19950734 Ver 1_Complete File_19950719

.. t .A

a.w SfATF
y 'A
•??? Prn,+p?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TPANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
May 30, 199
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
X 573`1
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
RECEIVED
E/VV1R0NME1Vi'AL SCIENCES
JUL 1 91995
SUBJECT: Cabarrus County, Replacement of Bridge Nos. 71 and 72 over Dutch
Buffalo Creek and Black Run Creek on SR 2416, Federal Aid Project
BRZ-2416(2), State Project Nos. 8.2661701 and 8.2661801, TIP Nos.
B-2522 and B-2523.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the
above referenced project. Bridge numbers 71 and 72 over Dutch Buffalo Creek
and Black Run Creek will be replaced along the existing alignment. Traffic
during construction will be detoured onto existing area roads. The project
will not result in any wetland impacts, however incidental fill of surface
waters is anticipated.
The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore,
we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed
under a Nationwide Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23).
The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will
be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2745 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy of the CE.
document to the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, for their review.

If you have any questions or need additional information please call Mr.
Scott P. Gottfried at 733-3141.
Sincere y,
,LG
H. F anklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/rfm
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Ken Jolly, COE Raleigh Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design Branch
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith, Jr., P. E., Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design Unit
Mr. B. G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2522 & B-2523
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2416(1) & BRZ-2416(2)
State Project No. 8.2661701 & 8.2661801
A. Protect Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing Bridge
No. 71 and Bridge No. 72 on SR 2416 over Dutch Buffalo
Creek and Black Run Creek in Cabarrus County (Figure 1).
Each bridge will be replaced at the existing location
with a slight horizontal realignment to improve the
existing alignment. Bridge No. 71 will be replaced with
a bridge approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) long. It
will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot) wide travelway plus a
0.9-meter (3.0-foot) wide offset on each side. Bridge
No. 72 will be replaced with a reinforced concrete box
culvert with two barrels, each 3 meters by 3 meters
(10 feet by 10 feet). SR 2416 will be closed to through
traffic during construction, and traffic will be
maintained on existing area roads. The bridges will be
clustered, and construction will be staged by replacing
Bridge No. 72 first, then Bridge No. 71. This will
provide property owner access between the two bridges
(see Figure 2).
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
B. Purpose and Need: Bridge No. 71 has a sufficiency rating
of 22.5 out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining life of
eight years. The deck is only 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide.
The Bridge Policy calls for a bridge 8.4 meters (28 feet)
wide. The bridge load posting is 9.1 metric tons (10
tons) for single vehicles and truck-tractor semi-
trailers. Bridge No. 72 has a sufficiency rating of 39.5
out of 100.0 and an estimated remaining life of eight
years. The deck is only 6.1 meters (20 feet) wide. The
bridge posting is 13.6 metric tons (15 tons) for single
vehicles and truck-tractor semi-trailers. Bridge No. 72
has a sufficiency rating of 39.5 out of 100.0 and an
estimated remaining life of eight years. For these
reasons, Bridge No. 71 and Bridge No. 72 need to be
replaced.
Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which
apply to the project:
Type II Improvements
1. Modernization of a highway by resurfacing,
restoration, rehabilitation, reconstruction, adding
shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g.,
parking, weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and
Reconstructing pavement (3R and 4R
improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding
through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge,
auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets,
and drainage pipes, including safety
treatments
g. Providing driveway pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening (less than
one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement
projects including the installation of ramp
metering control devices and lighting.
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey
type barriers and pier protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or
upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation
and/or realignment
h. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Performing clear zone safety improvements
including removing hazards and flattening
slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and
motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including
bridge rail retrofit
3O. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or
replacement or the construction of grade separation
to replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing
bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting (no
red lead paint), scour repair, fender systems,
and minor structural improvements
O Replacing a bridge (structure and/or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
i
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest
areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or
for joint or limited use of right-of-way, where the
proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and located on or near a street with
adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and
support vehicle traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail
and bus buildings and ancillary facilities where
only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the
number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open
area consisting of passenger shelters, boarding
areas, kiosks and related street improvements) when
located in a commercial area or other high activity
center in which there is adequate street capacity
for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance
facilities in areas used predominantly for
industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing
zoning and where there is no significant noise
impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective
purposes, advance land acquisition loans under
section 3(b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a
particular parcel or a limited number of parcels.
These types of land acquisition qualify for a CE
only where the acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in
alignment for planned construction projects, which
may be required in the NEPA process. No project
development on such land may proceed until the NEPA
process has been completed.
3

D. Special Project Information: (Include ENVIRONMENTAL
COMMITMENTS)
ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS:
HIGH QUALITY WATERS Erosion Control Methods will be
Implemented During Construction.
The Division of Environmental Management requires a
Section 401 General Water Quality Certification for the
project.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requires a Nationwide
Permit for the project.
ESTIMATED COST:
CONSTRUCTION - $ 450,000
RIGHT OF WAY - $ 37,000
TOTAL - $ 487,000
ESTIMATED TRAFFIC:
CURRENT - 400 VPD DESIGN - 1,000 VPD
_1_% TTST _2_%DUAL
PROPOSED TYPICAL SECTION:
Two 3.3-meter (11-foot) wide lanes plus a 1.2-meter
(4.0-foot) shoulder on each side
DESIGN SPEED:
Approximately 70 km/h (45 mph)
FUNCTIONAL CLASSIFICATION:
Rural Local Route
DIVISION COMMENTS:
The Division Recommends Replacing each Bridge at the
Existing Location and Closing the Road During Construction
OTHER ITEMS (ie DESIGN EXCEPTION):
NCDOT expects that a design exception will be required for
design speed.
The Division of Environmental Management requests that a
hazardous spill detention basin be constructed and denoted
with a sign. NCDOT will review this during the design
phase of the project.
Bridge No. 71 over Dutch Buffalo Creek is classified as
T.I.P. project B-2522. Bridge No. 72 over Black Run Creek
is classified as T.I.P. project B-2523.
4

E. Threshold Criteria
If any Type II actions are involved in the project, the
following evaluation must be completed. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact ? X
on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened ? X
species may occur?
(7)
(8)
(9)
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ? X
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third x
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require the use of ? X
U. S. Forest Service lands?
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by ? X
proposed construction activities?
Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or ? X
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
Will the project require fill in waters of
the United States in any of the designated
mountain trout counties?
Does the project involve any known
underground storage tanks (UST's) or
hazardous materials sites?
* See Additional Documentation, Page 8
?x
F-1 x
5

PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA
county, will the project significantly
affect the coastal zone and/or any "Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be
required?
YES NO
F-1 N/A
?x
?x
(13) Will the project result in the modification ? X
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ? X
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts F-1 X
to planned growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of F-1 X
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of
right of way, is the amount of right of way
acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in
access control?
(19) Will the project substantially alter the
usefulness and/or land use of adjacent
property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on
permanent local traffic patterns or
community cohesiveness?
X F?
F-1 X
F-1 X
?x
6
YES NO
(21) Is the project included in an approved ?
thoroughfare plan and/or Transportation X
Improvement Program (and is, therefore, in
conformance with the Clean Air Act of
1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an ? X
increase in traffic volumes?
(23) Will traffic be maintained during ?
construction using existing roads, staged X
construction, or on-site detours?
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social,
economic, or environmental grounds ? X
concerning the project?
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal, ?
State, and local laws relating to the X
environmental aspects of the action?
CULTURAL RESOURCES
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on
properties eligible for or listed on the ? X
National Register of Historic Places?
(27) Will the project require the use of
Section 4(f) resources (public parks,
recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl ? X
refuges, historic sites, or historic
bridges, as defined in Section 4(f) of the
U. S. Department of Transportation Act of
1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in,
across, or adjacent to a river designated ? X
as a component of or proposed for inclusion
in the Natural System of Wild and Scenic
Rivers?
7
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable
Responses in Part E
(Discussion regarding all unfavorable responses in Part E
should be provided below. Additional supporting
documentation may be attached, as necessary.)
*7. Does the project involve waters classified
as Outstanding Water Resources (OWR) and/or
High Quality Waters (HQW)?
There are no waters in the project area classified as
High Quality Waters. However, the Division of
Environmental Management classifies the waters of Dutch
Buffalo Creek and Black Run Creek as WS-II waters, which
require the implementation of High Quality Waters erosion
control methods during construction.
8
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2522 & B-2523
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-2416(1) & BRZ-2416(2)
State Project No. 8.2661701 & 8.2661801
Project Description: (List project location and scope.
Attach location map.) NCDOT will be replacing Bridge
No 71 and Bridge No. 72 on SR 2416 over Dutch Buffalo
Creek and Black Run Creek in Cabarrus County (Figure 1).
Each bridge will be replaced at the existing location
with a slight horizontal realignment to improve the
existing alignment Bridge No. 71 will be replaced with
a bridge approximately 30.5 meters (100 feet) long. It
will provide a 6.6-meter (22-foot) wide travelway plus a
0.9-meter (3.0-foot) wide offset on each side. Bridge
No 72 will be replaced with a reinforced concrete box
culvert with two barrels, each 3 meters by 3 meters
(10 feet by 10 feet) SR 2416 will be closed to through
traffic during construction, and traffic will be
maintained on existing area roads. The bridges will be
clustered, and construction will be staged by replacing
Bridge No 72 first, then Bridge No. 71. This will
provide property owner access between the two bridges
(see Figure 2)
NOTE: Refer to Section D, "Special Project Information,"
for list of ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
X TYPE II(A)
TYPE II(B)
Approved:
7
4
V,2--
( - Z ,
Date Manager
Planning & Environmental Branch
i-ZS-ors Waykv- L71.,,*
Date Project Planning Unit Head
Z4 9s t,?k4j W, `?e.4" _Z? 0
Date Project Planning Engineer
For Type II(B) projects only:
Date Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
9
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
I "'IZZ.010F I PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
BRIDGE NO. 71 AND NO. 72
ON SR 2416 OVER DUTCH
BUFFALO AND BLACK RUN CREEKS
CABARRUS COUNTY
T. I. P. NO. 8 - 2522 AND 8 - 2523
10 kilometers 3 0 miles 2 I
l I I I I
IPA
AI M
; _ 1! r J? 7 Ifs
' r0-1
K ,,.??!',? t " ?,y?.,?r! y??'r Ai t (t 1 t r ):•d fff???»; 4 _??'
?rf?y?,(tl.2E, f 1y??
i.lEL4(/J6?!ps?
ti •'bX
? r r f i
r Sk?. hs4 ? „
v:? i ? a 1
y_"Yn s `? ?h11?
i

5
rz?
N
h. t

Gll" n'•.
!4Kt
?f
w
1
,¦{?
V tT ?I V ? , = ,
VIV
} ?.r E :R7 i i" r? Yr{
m
i•. L i??l. ¢?y lLL" ?qS t' r ??i4°WA $dr?"i ?'L? Y4'??'I?;^
jV.
• ?? ? ?. ? ?? ? r t IS ?. ?ti
r ^ ? M ?w AnB? Ir ``
r
1'_ . r 5 t-A v r
r t?
\ y`? ? 4? rl' ?"r F
.I r.
i.:
'?;
r 1,<

Replacement of Bridges No. 71 and 72
On SR 2416
Over Dutch Buffalo Creek and Black Run
Carbarrus County
TIP No. B-2522 and B-2523
F.A. Project No. BRZ-2416 (1) and BRZ-2416 (2)
State Project No. 8.2661701 and 8.2661801
Natural Resources Technical Report
B-2522 and B-2523
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL BRANCH
Gary B. Blank, Ph.D., and Richard R. Braham, Ph.D.
Ecological Consultants
July 18, 1994
1.0 Introduction
The following natural resources Technical Report is
submitted to assist in preparation of a Categorical Exclusion
(CE). This report inventories the natural resources occurring
within the project area, identifies environmental concerns
which must be addressed in the planning stages of this
project, and recommends means for minimizing environmental
degradation.
1.1 Project Description
Projects B-2522 and B-25'_3 propose to replace existin^
structures on SR 2416 over Dutch Buffalo Creek (Bridge No.
71) and Black Run Creek (Bridge No. 73), respectively (see
location map). Built in 1953 and 1958, respectively. the
structures are both 6.1 m (20.0 ft) wide with 1.2 m (=1.0 ft)
shoulders along the approaches. Replacement with 6.7 m (22.0
ft) wide structures having 1.8 m (6.0 ft) shoulders is
proposed. Two detour alternatives, both of which facilitate
replacement of structures in their existing locations, are
being considered.
Alternate (1) involves a road closure for through traffic
but would entail a one-lane, on-site detour around Bridge No.
72 to give access to a driveway located between the two
bridges. This temporary structure would be approximately 85.3
m (2S0 ft) long and located less than 9.1 m (30.0 ft)
downstream at its farthest point.
:alternate (2) would involve an on-site detour that sould
k??n SR 3Y16 open, to throueh traffic %k,ith two temporary

structures, each located approximately 15.2 m (50.0 ft)
downstream of the existing structures. Total length of the
detour around both projects would be approximately 253 m (330
ft).
1.2 Purpose
This report discusses current natural resource conditions
surrounding the B-2522 and B-2523 project sites and explains
what impact, if any, proposed actions would have on existing
resources. Recommendations to minimize impacts are made with
the understanding that proposed actions result from
preliminary design parameters. Thus, design alterations
could necessitate further field investigation.
1.3 Study Area
The study area encompasses both existing bridges, the area
downstream for a distance of 30 m (100 ft), and the
approaches for temporary detour possibilities. The bridges
sit at either end of a slight curve in SR 2416, so they are
aligned slightly askew from an east-west axis.
The surrounding area is dominated by farm fields and
forestland. Immediately adjacent the project sites,
conditions in the four quadrants vary. About 143 m (470 ft)
north of Bridge No. 72 is a fairly new reservoir, the result
of impounding Black Run Creek with an earthen fill dam. As a
result, the area between SR 2416 and the crest of the dam is
grassy. The quadrant northwest of Bridge No.71 contains an
agricultural field. A private drive intersects SR 2416
halfway between the two bridges. The south side of SR 2416
adjacent the project sites is forested except for a 10.7 m
(35 ft) wide strip along the road between the two bridges.
1.4 Methodology
The site was visited on May 18, 1994 to determine natural
resource conditions and confirm published information
available concerning the B-2522 and B-2523 project area
(Sources cited where applicable in the report). Vegetation
communities were identified according to dominant species
types, supplemented with detailed species lists for all
strata. Dominance of woody vegetation was determined using
the variable-plot method (Dilworth and Bell 1956). Tree
heights were measured using an Abney level hypsometer
(Dilworth and Bell 1986). Percent cover of ground-laver
vegetation was ocularly estimated, using cover guides
prepared by Belanger and Anderson (1989). Terrestrial
wildlife habitat was characterized by vegetation type, but
the site was examined for signs of use by and Life-requisite
availability for species typical of the locale. Aquatic
conditions were e:;amined immediately beneath and proximal to
the existir,2 brid,!t and at the aItcrnatiV e c,o1? sing points
.v
under consideration 15.2 m (50 ft) upstream and downstream).
Wetland delineation follows procedures established by the US
Army Corps of Engineers (Environmental Lab 1987).
2.0 Physical Resources
This section describes water and soil resources within the
project study area, especially focusing on water quality
documentation (NCDEM 1991, 1993, 1994), information gathered
on-site, and information found in the Carbarrus County Soil
Survey (Stephens 1988) maps.
2.1 Water Resources
Projects B-2522 and B-2523 are located in sub-basin 03-07-
12 of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River System. Dutch Buffalo Creek
arises in southern Rowan County, flowing southeasterly then
southwesterly before it joins the Rocky River. Black Run
Creek arises in northern Carbarrus County and flows almost
due south to join Dutch Buffalo Creek approximately 137 m
(450 ft) downstream of Bridge No. 71. Dutch Buffalo Creek
drains approximately 9,331 ha (23,040 ac or 36 mil) above
Bridge No. 71. Black Run Creek drains approximately 1.296 ha
(3,200 ac or 5 mi2). The elevation of the creekbeds at the
two bridges is 172.2 m (565 ft) above MSL.
Black Run Creek is impounded north of Bridge No. 72, and
the dam's spillway has been channelized and stabilized with
riprap. Effects of dam construction, related soil
disturbance, and constricted flow appear to have been
deleterious to Black Run Creek. Stream conditions in this
below-dam segment of Blak Run Creek appears to be much poorer
than conditions in nearby: Dutch Buffalo Creek (Tables l.a and
1.b).
3.1.1 Water Quality
Waters of Black Run Creek and this segment of Dutch
Buffalo Creek were both designated Class "WS-II" in August of
1992 (NCDEN1 1993). WS-II signifies "waters protected as water
supplies which are generally in predominantly undeveloped
watersheds; point source discharges of treated wastewater are
permitted . . .. local programs to control nonpoint source
and stormwater discharge of pollution are required; suitable
for all Class C uses" (NCDENl 1993). No segments in this
watershed are designated "High Quality Waters" or
"Outstanding Resource Waters;" however. waters designated
"WS-II" are protected with HQW rules.
A BRIAN monitoring site exists 0.5 km (0.31 rni) upstream of
SR 2416, where SR 1006 crosses Dutch Buffalo Creek. A "Good-
Fair" rating was assigned in March. 1955 (NCDE'd 1991). No
B`IA? site exists on B1ac': Run Creed. and the nearest
mon! ?or1n" It do'.',nstl-eaiii C)i 1tiiCr JI'!Ci? i$ 1? _15t

km (16 mi) away, in the Rocky River. No permitted dischargers
are located upstream in the watershed, but downstream the
Mount Pleasant water treatment plant (NC0044717) empties into
an unnamed tributary of Dutch Buffalo Creek (NCDEM 1994).
2.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Assuming Best Management Practices are implemented and
monitored during construction, the proposed actions will not
have permanent impacts on the water resources at these sites.
However, the highly erodible nature of the Cullen clay loam
soil at this site (see § 2.2) underscores the importance of
using Besv Management Practices and carefully monitoring
activities.
By implementing Alternative (1), an on-site temporary
detour would only be needed around Bridge No. 72 and would
not appreciably alter conditions even in the short-term.
Serious disturbance has already affected Black Run Creek, and
it may take a while before this segment of the creek
recovers. Road closure to traffic and replacement in place at
Dutch Buffalo Creek would entail only minor, short term
disturbance at the existing bridge site. Even implementing
Alternative (2), involving two temporary detour structures,,
would not impose significant impacts on the water resource if
care is taken to contain runoff and sediment loads.
Table 1.a Characteristics of Dutch Buffalo Creek at the B-
2522 Project Site.
Location Bridge
Substrate Boulder strewn
Current Moderate
Stream Gradient Slight fall
Channel Width 1'.? m (40
Bank He i;ht 5.5 m( t 1
Water depth 0.6 m (1
Water Color Cloudy Brown
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwood
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank
Downstream
mud Boulder strewn mud
Moderate
Stepped falls
ft) S.? m ('S ft)
ft) .'1.5 m (5 ft)
ft) Pooled, variable
Cloudy
None
None
Hardwood
Bank to bank
Table l.b. Characteristics of Black Run creek at the B-2523
Project Site.
Location
Substrate
Current
Stream Gradient
Channe 1 Width
Bank 1-1e i z h t
WIt C daDth
Brid - e
Rock/cobble, with riprap
Slu=-glsh
Flat
?.? m ( 17 -ft )
0.3 m (1.0 ft)
0.2 m (0._ ft )
Downstream
Kock/cobble
Sluggish
Flat
5.1 m (1% ft)
0._' to ( I .0 ft)
0.2 fi', (0.5 ft)

Water Color Brown Brown
Water Odor slight decayed smell Slight decayed smell
Aquatic Vegetation Algae Algae
Adjacent Vegetation Hardwoods Hardwoods
Wetlands Associated Bank to bank Bank to bank
2.2 S o i 1-s•
According to the Carbarrus County Soil Survey (Stephens
1988), Chewacla sandy loam occurs in the bottomlands and
floodplains, while Cullen clay loam underlies the upland
portions of the project area. Cullen clay loam demonstrates
an erosion hazard at construction sites if the ground cover
is removed (Stephens 1988). Areas mapped as Chewacla sandy
loam, which is frequently flooded although for very short
durations, may also include small areas of Wehadkee, which is
listed as a hydric soil. However, observations on-site
support the conclusion that the soils along the two creeks
are Chewacla.
3.0 Biotic Resources
This section discusses the floral species existing and
faunal species existing or likely to exist at the B-2523 and
B-3523 project sites. It also assesses predicted impacts to
the terrestrial and aquatic communities as a result of
actions proposed.
3.1 Terrestrial Communities
Three floral communities occur within the project area.
Bottomland Hardwoods. Oak/Hickory. anr. Roadside/Pasture.
Bottomland Hardwood forest occurs immediately adjacent to
both Dutch Buffalo and Black Run on narrow floodplains and
lower slopes that flood 1 to 3 times most years htit only for
1 or 3 davs each time. The Bottomland Hardwood community
within the project area is a degraded version of the
Piedmont/Mountain Bottomland Forest community described by
Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the Sycamore--Sweetgum--
American Elm community described by Eyre (1950).
Farther upslope, the Bottomland Hardwood community changes
to Oak/Hickory, a dry-mesic community that never floods.
Oak/Hickorv occupies the ridges that separate Dutch Buffalo
Creek from Black Run Creek and Dutch Buffalo from SR 3416.
The Oak/Hickory community within the project area is a
degraded version of the Dry-Mesic Oak-Hickory Forest
described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) or the Shortleaf
Pine-Oak forest type of Eyre (1980). The dividing line
between the Bottomland Hardwoods community and the
Oak/Hickory community approximately follows the mids!op
contour line. where walnut. (Ju??lans nigra) scamore
i P l dta Ru :)CC i d r ti l I S} Zncl C 1`: r b l ICh ( e t U! a n I °_ r
4
replaced by white oak (Quercus alba), post oak (Quercus
stellata var. stellata), and southern red oak (Quercus
falcata var. falcata).
The Bottomlands Hardwood and Oak/Hickory communities have
both been degraded by high-grade selective logging that has
removed either scattered individual or scattered small-groups
of large,,commercially valuable trees, especially pine, oak,
and possibly black walnut. This practice has (1) reduced the
natural density of commercial species, (2) lowered stand
quality, and (3) created an uneven-aged stand that might be
more accurately described as a mosaic of very small, even-
aged stands.
The Roadside/Pasture community occurs along roadsides, in
three fields north of the existing road, and under the
powerlines north of the road. The Roadside/Pasture community
has not been adequately described by other authors, and no
published descriptions exist. This disturbance- tolerant
community that contains many non-native species is regularly
controlled by mowing.
3.1.1 Floral Communities
Bottomland Hardwoods. Dominance of the upper canopy of the
Bottomland Hardwood community is shared by a large number of
mesic and wet-mesic species: southern sugar maple (Acer
barbatum), red maple (Acer rubrum), river birch, boxelder
(Acer negundo), sycamore, honeylocust (Gleditsia
triacanthos), white ash (Fraxinus americans), winged elm
(Ulmus alata), shagbark hickory (Carya ovata), yellow-poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera). persimmon (Diospyros virginiana),
sugarberry (Celtis laevigata). sweetgum (Liquidambar
stvraciflua). American elm (Ulmus americans), and black
walnut. Basal area of this upper canopy measures IS m2/ha (30
ft2/ac), and the tallest trees are about 39 in (90'"ft). Since
some of the best-quality canopy trees have been selectively
removed, the residual trees show an unnaturally high
proportion of crooked and/or leaning individuals.
The lower canopy contains scattered saplings of
shade-tolerant upper canopy species. In addition, eastern
redcedar (Juniperus virginiana), red mulberry (Torus rubra),
musclewood (Carpinus caroliniana), red bud (Cercis
canadensis), and pawpaw (Asimina triloba) occur. Basal area
of the lower canopy measures about 14 m2/ha (61 ft2/acre).
and the tallest trees are about 10 m (33 ft). The shrub
laver contains blackhaw (Viburnum prunifotium). Smooth alder
(Alnus serrulata) and buttonbush (Cephalanthus occidentalis)
occur also, but only along the creek bank.
Foliar cover of the "round laver averages SO percent. It
contains both woody vines and herbs, most of «hich are weedy
and ?o1,2ran: of disturbance. The fol IowL;n<, vines incur:
poison-ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia
creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), and two species of
greenbrier (Smilax bona-nox and S. rotundifolia)'. The
following herbs occur: panic grass (Panicum sp.),
bedstraw (Galium pilosum), blue violet (Viola papilionacea),
coneflower (Rudbeckia laciniata), sedge (Carer sp.), uniola
grass (Un.iola laxa), ebony spleenwort (Asplenium
platyneuron), beggar-lice (Desmodium sp.), Christmas fern
(Polystichum acrostichoides), bindweed (Ipomoea sp.), giant
ragweed (Ambrosia trifida), wingstem (Verbesina
occidentalis), goldenrod (Solidago sp.), woodland knotweed
(Tovara virginiana), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese
grass (Microstegium vimineum), and avens (Geum canadense).
Frequency among individual ground layer species varies
greatly. Poison-ivy, greenbrier, trumpet creeper, and
Japanese honeysuckle overwhelmingly dominate the ground
layer, and a few individuals represent most other species.
Total height and development of the Bottomland Hardwood
community in the northwestern quadrant of Dutch Buffalo Creek
has been controlled by regular cutting, which has precluded
development of the layered bottomland community discussed
above. In this narrow strand, smooth alder, black willow _
(Salix nigra), river birch, multiflora rose (Rosa
multiflora), trumpet creeper, black walnut, mimosa (Albizia
julibrissin), Japanese honeysuckle, elderberry (Sambucus
canadensis), blackberry (Rubus argutus), silky dogwood
(Cornus amomum), muscadine (Vitis rotundifolia), and
eupatorium (Eupatorium sp.) form a uni-lavered community,
where all of the trees have repeatedly coppiced from stumps
and branches.
Oak/Hickory. The upper canopy of the Oak/Hickory community
contains shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata). willow oak (Quercus
phellos), sweetgum, yellow-poplar, post oak. eastern
redcedar, winged elm, northern red oak (Quercus rubra).
southern red oak, black cherry (Prunus serotina), and
especially white oak. Dominance of this canopy averages 16
m2/ha (70 ft2/ac). The tallest and widest trees are 7
5 ft and
26 in dbh. respectively.
The lower canopy contains flowering dogwood (Cornus
Florida), musclewood. and American beech (Fa-us grandifolia).
Large pine and oak stumps indicate that selected large trees.
presumably high quality, commercially-valuable individuals,
have been removed by high-grade harvesting.
The shrub layer contains deerberry (Vaccinium stamineumr)
and blackhaw. The ;round layer is nearly lacking, foliar
cover averages only 10 percent. It contains seedlings of
overstorv species. and Japanese honeysuckle. be ::ar-lice
(Desmo(1ium nudiflorum). coral honeysuckle (Lonicera
sempcr,i?ens) poison-iv uniola crass, and ehorly
spleenwort.
Roadside/Pasture. Disturbance tolerant herbs dominate the
Roadside/Pasture community, where foliar cover averages 85
percent. Hop clover (Trifolium campestre), vetch (Vicia
caroliniana), wild lettuce (Lactuca canadensis), goldenrod
(Solidago sp.), fescue (Festuca elatior), buttercup
(RanuncuPus parviflorus), horseweed (Erigeron canadensis),
two species of plantain (Plantago lanceolata and P.
aristata), ox-eye daisy (Chrysanthemum leucanthemum), panic
grass, ragweed (Ambrosia artemisifolia), red clover
(Trifolium pratense), horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), rye
grass (Lolium multiflorum), wingstem (Verbesina
occidentalis), dog fennel (Anthemis sp.), sheep-sorrel (Rumex
acetosella), geranium (Geranium carolinianum), strawberry
(Fragaria virginiana), wild onion (Allium sp.), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), rabbit tobacco (Gnaphalium
obtusifolium), Venus' looking-glass (Specularia perfoliata),
broomsedge (Andropogon virginicus), orchard grass (Dactylus
glomerata), indian-hemp (Apocynum cannabinum), and lambs'
quarters (Chenopodium album) occur. A colony of daylily
(Hemerocallis fulva) occurs also, and dooryard knotweed
(Polvgonum aviculare) and speedwell (Veronica peregrina) grow
in cracks in the pavement along the guardrail of the bridge..
In addition, woody species that readily resprout after mowing
occur: common blackberry, sweetgum, poison-ivy, persimmon,
and Japanese honeysuckle.
Rip-rap has been placed recently along the creek banks
upstream of the bridge over Black Run Creek to control
erosion. This area has had insufficient time to become
completely revegetated, except for scattered plants of
poison-ivy. boxelder. Japanese honeysuckle, multiflora
rose, trumpet creeper, black wl1low, fescue, jewelweed, and
rush (Juncus sp.) that grow among the rocks. Foliar cover
averages 25 percent.
3.1.2 Faunal Communities
Other than barn swallows (Hirundo rustica) nesting under
Bridge No. 71, surprizingly little evidence of wildlife was
observed at the B-2522 and B-2523 project sites.
Agricultural land uses surround the B-2522 and B-2523 project
sites and limit the range of faunal species to those adapted
to edge and frequently-disturbed areas. Only where remnant
creekside forest adjoins tracts of forest upstream and
downstream would forest interior birds be expected. It is
likely that the B-2522 project site would mainly be a
transitional zone for species foraging or mijrating along
Dutch Buffalo Creek. However, a number of dead and downed
logs were observed that could provide nesting and forage
habitat for small rodent and herpt-iie species.
Habitat such as occurs lie ,-e is expected to suppc-i-t the
Piedmont's usual small mammal species: Eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), Eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humilus), Hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), and Meadow voles (Microtus pennsylvanicus).
Southern Short-tailed Shrews (Blarina carolinensis) and Least
Shrews (Cryptotis parva) may also be found in disturbed
forest habitats.
Such..prey populations probably support predators such as
Red and gray foxes (Vulpes vulpes and Urocyon
cinereoargenteus, respectively) and possibly Bobcats (Felis
rufus). Red-tailed hawks (Buteo jamaicensis) and Barn owls
(Tyto alba) also thrive in areas such as this.
Typical songbird calls were heard in the surrounding
trees, Robins (Turdus migratorius), Cardinals (Cardinalis
cardinalis), Catbirds (Dumetella carolinensis), Mockingbirds
(Mimus polyglottos), and Bluejays (Cyanocitta cristata) being
representative. Grackles (Quiscalus quiscala), Crows (Corvus
brachyrhynchos), Brown-headed cowbirds (Molothrus ater), and
Mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) were noted in more open
areas.
3.2 Aquatic Communities.
No rooted aquatic plants occur, but free-floating blue-
green algae (Div. Cyanobacteria) occur in Black Run Creek.
No fish were observed in either creek. Freshwater snails
(Oxytrema protima) are notably abundant in Dutch Buffalo
Creek, and Asiatic clams (Corbicula flumenea) were observed.
but no native freshwater naiads were observed during random
creekbed sampling. ,
3.3 Anticipated impacts to Biotic Communities.
Since the proposed project will replace the current
bridges with slightly larger bridges in the same locations,
all significant impacts to the vegetative community will
occur during and as a result of construction, but most will
be temporary. with either alternative, the proposed --
replacements will require an additional 37.2 m2 (900 ft2) of -
pavement for the approaches. This permanent reduction will
only affect the roadside community.
Selecting Alternate (1), a road closure with a temporary
detour around Brid-ae No. 72, would create the least possible
temporary disturbance: virtually no trees would be cut for an
on-site detour. Cleared and vegetatively controlled area now
surrounding the bridge would easily revert to its current
condition following removal of the temporary structure.
Thus. 37.2 rn2 (900 f t 2 ) of roadside community would be
permanently impacted.
Iternative (2) WC,U;d entLIiI forest cle2rinc for the
temporary detour, in addition to the new pavement which will
affect 37.2 m2 (900 ft2) of roadside community. About 0.09 ha
(0.23 ac) of forest cover would be removed, because of the
longer distance and the presence of remnant forest south of
the projects. Less than 0.04 ha (0.1 ac) of bottomland
forest and about 0.5 ha (0.13 ac) of oak-hickory forest would
be impacted. Clearing will completely disrupt affected plant
communities, including removal and compaction of topsoil.
Uncut trees adjacent to the detour could either be windthrown
or decline in vigor due to root disturbance and increased
solar exposure.
After construction, the detours will be removed and, if
left undisturbed, previously forested areas will eventually
revert. All areas not perennially controlled in the future
will revert to natural forest though a much younger age-class
than exists currently. Within 15 to 20 years, species
richness will recover to pre-construction levels.
No adverse impacts to regional plant populations are
expected from the proposed project, since (1) all species
observed are common with adequate populations outside of the
impact area (see section 4.2.1), and (2) all communities
within the impact area are already considerably degraded and
no prime-quality or unique situations exist.
Faunal populations will not be seriously disturbed. Some
forage and edge habitat will be temporarily disturbed. But
different edge habitat will result from the disturbance, and
all species common here are tolerant of such dislocations.
4.0 Special Topics
4.1 Waters of the US: Jurisdictional issues
4.1.1 Anticipated Impacts to Waters of the U_S.
No permanent alterations to creek channels will occur as a
result of the proposed actions, and no wetland exists outside
the channels. All possible precautions should be taken to
prevent erosion and sedimentation as a result of construction
operations, and short-term effects during construction should
be monitored carefully.
4.1.2 Anticipated Permit Requirements
Impacts to waters of the United States come under
jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE). A
Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A)23 should be applicable to
project B-. This permit authorizes activities undertaken,
assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed in whole,
or in part. by another federal agency or department. That
ag,encv or department has determined that the activity is
cate.,oricaIIv excluded from en%- ironmental documentatio:l
because it will neither individually nor cumulatively have a
significant environmental effect. A North Carolina Department
Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 (166)
Water Quality General Certification is also required prior to
issuance of the Nationwide Permit.
4.1.3 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
Projects B-2522 and B-2523 do not involve any wetland
beyond the bank to bank impact areas, and these areas will be
entirely spanned.
4.2 Rare and Protected Species
Under federal law, any federal action which is likely to
result in a negative impact to federally protected plants and
animals is subject to review by the US Fish and Wildlife
Service (USFWS) under one or more provisions of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973. In the case of state-
funded action, where federal wetland permits are likely to be
required, for example, the USFWS can require consultation to
insure that the proposed action does not jeopardize any
endangered, threatened or protected species. Even in the
absence of federal actions, the USFWS has the power, through
provisions of Section 9 of the ESA, to exercise jurisdiction
on behalf of a protected plant or animal. The USFWS and
other wildlife resource agencies also exercise jurisdiction
in this resource area in accordance with the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act (43 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 USC
661 et seq). North Carolina laws are also designed to protect
certain plants and animals where statewide populations
are in decline.
4.2.1 Federally Protected Species
according to the USDI Fish and Wildlife Service. the
Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) are the only federally
protected species listed for Carbarrus County. Records
indicate that no Carolina Heelsplitter specimen has been
reported from Carbarrus County in 20 years. Following is a
discussion of these two species, their habitat requirements,
and the suitablility of habitat for these species.
The Carolina Heelsplitter (Lasmigona decorata) belongs to
the family Unionidae. or "freshwater bivalved mollusks, often
called naiads" (US Fish and Wildlife Service 1992). All
mussels are filter feeders. usually burying anterior ends in
the substrate and exposing siphons at the posterior end to
filter detritus. bacteria, and small planktonic organisms
from the surrounding water. Naiads have complex reproductive
patterns and assorted methods for .distributins slochidla
(larval forms). which "may number in the hundreds of
tlousanc:s" but e':ist 011 1%- a fe%k- da,.-s once jected from the
female. "Most are parasitic on the gills or fins of certain
species of fish, but the infections are usually light and
little harm." Upon reaching adult morphology through
metamorphosis, encysted juveniles rupture their cyst wall and
drop to the bottom.
According to the US Fish and Wildlife Service (1992),
"little os-no information is available on actual mussel
population numbers." Many species occur in a single river
system or lake. Some species exists in both lakes and
rivers, though many are restricted to one type of habitat.
While preferred habitat varies with species, "most stream
species do best in gravel-sand substrate in good current."
Biological Conclusion: Some potential habitat does exist
at the B-2522 project site, but since sampling in the sand-
gravel substrate revealed no evidence of a Carolina
Heelsplitter population, and no specimens have been reported
from this county in 20 years, we conclude that there will be
no impact on this species.
Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) generally
occurs in full sun or light shade in low-density stands
dominated by oaks, pines, and hickories. Chestnut oak
(Quercus prinus), scarlet oak (Q. coccinea), black oak (Q.
velutina), blackjack oak (Q. marilandica), post oak (Q.
stellata), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata), pignut hickory
(Carya glabra), sand hickory (C. pallida), and mockernut
hickory (C. tomentosa) are typical overstory species, whereas
pinelands threeawn (Aristida stricta), little bluestem
(Andropogon scoparius), panic grass (Panicum
sp.), blazing star (Liatris spp.). -oldenrod (Solidago spp.).
aster (Aster spp.). bracken fern (Pteridium aquilinum). and
blueberry (Vaccinium spp.) are common understory species.
These stands are typically bi-layered. maintained by
occasionally surface fires that limit lower canopy and shrub
development. In addition, Schweinitz's sunflower may occur
in the Roadside/Pasture community, where periodic mowing, but
not herbiciding, roughly approximates open conditions of
fire-maintained forests.
Typical forest habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower does not
occur within the project area, although the Roadside/Pasture
community occurs. The most likely site within the project
area for Schweinitz's sunflower is under the powerline, where
regular vegetation control has maintained the
Roadside/Pasture comminuty. During the field reconnaisance,
roadsides, forest edges, and the powerline right-of-way were
searched for Schweinitz's sunflower, but it was not observed.
Even though the current survey was conducted in late spring,
before the flowering season, Schweinitz's sunflower woul?!
have been identifiable. owing to i•ts characteristic opposite.
sessile-subsessile. somewhat revolute leaves with stri°ose-
tomentose u ndersides--a char_-,c t r combinat ior. not common
among herbaceous plaits.
Biological Conclusion: Schweinitz's sunflower does not
cc:cur within the project area; therefore, the proposed action
gill have no effect.
Reviewing NC Natural Heritage Program office records
concerning state-protected species revealed no records of
specimens either at this site or within reasonable proximity.
4.2.3 Federal Candidate Species
Three species have been identified as candidates for
federal protection in Cabarrus County under Category 2
consideration: Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactylothere
peedeensis), Heller's trefoil (Lotus purshianus var.
helleri), and Nestronia (Nestronia umbellula). No Nestronia
specimen has been reported from Carbarrus County in 20 years.
Prairie birdfoot-trefoil (Lotus helleri, also called Lotus
purshianus var. helleri) typically- occurs in uplands in open
oak-hickory stands on basic or circumneutral soils. Typical
overstory species include white oak (Quercus alba), post oak
(Quercus stellata), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), black
oak (Quercus velutina), shortleaf pine (Pinus echinata),
mockernut hickory (Carya tomentosa), and pignut hickory
(Carya glabra). The understory contains flowering dogwood
(Cornus florida), redbud (Cercis canadensis), maple-leaf
viburnum (Viburnum acerifolium), and arrowwood (Viburnum
rafinesquianum). The ;round layer includes Solomon's seal
(Polygonatum biflorum) and bellwort (Uvularia perfoliata).
The somewhat open understory of this community is probably
maintained by periodic fires.
The oak-hickory community is present WLthin the project
area in the area to be impacted by construction under
alternative (2). Therefore typical habitat for Prairie
birdfoot-trefoil may be impacted, but the species was not
observed during the field investigation. which was conducted
at the beginning of its flowering season.
Nestronia (Nestronia umbellata) typically inhabits acidic,
sandy soils under open canopies of either pine or oak-
hickory. An eribaceous understory typically occurs. Suitable
habitat does not occur at the B-2522/B-2523 project sites.
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod (Dactylothere peedeensis)
habitat--mud f lats and shallo«, water along the edge of
re lativeIv clean streams--does occur. No specimens were
observed.
4 ?.4 Sununar? of :Ant icipat ed Impacts
V o ,:1):? t5 o[? 1)", tJ?_: 1n_LC t_1 C1 _?lC

federally-listed protected species in Carbarrus County are
absent. No state-listed species are recorded.
5.0 References
Belanger, R. P. and R. L. Anderson. 1992. A guide for
visually
assessing crown densities of loblolly and
shortleaf pines. USDA, Southeast. For. Expt. Sta. Res. Note
SE-352. 4 p.
Dilworth, J. R. and J. F. Bell. 1986. Log scaling and timber
cruising. 0. S. U. Book Stores, Inc., Corvallis,
OR. 468 p.
Environmental Laboratory. 1987. Corps of Engineers wetlands
delineation manual. Technical Report Y-87-1, U.
S. Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg
MS.
Evre, F.H. 1980. Forest cover types. Soc. Amer.
For. Washington, D.C. 148 p.
NCDEM. 1991. Biological assessment of water quality in North
Carolina streams: benthic macroinvertebrate
data base and long term changes in water quality, 1983-1990.
NC Dept. of Env., Health, and Nat. Res., Div. Env. Mgt.,
Water Qual. Sect., Raleigh, NC.
NCDEM. 1993. Classifications and water quality standards
assigned to the waters of the Yadkin-Pee Dep
River basin. Division of Environmental Management. NC
Department of Environmental Health and Natural Resources.
Raleigh. NC.
NCDEM. 1994. Miniature Subbasin Files. Correspondence from
`1 .
Toler-McCullen. Instream Assessment Unit,
Division of Environmental Management, NC Dept. Env. Health
and Natl. Res., Raleigh. NC.
Schafale. M. P. and A. S. Weakley. 1990. Classification of
the
Natural Communities of North Carolina.: Third
Approximation. NC Natl. Heritage Proy.. Div. Parks and
R.ecr., NC Dept. Environ., Health. and Natl. Resour..
Raleigh. 325 p.
Stephens. R.B. 19SS. Soil survey of CAF5lrl'us COUnty. North
Carolina. USDA Soil Conservation
ScI'vtCe.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1992. Endangered and
threatened
species of the Southeast United States
(The
Red Book). Prepared by Ecological Services, Division of
Endangered Species,
Southeast Region. Government Printing Office, Washington,
D.C. 1070.pp.

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP
3? o1/
8)93
TO: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Er i, Gz?n, , D? HN R
FROM: REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
Z. J 1?1a P. PA
ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH MORE DETAILS FOR YOUR APPROVAL
? NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ,/POR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
? TARE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMKNTS:

STA7F
3y ? ?
{
MAR 31993
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA -?
, GROUP
WATER ALITY SECTION
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION WETUADS
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS SAM HuNi
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
March 16, 1993
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: L. J. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheet for Replacing Bridge No. 71 over
Dutch Buffalo Creek and Bridge No. 72 over Black Run
Creek, SR 2416, Cabarrus County, B-2522 and B-2523
Attached for your review and comments are the Scoping sheets for the
subject project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting of
the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for April 22, 1993 at 10:30 A. M. in the Planning and
Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us with
your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank yo
there are any
Wayne Fedora,
WF/plr
Attachment
i for your assistance in this part
questions about the meeting or th
Project Planning Engineer, at 733
0
of our planning process. If
e scoping sheets, please call
-7842.
%
r

l,V1/I / 1
E'.1V
lr,1-k
S

T
DATE ) 3/ 15 /92
TIP PROJEC" : E-2'r:2
TATS PR07ECT
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION: TEN
-'OUi'T1' : CAEtir P'JS
ROU" E: SP. _416
PE'.!.'I 'I DT, T E
.
Pr:`JFCm VE ?': _ DE L .`_ ?1EP•?T STAG?E
PP.oc at_Ii?r•?
'LI.NIITNG: -- F
D E ti. T C I•'
PURPOSE REPLACE OBSO'_,ETE DR D l.I
DESCRIPTION: SR 2416, BRIDGE --:7 EARF.`?S C' JNTY
PEPLACE BRIDGE OVER DUTCH ELJF^ALD
s,IETHOD OF REP:,ACEMEFT
EXISTING LO _'ATION - ?O'tiD C:'0: T P-
. EXIS'? ING LOC,'?TIOIv - ONSITE DET^'?P.
3 . RELO-?, T ION _
4. ""THEE.
WILL "'HERE EE "PE"TAL FUNLIN PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPAL-7 7-,
DE',IELO:'ERS OR OTH Rw YES I;O
IF YES, Y WHOIi AND WHAT AId0'JITT': ? S

w
TYPICAL ROADW=AY SE-'TI^N:
BRIDGE
PnOJ? S PIt' "HEST
TR A^r. I Ci RFE`'T L'Pr DV G
D I : ' ,' F.
TTST vDT
EX 13TI1,IG STRUCTURE : LENGTH FE!-
FF^POSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTt! FEET:

CULVERT - LE1:'TH _ FEET;
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
:3RIDGE - LENGTH FEET;
OR
PIPE - SIZE ANCiE:',
VPD
WIDTH -- 1 FELT
WIDTi.? i EET
.-'IDT'r. _ °T
WIDTH FEET
CONSTF.UCTIOll' COST ` INCLTJDING ENGINEERINC AND
_ONTINGENCIES :.....................
r=_:HT OF WAY COST (INC'LU-ING RELOCATION, U'_'ILITIE:
r.ND ACQUISITI"?N) ...................
FCF.CE ACCOUNT ITEMS ............................ ..
TOTAL COST .........................................
"'IF CONSTRUCTION C'-.ST .................. ..... ... 300.ocIc
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ G ?? ?1CC
SUE T^TAL 3'? ?Jr1
PRI -'P. YEARS COST ... ... .. ... .
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................S 33 .000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 03/15/93
REVISION DATE:
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: 71
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B-2523
STATE PROJECT
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION: TEN
COUNTY: CABARRUS
ROUTE: SR 2416
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: SP. 2416, BRIDGE #72, CAEARRUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE ^.VER BLACK RUN CREEK.
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE -------
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
_. RELOCATION
4. OTHER -
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PAR'TIC'IPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO v
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: (?)
BRIDSE
PR'DJECT SCOPING SHEET
TP,AFFIC: CJRRE?:T VPD; DESIGN NEAR VPD
TTST _ DT
TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC TION:
EXISTING `"TRUCTURE: LENGTH _ 46 FEET; WIDTH 19 FEET

PROPOSED STRUCTUPE:
FRIDGE - LENGTI~ _ FEET; WIDTH FEET

_' ,' VERT - LENGTH -- FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETCUR S TRUCTURE:
PRIDGE - LEN TH FEET; WIDTH FEET
U F
PIPE - SI7E INCHES
C'ONSTRUCTIC':, COST (TNC'LUDTNG ENGINEERING A14D
CO`1TINGEIICIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WP.Y COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITIOr•?)........
........ $
FOP.CE A---'.COUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 250,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY C'C)ST ................................ s 37 000
SUP TOTAL ........................................... ^7 C00
PRIOP. YEARS CO`-'T ..................................... S
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 287.000
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NUMBERS 71 AND 72
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2522, B - 2523
0 miles 2
t FIG. 1
MEMO
Z3 ?
DATE:
r
TO: SUBJECT:
G?
-? 10
ll 61 &- goo I
2
O
From:
North Carolina Department of
Health and Natural Resources
Environment,
4 Printed on Recycled Paper
ti _-'%

IAMIJ B. I IUNI. IR.
60V[RN(?R
I)IVISION 0111 Kil ]WAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RAHA(11 i, N.C. )7011 5201
May 20, 1993
FROM:
SUBJECT:
S-FATE OF Nom-ii CAROLI NA
DEPARTMENT OF TZANSPORTATION
Wayne Fedora
Planning and Environmental
f?INY
2 41993
d
SAM I IUNI
SI( R[IARY
Scoping Meeting for Replacement of Bridge Nos. 71 and 72
on SR 2416 over Dutch Buffalo Creek and Black Run Creek,
B-2522 and B-2523, Cabarrus County
A Scoping meeting was held on April 22, 1993 initiating the subject
project.
The following is a list of those in attendance:
MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
Right-of-Way
Hydraulics
DCR-SHPO
Structure Design
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Planning and Environmental
Location and Surveys
Program Development
DEHNR
Betty Yancey
Jerry Snead
Robin Stancil
Ray Moore
Steve Drum
David Cochran
Wayne Fedora
John P. Taylor
Danny Rogers
David B. Foster
Two alternates were considered for replacement: replace at existing
location with road closure, and replace at existing location with a temporary
on-site detour south of the existing bridges. The replacement structure for
Bridge No. 71 will be a bridge approximately 100 feet long with a 28-foot
wide travelway. The replacement structure for Bridge No. 72 will be a
reinforced concrete box culvert (2 @ 10'x10'). A detour bridge for Bridge
No. 71 would be approximately 60 feet long and a detour structure for Bridge
No. 72 would be four 72" pipes. If road closure is used, a one lane detour
around Bridge No. 72 will be constructed to provide access for a property
owner between the two bridges.
A cost estimate is being prepared for each alternate.

f ?
May 20, 1993
Page 2
In terms of historic architectural resources, the SHPO is requesting
more information on a small outbuilding in the project area. There are five
archaeological sites within a 0.5 mile radius of the project. The SHPO is
recommending a survey only if the bridges are placed on a location other than
the existing one.
Dutch Buffalo Creek and Black Run Creek are classified WS-II, water
supply watershed. This is a High Quality Water zone. Permanent hazardous
spill catch basins may be necessary.
There are no Natural Heritage points in the project area. NCWRC has not
made comments, but DEHNR indicated they will probably request the replacement
structures maintain space for wildlife passage beneath the road.
These projects will be scheduled together. Program Development is
preparing a new schedule for the projects.
WF/wp
Attachments
e
i
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 03/15/93
REVISION DATE: 05/18/93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT: B-2522
STATE PROJECT: 8.2661701
F.A. PROJECT: BRZ-2416(1)
DIVISION: TEN
COUNTY: CABARRUS
ROUTE: SR 2416
PURPOSE: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
DESCRIPTION: SR 2416, BRIDGE #71, CABARRUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER DUTCH BUFFALO CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) 9 (%)
BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 400 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 1,000 VPD
TTST 1% DT 2%
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 76 FEET; WIDTH 19 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 100 FEET; WIDTH 28 FEET
OR
CULVERT - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH 60 FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 300,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 35,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 335,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 335,000

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
DATE 03/15/93
REVISION DATE: 05/18/93
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PROGRAMMING:
PLANNING: X
DESIGN:
TIP PROJECT:
STATE PROJECT:
F.A. PROJECT:
DIVISION:
COUNTY:
ROUTE:
PURPOSE:
DESCRIPTION:
B-2523
8.2661801
BRZ-2416(2)
TEN
CABARRUS
SR 2416
REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE
SR 2416, BRIDGE #72, CABARRUS COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE OVER BLACK RUN CREEK
METHOD OF REPLACEMENT:
1. EXISTING LOCATION - ROAD CLOSURE
2. EXISTING LOCATION - ONSITE DETOUR
3. RELOCATION
4. OTHER
WILL THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY MUNICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO X
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT: ($) , W

BRIDGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
TRAFFIC: CURRENT 400 VPD; DESIGN YEAR 1,000 VPD
TTST 1% DT 2%
TYPICAL ROADWAY SECTION:
EXISTING STRUCTURE: LENGTH 46 FEET; WIDTH 19 FEET
PROPOSED STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
CULVERT - RC 2 Q 10' x 10"
DETOUR STRUCTURE:
BRIDGE - LENGTH FEET; WIDTH FEET
OR
PIPE - SIZE 4 Q 72 INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
CONTINGENCIES) ..................... $
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACQUISITION) ................... $
FORCE ACCOUNT ITEMS .................................. $
TOTAL COST ....................................... $
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ................................ $ 2$0,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ................................ $ 37,000
SUB TOTAL ........................................... $ 287,000
PRIOR YEARS COST ..................................... $
TIP TOTAL COST ........................................ $ 287,000
LEGEND
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
BRANCH
BRIDGE NUMBERS 71 AND 72
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2522, B - 2523
0 miles 2
1 FIG. 1