant has flagged a wetland line on the property, Corps staff will review it,
and, if it is accurate, we strongly recommend that you have the line surveyed for final
approval by the Corps. The Corps will not make a final jurisdictional determination on
your property without an approved survey.
XX* The wetlands on your lot have been delineated, and the limits of Corps jurisdiction have
been explained to you. Unless there is a change in the law or our published regulations,
this determination may be relied upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date
of this notification.
* There are no wetlands present on the above described property which are subject to the
permit requirements of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Unless there
is a change in the law or our published regulations, this determination may be relied
upon for a period not to exceed five years from the date of this notification.
Placement of dredged or fill material in wetlands on this property without a Department of the
Army permit is in most cases a violation of Section 301 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1311).
A permit is not required for work on the property restricted entirely to existing high ground. If
you have any questions regarding the Corps of Engineers regulatory program, please contact
Jean B. Manuele at [phone], Extension 24
?.
Project Manager Signature:
Date: 9 October 2001 Expiration Date: 9 October 2006
SURVEY PLAT OR FIELD SKETCH OF DESCRIBED PROPERTY AND THE
WETLAND DELINEATION FORM MUST BE ATTACHED TO THE YELLOW (FILE)
COPY OF THIS FORM.
• . ?® Z,.
.a
O? az
E
?Oh z 'd, z
0*.
???5? a 8
O pS
y
Ci CO)
02
z
N Z
? Gm
C4 O?
a \ a
2
?
p z
gig 96
0.
_I W
O 9
?a o s W
O V
NFU W r
V
O
wo w "°?
y
? ? moo
3?vop?o?
0
C? ?io0 z N h
d
F
/
Z
W
° o
? a x
O
0
j%
(n p O pg? ? A
z Goo
m

?
a
?
?
S S

t

N N
g
r U

01 an
u um
w 0
in
n a
C,- 0
C. C?l I
?o
a
00 w e
q W
°
q
^ q 1
? h
b Z
> FZ=
Kul IJ
X w H U W
ci ao
z Sdo
E E E
?o
0 0 0
II II 11
o. a a
o o
O. R. O.
d F
3 °
Q 0 N
N t` o . C, C7
Q 7 ? ? ?
II it II II p II
ti in N >
w O O ?
QN QN 0
Q Q 4
o- Cl-
U ? _ w
V N ? a- N ?
N N N
W-W ?????• ? dil la?WLZNODIIJI
668F- 66/80/60 u6p•11s4-sp-668EoBOl d? ab00Z-
?
?
?
npvJ30oy\-6c
l
J

N it
a ?.

U
Q
Q a)
!
a, s a _ g
U. w
(nr
g
4 VE
O
aM? In
O
QM
ui
}a}
o
OW CID
M
mop LO
m
co WI-
I- N
9 W O U Z
? W U; LU
o
W0.
U)

0 W 0. 0.

(~ M
W 0. Na
go
2
:= }}
F- f- W I- d F- ~
L
u
3
¢
0 -s U) 24
r F
R a .
T
R
F N
W
w
?Q w w
aia
O O LLS
rc ? -
0.
w O
W c
p=3

(„) F
?
?
N o r
rc
.9 U=
Lu W f
rc=
O¢ W p'^ 1zQzO

U

W
ui C;
w0
¢¢ Uo
QQc iE
FW-? ¢
Cw?acc
w?
r W2
vwaa1-
c
J z a 0.
N c w
ccc i o o
s u
c¢i o ¢ c
m>°- F
W S F= zm w a zcn 8
m W Q M 8
a
°
p ?
q
U ~?
10 0N,
zz cV
o c¢,? c
n
zWz
? f 9L v
Z [5.c
$?o
D- Q.- a
c v
W RJr b N ?
? IJO
w NlL
`O (I!L? 0 t
-t N T-?
as qQzz -
Am flCL

Q W
F
'- Q r W
r U U.
r O
r 1IF-- U.
?- O Q r M
r
F-
O- IQQ
?
NW EOD NW EO OW WO N

C31
OWI-
1
a
a 2
Gtu J
a
C) _
0!W-s
?
Q
a cCtCO n¢.cW7 ?90 a((q??? f
3 0.o
>uj ?? 'qQqW? ?W ?CgW?W
J + M C7
0.Q 0.¢¢ 0.Q ?L¢ ? W (7
aQ aQg azd H C IL r
?rr
i ? LLA
L I
i u
U (Nj O D ui W F-
Ac?
ti
o L.,
F- Z
W J
a 1_^
?I 0
I
- v to
w O j
co =
0 o az
w
p W
cr ° o I as O
> N W O _ - I Z Z
O_
z
Q~ _ I I N ?
u (n
^O > o I co o
x Z
w O.
N
J w? oz u? JI, w I.-
C\J
NN ;° Cr a I I a
o u
o o ^? I
i II
OW
H
0
?r w -J
aN
??
v
o°
C) °•
C;°
co 0
++
V
0
z
Dz 00
o0
W o0
OLn
N +
N N
1 J
a
cr
m
oX
M
O
r ?
3NIl HIM
N'
O
O V
N------ ---------------?
J O-y
o ?J
I .?
N N
0
m
W
w
O?C
W
O
N
N
N
W
J
z
r-
W
0.-
0
N
W
O
0
W
n.
O
z
ml

a
4?1

O z
a0
Of CL
0

lD?

C

O

00

0
o

O

t

O
1
6
17
N ? M
r?
O
U O ?

v O Z

J
o ? a Q
W -
O
0 F

J
oz
< o
a

O
o
I W

0

I " O ?
co

L?j -b
-

-.

-
O w

W

s
o z
U N
O O
O u Q

o

O 0
V
° O C= O
O w V

V O CL
CL
O -
N
O N
s

w
z
N
J
O
c`li z N
J o
LA z
O
?
Z
O t ti w Z
W O
N w
cr
w
°
Q 0~ W

V
M cn
=
o
1
V)
V
X
a
> 1

ih

3NIl HDiM
l7 0
o
F2 P;
m LO

a? O Ci C a

,°n 1 d
oco oWoN.
w? ++++
C4
+O .0
NNCC4C4

N t; F?
N
O m
1 0

Z
"? z 000
t7
O D w O
0 °
° °
"RoI
u
, o l o
to to o 'Oa
n
CO
} + '
+ + + +
C4 N
N
N C4
V1 N ? F
{
4

?I . 1
= 4444

u6p•d5j-sp-b6B6E\fo??{\ ivnpszoN?:a
nr: n bnoz-. -?n
t ?
1

N
Q
I
N N
o

zv b

F- ^
W
J ^
t-
J
I- J

O I
? I
J
1 J
Q
- O
O
+
z +
_O N N
I-
U 4- -I-
O V) V)
J

4- 4- 4- 4-
Lin N Ln -
co o R::

?c:

LL
C
00

Cr ?L
Q LLl C:
(D J C
s 4-10
± :

Q C
3 CD
2

0 W
W
c
C 4- U
O L 0D
LL o a ? I
W w ?? a C

Ll_ z
Q O -
V) 4- L
O
~
L _
J o U _ I g
L
o+ D
0
8

L a '
N ao
Q
O
E =
3 Q
?`o
Q

U
pd
O v
L
C
ml
O +i_ LL
L+

0
7 Q S
O
LL Q O L
C D
V
A V L

-
0 C
• -+
O

D O
Q
cn L
? I
L
Ntn --04-
C
r
J '3

1 ,

.s.,. "LA" .AM
?a
tq 8
w
m A ST a Z#50? I :r W
@@ 2 to 4
UdE -IL ? O ?' s b o
Asa 6. µPs?N? 1 ^? a
vA qW, " N O 8
d \
a
twd
1 \ x ?
boy}ia ors g \
QQ pp ,?
YSNYSJ k
?u mcsv \\ 1 ?? ? ?
dN
i 1 •-
I ,?' Ix N
m
I• a
W
-. b R
to o q poJ
Q???n? q ? + I gb k? ae Qj m y ?f
e??at? O T,ii Y W J l V x tKO
Ins a x ?g ' ? W a a o
?, ? { u k U B In
h , N
I v
co
y I / I Q'?
k 1 Ib H to
I 1
1 ? li ti ti ti
I k u" ?` . . N to
el 1?--- II o q o J
? O
/ t 1 O
11? > >
1 k \ Z ?
i
.CS` 1ib?S Oyu 3 ? x ? L ? ? +
dd
I} I.l. W W
tt??
} ? ' ~ ~ ? ? ?? i G a 44SS
~r °$
n 9 s
p
O IR O i
rm
U
u6p•bysd•sP-669£ \ \ ^ coa\tyy
9Z'B b00Z-J30-60
1

I Fhl IlI
FE
bbb p,

or
eb
lQa?`
h ^
h
I
r}
I
r
i

O ?Q I

I
ww f
?N

CZ7
r
:p\?O
/ w
I
W
0
r,
d
z
W
W
h
1
J
0
a

I
to
?Q ? SSS
g
Q
tTil w
O ? S
'IW

NNE?,F O
c!
0 U ?

Q I? 8:12
UN m H ??
? M XN ..t
N ? v/ r
NS yU
I JJ I CO
I w F'd', X
svs?•Ww
mss.
? ? ? 9Lt/F njs
V
i
W

W
I a 4??$?
?t 3s
o
O . ? 0 0
V1 ? 4 n? n n 2 4
?ic9i
I ? Q 0.11, 0:
I ?o
:
I a?

\` qy
?j yW?7?1
N I
TO i t
i N
3Fb;"? h3 ? r?.?
C IA NNT `Sf
m lLa ~ YY
1 O y??? 2
pW 4
LLI 4?
*
E)
via x a

4?
N W J

y
I to z

jD
?N x a
1?
qq
m?Q
Qrv

G ? O II7

. f W 1 x
m ?
• m a{

Il`A
1
J N
N
? J?
J
1 N to
I sI4 M
I.
MATCH UNE -L- STA 22+50A0
J
I
4
q n
O c
3
a
'a
N
a?

L
i ??tt
?
J
O
N
d

a 7
4 a

I
J
z
h 6
.c a1 r ? ?
w
a
a
t?rv?y?:CUf??SLiYf CR .. /
'? 37•
-6p•94sd-sp-669C
? q

08
/Zl9Ff?F v
SF
'IY 9

??
? zz
a
? ze

• t?

h
V
~
04
M .b t?

r-
N
c°v l
41 al
4rc-0 I

- - -
--- - -- -- -- --- - --- -

t w
J ?

r-
Y

v
r-
ESE4fE4St4f44f

t

Z-4 c'; 04 0

?B

-

--

-

--

--

-

--

-
--
--
----
-
-
--
-

I IT
..?

a I T I T a
14 .

c?

-- - - -- - -- - -- - - -
-- -- -
- -- -- -- - -- -- - -- - -
oNg$': W

I
I
1 1 I
1
I
I 1 4 1
I
j

?.

20
c
W
) ?
Fd
?
N
L
J
j q "
L
"
ffi
j Z ? 4l Ij

Q?1?000
?.?22
tnWWtilWW
c?ir
N i
r
n
4i
mmm
'
oC5o
aaa a

s

0

- -- - - --- - --- - - --
-
-
-
--
--
--
---

o.
in N

r
'
J
?

Go
N

I
T. h

N

?O
N

4 1n
N

N

co
N
-- -- - -- - -- --
-
-
-
-
--
- -- - -- - -- -
I IT
-- -- -- -- -- --- -

'c Ln CS
y
SSSSSESSESESSESSN`JOESES SVVI gy 5
SSS
4SfSS

?r

M

w X

Q
Z
+

CO
:.:_
.T
µ
aZ M

L

-- -- - -- - - -- - -

1 1

-- --- --- - - --
- --4+ 1 4

AI -A
_ 1 1-
rr

l

i I-

- i
?1 -?I
-
-
7
7-
i1._ _ 1_
r

I 1' ' ?TT?
II
'
Y J
F 1 L} 1 - - . L
1
?
y1 I? "

TT i

_ _
_ _I.r
i4 •_I.
J-ter
1i-- -__
-_
,-
_
_
I _
r fi 1 7
+ ? f 7 ?y-- 1

_
... - _ -? yyLL +

z:i

iLL - -- -- - -- - - - --

- - k# _ _
-

rt i = :tli
- I= : rte , -`'_ _=_ ,-

r ,

4 4
- 44

i y
---
-r
_
1 T- F -I
„
' '
1-i - - - I-'?-1- r-= - -

- 1
-
- - n± ??, ti
- - r
-- L'
J
- - -I '--? - -

I.-H E E

_
r_!
T -- - -- ---- - - ---

? 4 1 4
4 -4-1- L 41
N

- --- - ---- -- -
41

b£-'£•'- 9b IZS JJO1a?
u6p•Idx-sp-66 b0\? K or,pooy\:d
I0:00 b00Z-030-60

o . -
Z J `1

ta

X

I j
-

11

I .1-?..F
Ti
t IT T
w

'I I_ , IJ

c
n
-- - -_ - -
W m 4

m +: _
I _ t+ 1_ N -
F J
d ? I

. .}

0-:

I I I t till I

I.
+ y _J _,

-
l -

- -7 7 7 T - r

?? +1
1 4 7 1-
-

_
J_ I I I IT ,

-
- ';X :I
1.? + L
1 i s i ET
... -
I
tJ _ . r
-

t

L

I
1

1
-
--
-
--
-
--
--
---
-
4 ?
{ T I I _ _J 1 -L
4 4 +
-
---
---
--
---
- -
-
-

r
.: T ?- y
1
I
T I

_ , .
I ? t ?_ ._•'-IJ_ _ _
II- '-
?

I j- l
U-1 L
1-
1
1

--- - - - ---- ---

?-

. -44

4Lt?f 4f-11

I IT

1
: : :
... ._. _ - .
__.__ ...
.. _

.. .. .. . . .. .__.. ... ... .: -. - -
I

L - --- - -- -- -- -- --
.. I .

I F-
444 -

11 1 IT I

r_

,

- -- _
, _
44
L

a

-

r 4-
IT
.
J

:
_.,. _.

-4 4

I I T .

, .. _
I
44 4

bF- H65bfZ\% So4 t v np '?oJo8
u6p•ldz-sp'bb96HooH\:H
CV:60 600Z-030-60

bbfE6/8 u6p •Id x - sP -686SyqPq X\ W- "P,QooB,c}ei
6 C8 \: N
SD:90 b00Z-030-60
u6p•tdx-sP-ngtt \-6k X?r-pcoa\:y
SPOO b00Z-030-60

o1c?
bb1£Z/8 u6p B6gbizS.4 Av.,
•?dx -c P ?66868\ pooa\ty
9C°90 b00Z-030-60
bbL. /` u6p•I dx-cP-66 R8£9\? U q ExMo ?poo2!\?Fi
WSO 6002-030-60
bb/SG/d u6widx- p-bb8CB . A .-P°O8\18
W60 b00Z-030-60
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
August 9, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for your June 21, 2001 request for information from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(Service) on the potential environmental impacts of the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 21 on
SR 1001 over Troublesome Creek, Rockingham County, North Carolina (TIP No. 3899). This report
provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA)
of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves as initial scoping comments to
federal and state resource agencies for use in their permitting and/or certification processes for this
project.
The following recommendations are provided to assist you in your planning process and to facilitate a
thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the maximum
extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments of 1977. In
regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed highway projects be
aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously developed areas in order
to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting high biodiversity or ecological
value important to the watershed and region should be avoided. Crossings of streams and associated
wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur on a structure wherever feasible. Where
bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain natural water flows and hydraulic regimes
without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage, should be employed. Highway shoulder and
median widths should be reduced through wetland areas. Roadway embankments and fill areas should
be stabilized by using appropriate erosion control devices and techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) map of the Bethany 7.5 Minute Quadrangle shows wetland
resources in the specific work area. However, while the NWI maps are useful for providing an
overview of a given area, they should not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by
trained personnel using an acceptable wetland classification methodology. Therefore, in addition to
the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for this project include the
following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action.

I . The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted by
filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National
Wetlands Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987 Corps of
Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
(Corps).
2. If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a detailed
compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts. Opportunities to
protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation easement, should be
explored at the outset.
The document presents a number of scenarios for replacing each bridge, ranging from in-place to
relocation, with on-site and off-site detours. The Service recommends that each bridge be replaced on
the existing alignment with an off-site detour.
The enclosed list identifies the federally-listed endangered and threatened species, and Federal Species
of Concern (FSC) that are known to occur in Rockingham County. The Service recommends that
habitat requirements for the listed species be compared with the available habitats at the respective
project sites. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, biological surveys for
the listed species should be performed. Environmental documentation that includes survey
methodologies, results, and NCDOT's recommendations based on those results, should be provided to
this office for review and comment.
FSC's are those plant and animal species for which the Service remains concerned, but further
biological research and field study are needed to resolve the conservation status of these taxa.
Although FSC's receive no statutory protection under the ESA, we would encourage the NCDOT to be
alert to their potential presence, and to make every reasonable effort to conserve them if found. The
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program should be contacted for information on species under state
protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on this project. Please continue to advise us
during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the impacts of
this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom McCartney at
919-856-4520, Ext. 32.
Sincerely,
Dr. Garland B. Pardue
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosure
cc: COE, Raleigh, NC (Eric Alsmeyer)
NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC (John Hennessy)
NCDNR, Creedmoor, NC (David Cox)
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM:08/08/01:919/856-4520 extension 32:\brdg#21r.ock