20042068 Ver 1_Complete File_20041230

uK-zo 6?
,. STAl( a
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
January 26, 2005
US Army Corps of Engineers 0 Regulatory Field Office L/
51 Patton Ave.
1119
Room 208 JAN 2 ?005
Asheville, NC 28801-5006 hr ?hR-Wgt-
DSAhDs11??InQR
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Revised Permit Drawings for Nationwide 23 & 33 Permit Application for the
Replacement of Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek on SR 1214, Stanly County, Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1214(3), State Project No. 8.2681401, TIP B-3700, Division 10.
Please find enclosed one copy of the revised permit drawings for the above referenced project and replace
the originals dated November 18, 2004. The revisions include a slight change in the alignment of the
abutments and a change in the drainage from the bridge.
There are no changes to the permanent impacts for this project or the rock causeway.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at (919)
715-1451.
Si erely,
Grego J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: W/attachment
W/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, DEO
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
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
Mr. Elmo Vance, Planning Engineer

z
o In
F
N

.,
Q? U)
¢ O
O
a

- T3 z'x

cm x ,

E- x o O

0
o z co
U
W ¢
U) ?W O
'
D
> I
¢Q
a

Ll- W w
Q U)
U
z
H
fun)
.S2 O
p

co 0
0
-M (D :5 a
1 1

CD m W
LLJ V) ?

n
"
s

lLL

W O H

m E r-

? N N w p
Z ? ?

C C U

U x
L o_ .r
Q w
U E
a

W LL ? a0 W
n.?m o °
w
U
Q

? C C U
- O f9
v O
?

? m
...
Z
LL
Q N tm
D
C

H
U
c?
0
> ? m o
? Q

?
W Z N
-
Z w ? °
Ecu

W
C U
12
_
ID
O
lL N '"

W
?
Z ?

d N ? V

V F- J

? ? Z
N
N
L
b i
? w
a
?n
v
O
? E ?

J
(n z 0
H

12-JAN-2005 14:35
R:\Roadwoy\Proj\03700.tsh
aoblllings AT
(CONTRACT.- X201324 7l'dll' PROJECT: B-3700
0 0 0
-a C)
X U O W (n
O M
2! m o
T ? .
•J
m O
? rev N y
a v
N .r -0 0 0
o o y
< '? v w
? II 11 it II II II 2.'
O m A a -w
C3 V
aea?ae°° y
W = •
Q m m
r
z ;a
g
D
-9 7n
fd :1 ?a
=1
O v
o v :iy
-?
a 7O O
C ?
V V
O
O °
u u II
O p p
W N. N
?i 3:
o b
? m'n ~
V
0
?C W
O °
O yy N
O
O
? z
DO
800
fim m °
h
t ti
a a
to
y
b a
NJ
H3r 'o?
n ?
H
00
O m
z ?
z
O
O
m
Z
EA a
to C
m Z
O
O O
C
Oo
m .
C
51
N
m
v
-WC
v
ro
Sm
zr
N
s?
q
A
?ro
r
Zz

I?

~ v""°' Iv
J to Li
IN \ 1 J ?
1 S:
? ? IN y
b , Im

u
lz
"I
BB
Cu n
00
S°
?x
O
O ? ? 1=1
O
? F
.? V X
O
? o
b ?/ ?
x
? O
n ti
y
w w h a
a
N N q
A A
O O 1
IJ
IJ ?
?W o
O
w `''' b b
? ?a
700.t9P
f f ? ?
V N V A
++++
a?aW
V b W
Al /J IJ
O? '0 O. CD
0 0 00
O O` V P
+$++
`o w ,,°o
A A ? AV.

TN
x
O
C r
N
m v
M
o
C 03
m
m
X
W
m
c
m
m
7f7 v
_D
r

V
U
6/2/

w m -10 ? o >
-1o
- So
i ? ?v m1 -
t
=v
1 ?
'>
m n
s- Am
a ''i o
°m x °A o
K 'y o
m x y
t-

ro
m
z
m
m z
m z
fit

a mm
b ? m
m H
O }
?
O Z
m
O? O A
O A
rr
d3C
u mm m m

a ..o C

o° A M
m
m -
n
m - ?m
t?A
w
b

f/1
m
m
2?
m fn
O
9
Om
z
N

H cl
?

? v w
(m -?
?
-i -rte
o
Z -?
2 N
'o4 '
i
Z
p r
m I
s ? ?
I
l b N
1
D?
V tv
+ +
O W
I O
z 0
v?
m
n?
P
+
0
L O
5 ?
?rT,
?z
m
w?
o?
o G7
f/1
m
m
m to
9o
O m
z
N
cods
?\ P7e it\p3700_hyd_PERMIT PLAN2d n.d9n p?17?c
-A J1Y212400
v ?
\ 40*?
Rg
m
Zia
z ?€
a
Y
a j
?t
14,37
C.\f. mit\03700_hyd_PERMIT PLAN2d
r
7/9

V co
M FA
24 IN
..
?r ?T?fg
?j -
N
I
?h

ti
O
O q
v
+
r ? 4 ?

°? a n
'y

T y y O
+° ? ? + gym
x-+P
o . iz g
0 0? ?
? ?aa
L' n o
y
A
N
a?r
v n
r 3?
12' 12'
02 0
1
,
D

.TJ
D O
D 1

u
+ n
= W
m N m
c'
-i
(7 D D Z
S t
03 -W
+
_
o o
m
z +

W

3' 12' 12' 3'
m

D

m

m
z
i

m
r
n
? I
o ,
z
N
m

S_
co
, z
0

`1
1 CII
m ? + o
D D O
- ? m
_ +
2 0 V) ,

12'
12'
+ F-
D
,
o
r
i
b
rn
m
i R
mm ?
y

10
15

-I in
o N f"
?
Lo _ s a

? v mno

',?ou,orr
20

u ? t
r

?y
+° m o aka
$ .? Nmr

av m v
u N 6
i

r

> r K m
.i
?
.? p
} 3 "gmr
R ; Yi
u 4 ?; j
° t44

Y
} ? ?
? c 2

? x ?
y v moo
MM
Y N _. N
w
f ti # ST ¦
V

p}
a
>
? ]Qr
Y l K
A < Lr?•t
O?rn
m
d &
-1

y E H
n T L

J
'j ?
? x 2
vmnv
p p Y N N
V
v??I
y y + 0 ¦
N

J

cnati??[>
r to
y
r

V
S?
a
r
?ro
x?
6 ?
4 w
0
z? A
?n
imap:Hrob.ridings%40dwq.denr.ncniai1.netG( cros.ncmai1.net:143/fet...
Subject: DWQ #042068, Stanly County
From: Polly Lespinasse <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2005 13:50:24 -0500
To: Rob Ridings <[e-mail]>
CC: Brian Wrenn <[e-mail]>
Rob,
Per Brian's e-mail, I am sending you this e-mail for the above referenced DOT Bridge
Replacement project in Stanly County. The TIP Number is B-3700, Bridge No. 187 over
Long Creek on SR 1214. I visited the site on January 27, 2005 and reviewed the site
plans. I did not perceive there to be any issue with this project that would require
written concurrence from DWQ, as long as the temporary rock causeway is removed once
construction is complete.
Do you need me to fill out a staff report in FileMaker Pro? Let me know. Thanks!
Ph: 701.663.1699 Fax: [phone]
Polly Lespinasse - Polly. Lespinasse0ncmail.net
Environmental Specialist
North Carolina Dept. o Environment & Natural Resources
Div. of (:'ester Quality
919 N. Gain St.
iiooresville, NC 28115
1 of 1 1/31/2005 2:03 PM

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIFNrI' OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
December 22, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ER, 0dOn, D
DEC 3 0 2004
DENR - %'1ATER QUALITY
wERMOS NO =i-"!r:i ATER EWICH
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
Subject: Nationwide 23 & 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 187
over Long Creek on SR 1214, Stanly County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1214(3),
State Project No. 8.2681401, TIP B-3700, Division 10.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
Bridge No. 187 will be replaced in the existing location using a 110' single span prestressed steel
girder bridge. The new bridge will have a 30-foot clear roadway width with two 12-foot travel
lanes and two 3-foot grass shoulders. The new approaches and bridge will have a design speed of
50 mph.
No jurisdictional wetlands or existing channel will be permanently impacted by the construction
of the bridge. There will be a temporary 0.0018-acre surface water impact due to a work pad.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour that is approximately 7.6
miles long. The detour consists of Pennington Road (SR 1401), Mann Road (SR 1409), and Old
Salisbury Road (SR 1400).
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 187 is composed of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface on steel girders,
stringers, and a continuous steel floor beam system. The substructure consists of timber posts and
sills. The existing structure is 81 feet long with a 19.1-foot clear roadway width. The crown of
the bridge is 18 feet above the streambed. Due to the structural components of the bridge, no
temporary fill will be dropped into surface waters.
Water Resources
Long Creek is located in sub-basin 03-07-13 (Lower Rocky River) of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River
Basin which is located within the United States Geological Survey Hydrologic Unit 03040105 of
the South Atlantic/Gulf Region. The DWQ best usage classification (Index No. 13-17-31c) is C.
Class C water resources are defined as suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing,'
wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. Wastewater discharge and stormwater
management requirements apply to these waters.
Temporary Workpad
A temporary rock workpad will be required for the demolition of the existing bridge and in order
to provide for construction access. A total of 0.0018 acre of temporary stream impacts will occur
as a result.
Restoration Plan: No permanent fill will result from the subject activity. The materials used as
temporary fill in the construction of the workpad will be removed. The temporary fill areas will
be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed
workpad are available from the field survey notes.
Schedule for Construction of Workpad: It is assumed that the contractor will begin construction
of the proposed workpad shortly after the date of availability for the project. The Let date is
October 18, 2005 with a date of availability of November 15, 2005.
Removal and Disposal: The workpad will be removed, within 90 days of the completion of the
deck slab for the bridge, using excavating equipment. All materials placed in the stream by the
contractor will be removed. Any usable material that is removed may be used at the discretion of
the engineer. All other materials removed by the contractor will be disposed of at a non-
jurisdictional off-site location.
Avoidance & Minimization
The construction of this project has minimized the extent of the built-upon area by using the
existing alignment for the bridge replacement. Traffic will be maintained using an off-site detour.
Best management practices (BMP's) will be utilized to minimize water quality impacts. In
compliance with 15A NCAC 02B.0104(m) we have incorporated the use of BMP's in the design
of the project.
Federally Protected Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either due to
natural forces or their inability to co-exist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws. Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of ESA §§7 and 9, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists bald eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus) and Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) for Stanly County. The biological conclusion for each
species is "No Effect".
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: It is anticipated that the temporary dewatering of tributary to Catawba River
be authorized under Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 (Temporary Construction Access and
Dewatering). We are, therefore, requesting the issuance of a Nationwide Permit 33 authorizing
the temporary dewatering of Long Creek. All other aspects of this project are being processed by
the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR §
771.115(b). The NCDOT requests that these activities be authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23
(FR number 10, pages 2020-2095; January,15, 2002).
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environmental and Natural Resources, Division
of Water Quality, for their records.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.htnd.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
4Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: W/attachment
W/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. B. G. Payne, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Larry Thompson, DEO
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
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
Mr. Elmo Vance, Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
'y 0 00
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
I. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
X Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Nutnber(s) Requested: NWPs 23 and 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here: X
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: ?
II. Applicant Information
1. Owner/Applicant Information
Name:NCDOT/Proiect Development & Environmental Analysis Branch/ Greg Thorpe
Mailing Address: 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address:
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:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 8
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: Replacement of Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek on SR 1214, Stanly County
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3700
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Stanly Nearest Town: Barnardsville
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): I-40 W from Raleigh to I-85 to
Concord to NC73 to SR 1214 (Austin Road) crossing
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35°23.89'N, 80°15.19'W
(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):
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Long Creel: (Class C)
8. River Basin: Yadkin-PeeDee
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.ne.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: State route corridor with roadway shoulders
Page 2 of 8
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used:
Replace Bridge No. 187 with a bridge in the existing location. Heavy duty excavation
equipment such as trucks, dozers, cranes, and other equipment necessary for roadway
construction.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Public Transportation
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.
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.
No
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.
Page 3 of 8
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts:
Wetland impacts will consist of fill, excavation in wetland, and mechanized clearing.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Area
of
Impact
(acres) Located within
100-year *
Floodplain
(es/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, fill,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.femi.eov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact
Site Number
(indicate on map)
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
(please specify)
At bridge Temporary
work ad 0.0018
acre Long Creels 30' perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.uses.gov. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.tooozone.com,
www.mapqucst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 0
Page 4 of 8
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres)
(if Name applicable) Wateplicabllee) Type of Waterbody
(lake, pond, estuary, sound,
bay, ocean, etc.)

* 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.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
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.
Standard NCDOT Construction Practices
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 5 of 8
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
http://h2o.enr.state.ne.us/ncwet]ands/strmgide.htm].
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 http://h2o.enr.state.nc.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 6 of 8
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 )?
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
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
/-one f extends out 3u feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
Page 7 of 8
L
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 2B .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.
N/A
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.
N/A
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 211.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes NoX
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).
Apprant/Agent's Signature Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8

Stanly County
Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 (Austin Road)
over Long Creek
ederai Aid Prujuct No. BRL-1214(3)
State Project No. 8.268140
T.I.P. No. B-3700
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE
/ Z11 &/03
DATE
Gregory J. Thor, PJJD., Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT

44A--.,John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Stanly County
Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 (Austin Road)
over Long Creek
I derai Aid Pl-ujeCl NU. BRG-1214(3)
State Project No. 8.2681401
T.I.P. No. B-3700
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2003
l
Document Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
/z lD a.3
J. Ke eth Burleson, PE; Date
For the North Carolina'Department of Transportation

Elmo E. Vance
Project Development Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit
PROJECT CONMUTMENTS
Stanly County
Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 (A»ctin Ronal)
over Long Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1214(3)
State Project No. 8.2681401
T.I.P. No. B-3700
NCDOT has agreed to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 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 Standard for Sensitive Watersheds, Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal (BMPs-BDR), General Certification Conditions, and Section 401
Conditions of Certification.
Division 10:
1. NCDOT will let the project early in the year to allow construction to be completed in one
season reducing the time, needed for the recommended off-site detour.
2. High Quality Sedimentation and Control Measures will be used to minimize project impacts
to the state listed Carolina darter.
Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
December 2003
-i-
Stanly County
Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 (Austin Road)
over Long Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1214(3)
State Project No. 8.2681401
T.I.P. No. B-3700
INTRODUCTION: Stanly County Bridge No. 187 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and in the
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is classified as a Federal "Categorical
Exclusion".
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 23.5
out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
Il. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the western part of Stanly County. This area of Stanly County is
very rural and contains many unpaved roadways. SR 1214 (Austin Road) serves
approximately nine single-family dwelling units. The existing land use surrounding Bridge
No. 187 is primarily residential and agricultural with the presence of large open fields.
Presently there are no plans for development. The zoning within the study area is regulated
by Stanly County Zoning Ordinance. The area adjacent to the project is zoned as Residential
Agriculture (RA).
SR 1214 is classified as a rural minor collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. This section of SR 1214 is not part of a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in
the TIP as needing incidental bicycle accommodation. There is no indication an unusual
number of bicyclists use this roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1214 has an 18-foot (5.5-meter) pavement width with 6-foot
(1.8-meter) to 10-foot (3.0-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The existing bridge
is on a tangent with curves to the north and south. The roadway is a sag vertical curve
through the project area. The roadway is situated approximately 14 feet (4.3 meters) above
the stream bed of Long Creek.
The 2003 traffic volume of 1800 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 2700
VPD by the year 2030. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailers
and 3 percent dual-tired vehicles. The posted speed limit on this section of SR 1214 is 45
miles (72 kilometers) per hour.
Bridge No. 187 is a four-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel girders,
stringers, and a continuous floor beam system. The substructure consists of timber posts and
sills. End Bent 2 consists ufa timber post and concrete sill crutch. The existing bridge (see
Figure 3) was constructed in 1952 and heavy maintenance was performed in 1999. The
decaying timber deck and rails were removed, the steel painted, and helper bents added. The
deck was refloored with new CCA treated timbers, and timber rail posts. The overall length
of the structure is approximately 81 feet (24.7 meters). The clear roadway width is 19.1 feet
(5.8 meters). No sidewalks are present on this structure. The posted weight limit on this
bridge is 18 tons for single vehicles and 24 tons for TTST's.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure, but telephone lines exist overhead
along the north side of SR 1214. Utility impacts are anticipated to be low.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of the bridge during the period from June 2000
through May 2003.
Four school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure consists of a bridge, 120 feet (36.6 meters) long with a
30-foot (9.1-meter) clear roadway width. This recommended bridge length is
based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The replacement structure will require
spill-through abutments on each end. This structure will provide two 12-foot (3.6
meter) lanes with 3-foot (0.9-meter) shoulders on each side (see Figure 5).
The crossing of Long Creek is in a FEMA detailed Flood Study Area. Also
according to the Study, the drainage area is approximately 20.9 square miles (54.1
square kilometers). The 10-year storm does not clear the existing bridge low
chord. As the design storm frequency for the bridge is the 25-year event, the
bridge deck must be raised approximately 2.7 feet (0.8 meters).
The approach roadway will be widened to provide two 12-foot (3.6 meter) lanes
with 8-foot (2.4 meters) shoulders on each side. Typical sections of the existing
and proposed approaches are included as Figure 4.
B. Build Alternatives
The three alternatives evaluated for this project are described below and shown in
Figure 2.
-2-
Alternative I involves replacing the bridge at the existing location with a
temporary detour to the northwest. The new alignment is approximately 600 feet
(183 meters) long and will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per
hour to reflect the characteristics of the remaining route. The existing bridge will
maintain traffic during the construction of an on-site detour. Five, 96-inch (2440
millimeter) corrugated metal pipes are recommended for the on-site temporary
detour. Traffic will be maintained on the on-site detour during replacement of the
structure in the existing location.
Alternative 2 involves replacing the bridge on a new alignment to the northwest of
the existing structure. The new alignment is approximately 1600 feet (488
meters) long and will have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour.
The existing structure and approaches will serve to maintain traffic on-site during
the construction period.
Alternative 3 (Preferred) involves replacing the bridge in its existing location.
The new alignment is approximately 600. feet (183 meters) long and will have a
design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour. Traffic service will be
maintained along an off-site detour during construction. The recommended detour
route is along Pennington Road (SR 1401), Mann Road (SR1409) and Old
Salisbury Road (SR 1400) (see Figure 1). The total length of this detour is
approximately 7.6 miles (12.2 kilometers).
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "do-nothing" or no-build alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the
bridge. This alternative is not desirable due to the traffic service provided by the
route.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not desirable due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
The preferred alternative (Alternative 3) is to replace the structure in its existing
location. This alternative will use an off-site detour along existing routes to
maintain traffic during construction (Figure 1). This alternative is preferred
because it is the most cost efficient.
The Division Engineer concurs with the preferred alternative. The proposed
detour route has been reviewed by local EMS and school bus transportation
officials who offered no objections to this detour.
-3-
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the three alternatives, bared on current prices, are as follows:
I'lie estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $530,000, including $70,000 fbr right-of-way, $375,000
for construction and $85,000 prior years expense.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A review of the project area has been undertaken to evaluate natural resource
features likely to be affected by the project. Materials and research data in support
of this investigation have been derived from a number of sources including
applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) topographic mapping (Richfield, NC
7.5 minute quadrangle, 1993); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping, and general alternative locations on site
aerial photography (scab;: 1 inch [2.5 centimeters] 100 feet [30.5 n-leters]).
The study corridor is located approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) southwest of
the intersection of SR 1400 and ,SR 1214 (Austin Road) northwest of .Albemarle,
NC (Figure 1). Bridge No. 187 is located along SR. 1214 at Long Creek in Stanly
County. The study corridor includes the channel and floodplain adjacent to Long
Creek. Long Creep flows from the north,%.vest to the south do Arnstream of Bridge
-4-
No. 187. It joins the Rocky River approximately 13.2 miles (21.1 kilometers) to
the south.
Land use within the study corridor includes forest and agricultural fields. Long
Creek retains a riparian buffer of approximately 20 feet (6.1 meters) of natural
vegetation upstream of the bridge and a buffer of approximately 75 feet (22.9
meters) downstream of the bridge (Figure 2).
A. Methodology
A natural resources field investigation for Bridge No. 187 was conducted on May
17, 2001. The study corridor was walked and visually investigated for substantial
features. For purposes of the field investigation, and to assure proper area
coverage of the alternatives, the study corridor was assumed to be approximately
1600 feet (488 meters) in length, with a width extending approximately 100 feet
(30.5 meters) northwest and southeast of the SR 1214 centerline, for a combined
corridor width of 200 feet (61.0 meters). Plant community impact calculations
provided in this report are based on individual corridors centered on each of the
alternatives. Final impacts will be limited to cut-and-fill boundaries of the
constructed alternative. Special concerns evaluated in the field include; 1)
potential habitat for protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection
in Long Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by
North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990).
When appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature (Kartesz
1998). Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach
following U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA
1987). Wetland jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a
classification scheme established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by
terrestrial wildlife and aquatic organisms, as well as expected population
distributions, were determined through field observations, evaluation of available
habitat, and supportive documentation (Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980,
Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994, Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell
1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow current standards. Water quality
information for area streams and tributaries was derived from available sources
(DWQ 1997, 1999). Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support
existing data.
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of federally protected species
with ranges which extend into Stanly County (April 12, 2001) was obtained prior
to initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting
-5-
presence of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing the
field investigation.
B. aPh sixograph and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Yadkin geologic formation within the Carolina
Slate Belt of the Upper Piedmont physiographic province of North Carolina. This
system is characterized by broad, gently sloping uplands, moderately to steeply
sloping areas with narrow convex ridges, and steep valley slopes. Soil systems in
the Piedmont are determined by the local bedrock type and farm in saprolite
weathered from bedrock of various composition (Daniels et al. 1999). The study
corridor is located within the floodplain of Long Creek and adjacent uplands.
Within the study corridor, the floodplain is wide and gently sloping. Elevations
rise from approximately 480 feet (146.4 meters) National Geodetic Vertical
Datum (NGVD) at streamside to 510 feet (155.5 meters) NGVD at the
northwestern and southeastern extreme of the study corridor (USGS Richfield,
NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service indicates the following soils within
the study corridor: Chewacla silt loam (fine-loamy, mixed, thermic Fluvaquentic
Dystrochrepts), including the streambed and associated floodplain; Tatum
channery silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes, (clayey, mixed, thermic Typic
Hapludults) at the extreme southeast of the study corridor; and Goldston very
channery silt loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes, (loamy-skeletal, siliceous, thermic,
shallow Typic Dystrochrepts) in the southeast and northwest sides of the study
corridor.
The Chewacla series consists of frequently flooded, somewhat poorly drained,
moderately permeable soils on nearly level floodplains adjacent to streams. This
Chewacla soil has a silt loam surface layer about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) thick.
The subsoil extends to a depth of 60 inches (152 centimeters). The underlying
material to a depth of 80 inches (203.2 centimeters) is stratified sand and gravel.
This soil is subject to frequent flooding for brief periods in winter and spring.
The Tatum series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soils on gently
sloping uplands. Slope ranges from 2 to 8 percent. This Tatum soil has a brown
channery silt loam surface layer 7 inches (18 centimeters) thick. The subsoil
extends to a depth of 44 inches (112 centimeters). Weathered bedrock is at a
depth of 44 inches (112 centimeters), which is underlain by hard sandstone
bedrock at a depth of 60 inches (152 centimeters).
The Goldston series consists of well drained, moderately permeable soil found on
hilly to steep, highly dissected side slopes adjacent to major drainageways
throughout the slate belt. Slopes range from 15 to 45 percent. Typically this soil
has a brown very channery silt loam surface layer 7 inches (18 centimeters) thick.
-6-
The subsoil is channery silt loam underlain by highly fractured slate, with hard
fractured slate found at a depth of 36 inches (91 centimeters).
%Of ilic predominant soil map units in the study corridor, the Natural Resources
Conservation Service lists only the Chewacla series as having hydric inclusions
occurring in adjoining upland sideslopes and in depressions (USDA 1996).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within subbasin 03-07-13 (Lower Rocky
River watershed) of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin (DWQ 1997). This
area is part of USGS accounting unit 03040105 of the South At]antic-Gulf
Coast Region. The section of Long Creek crossed by the subject bridge
has been assigned Stream Index Number 13-17-31 c by the N.C. Division
of Water Quality (DWQ 1999).
2. Stream Characteristics
Long Creek is a third-order stream in the Lower Rocky River watershed
subbasin. The Long Creek watershed is characterized by upland and mesic
hardwood forests, agricultural land use, and minimal residential
development. Within the study corridor, Long Creek is moderately
entrenched, exhibited moderate flow, and is characterized by long
meandering sinuosity and moderate riffle and pool development. Width of
the stream is approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) at the point of bridge
crossing, and the bridge height above the stream bed is approximately 14
feet (4.3 meters).
During the field visit, water depths along the study corridor varied from 6
inches (15.2 centimeters) to 24 inches (61.0 centimeters). The water level
was low, with about 6 inches (15.2 centimeters) of unvegetated riverbank
above the water surface. Bank height varied from 7 to 10 feet (2.1 to 3.1
meters). Persistent aquatic vegetation was not observed within the stream
channel with the exception of concentrations of algal growth in slower
reaches. The channel substrate is composed of a gravel and sand mixture
with some finer sediments present in slower flowing reaches. Evidence of
much higher flow rates was observed as various amounts of woody and
leaf debris were found about 5 feet (1.5 meters) above the present water
level. Riparian vegetation consists of large trees (Piedmont/Low
Mountain Alluvial Forest) with a well-established canopy shading most of
the water surface.
-7-
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based
on the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments
of streams in the basin. A best usage classification of C has been assigned
to Long Creek. The designation C denotes waters that are suitable for
aquatic life propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary
recreation. Secondary recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses
not involving human body contact with waters on an organized or frequent
basis (DWQ 1997). No designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW),
High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply II
(WS-11) waters occur within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor. No watershed Critical Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
The Division of Water Quality has initiated a whole-basin approach to
water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Yadkin-Pee
Dee River basin management plan. The most recent water quality samples
in Long Creek indicated Good-Fair water based on benthic
macroinvertebrate samples taken in 1996 (DWQ 1997).
The Yadkin-Pee Dee River subbasin 03-07-13 (Lower Rocky River
Watershed) has been biologically and chemically monitored and has a use
support rating of fully supporting in 37 percent of its reaches. Forty-seven
percent is rated as support threatened, 7 percent as partially supporting,
none as not supporting, and 8 percent of its stream miles were not
evaluated. Long Creek has been rated as Support Threatened. Subbasin
03-07-13, containing the entire Long Creek catchment from its headwaters
to its confluence with Rocky River, supports one major point-source
discharger with a permitted discharge of 16 million gallons per day
(MGD) (60.6 million liters per day [MLD]) permitted flow. The subbasin
includes eight minor discharges, with a total permitted flow of 1.27 MGD
(4.81-MLD). Nonpoint source pollution is also a major consideration in
the Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage, with sedimentation and erosion the
most widespread problem throughout Stanly County (DWQ 1997).
3. Anticipated Impacts
The project alternatives will bridge Long Creek to maintain the current
water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be
minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule
and the use of Best Management Practices. The contractor will follow
contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined
in 23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
-8-
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and
Structures). These measures include using dikes, berms, silt basins, and
other containment measures to control runoff; eliminating construction
staging areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding
herbaceous cover on disturbed sites; managing chemicals (herbicides,
pesticides, de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water
quality; and avoiding direct discharges into streams by catch basins and
roadside vegetation.
The proposed bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-
project stream flows in Long Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this
waterway. Long-term impacts resulting from construction are expected to
be negligible. In order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT's
Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters
will be strictly enforced during the entire life of the project.
During removal of the existing bridge, bridge components will be removed
without dropping them into waters of the United States. NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal (BMP-BDR)
must be applied for the removal of this bridge.
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest, Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest,
roadside/disturbed land, and pasture/agricultural land. These plant
communities are described below.
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest - Dry Oak-Hickory Forest occurs in the
southwest quadrant of the study corridor and is bisected by SR 1214. It is
bordered by roadside/disturbed land along SR 1214 and by agricultural
fields to the east and west. This community is described by Schafale and
Weakley (1990) as occurring on dry upland slopes of the Piedmont. The
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest is a mature forest, with a closed canopy, well-
developed sub-canopy, and sparse shrub and groundcover strata. The
canopy contains white oak (Quercus alba), southern red oak (Q. falcata),
loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), mockernut
hickory (Carya alba), post oak (Quercus stellata), tulip poplar
(Liriodendron tulipifera), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua). The
sub-canopy and shrub layer is composed of red maple (Ater rubrum),
sassafras (Sassafras albidum), blackgum (Nyssa sylvatica), sourwood
(Oxydendrum arboreum), flowering dogwood (Corpus florida), American
holly (Ilex opaca), willow oak (Quercus phellos), eastern red cedar
-9-
(Juniperus virginiana), American beech (Fagus grandifolia), and saplings
of dominant canopy species. The herbaceous layer includes Christmas
fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), bedstraw (Galium sp.), poison ivy
(T oxicodendron radicans), greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), wild grape
(Vitis rotundifolia), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), ebony
spleenwort (Asplenium platyneuron), and Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera
japonica).
Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest - Piedmont/Low Mountain
Alluvial Forest occurs on the floodplain levee deposits adjacent to Long
Creek. This land type is bisected by SR 1214 and Bridge No. 187 over
Long Creek. To the west and east, it is bordered by pasture and
agricultural fields classified as pasture/agricultural land. The forest
comprises the riparian zone of the stream and averages 20 feet (6.1 meters)
wide on each side of the channel upstream of the bridge, and 75 feet (22.9
meters) wide on each side of the channel downstream of the bridge. This
community is described by Schafale and Weakley (1990) as occurring on
natural levees of Piedmont rivers and streams. At the Long Creek study
corridor, the canopy is well established and predominant species are river
birch (Betula nigra), American elm (Ulmus americana), green ash
(Fraxinus pens)lvanica), red maple, tulip poplar, sweetgum, black walnut
(Juglans nigra), bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), hackben-y (Celtis
laevigata), red mulberry (Morus rubra), and cherrybark oak (Quercus
pagoda). The mid-story and shrub layer are well-developed and include
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), red maple, Chinese privet (Ligustrum
sinense), giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and elderberry (Sambucus
americana). Vines and herbaceous species are common and include
poison ivy, Japanese honeysuckle, Christmas fern, Virginia creeper, violet
(Viola sp.), bedstraw, jewel-weed (Impatiens capensis), and climbing
hempweed (11likania scandens).
Roadside/Disturbed Land - Roadside/disturbed land occurs along the
right-of-way of SR 1214. Land use is roadside mowing management. The
roadside margins along SR 1214 are approximately 10 feet (3.1 meters)
wide. The roadside margin is periodically mowed and supports
herbaceous and woody species. These species include fescue (Festuca sp.),
chickweed (Stellaria sp. ), red maple, sweetgum, smooth sumac (Rhus
glabra), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), clover (Trifolium sp.), vetch
(Vicia sp.), blackberry (Rubus argutus), goldenrod (Solidago sp.),
buttercup (Ranunculus sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, wild
strawberry (Duchesnea indica), cranesbill (Geranium sp.), and pokeberry
(Phytolacca americana).
Pasture/Agricultural Land - Pasture/agri cultural land occurs in the
floodplain and adjacent slopes surrounding the Piedmont/Low Mountain
-10-
Alluvial Forest. This community supports mainly herbaceous species with
some interspersed trees and shrubs. These species include Queen Anne's
lace (Daucus carota), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), broom-
straw (Andropogon sp.), spiny-leaved sow-thistle (Sonchus asper), wild
onion (Allium sp.), cranesbill, dog-fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium),
chickweed, goldenrod, trumpet vine (Campsis radicans), Johnson grass
(Sorghum halepense), Japanese honeysuckle, clover, eastern red cedar,
Chinese privet, blackberry, multiflora rose, and persimmon (Diospyros
virginiana).
2. Plant Community Impacts
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within alternative corridors. A summary of plant
corrurrunity impacts resulting from each alternative is presented in the
following table.
Plant Community Impacts within the Alternative Corridors.
Areas are given in acres (hectares).
Alt.l Alt.l Alt.l Alt.2 Alt.3
(Preferred)
Plant Community Permanent Temporary Total Permanent Permanent
Dry Oak-Hickory Forest 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.17 (0.07) 0.00
Piedmont/Low Mountain 0.10 (0.04) 0.09(0.04) 0.19 (0.08) 0.04 (0.02) 0.10 (0.04)
Iluvial Forest
Roadside/

istur Land
Dbed

0.21 (0.08)

0.00

0.21 (0.08)

0.63( 0.25)

0.21 (0.08)
Pasture/
Agricultural Land
0.19 (0.08)
0.23 (0.09)
0.42 (0.17)
0.79 (0.32)
0.19 (0.08)
TOTAL: 0.50 (0.20) 0.32 (0.13) 0.82 (0.33) 1.63 (0.66) 0.50(0.20)
From an ecological perspective, impacts of upgrading existing road
facilities are minimal for Alternatives 1 and the preferred Alternative 3.
All alternatives contain minimal amounts of natural plant community
(Piedmont/Low Mountain Alluvial Forest and Dry Oak-Hickory Forest)
and would only claim narrow strips of adjacent vegetation. No new
fragmentation of plant communities will be created for any alternative as
the project will result only in relocation of community boundaries.
Roadside-forest ecotones typically serve as vectors for invasive species
into local natural communities. An example of an undesirable invasive
species utilizing roadsides is kudzu (Pueria montana). The establishment
of a hardy groundcover on road shoulders as soon as practicable will limit
the availability of construction areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
3. Wildlife
The only mammal observed during the field visit was gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis). Tracks of raccoon (Procyon lotor) were noted in
addition to scat of an unknown predatory mammal within the study
corridor. Other characteristic mammals expected to frequent similar
habitats in the Piedmont include opossum (Didelphis virginiana), beaver
(Castor canadensis), evening bat (Nycticeius humeralis), red fox (Vulpes
fulva), southern flying squirrel (Glaucomys volans), white-tailed deer
(Oducoileus virginianus), meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus),
spotted skunk (Spilogale putorius), least shrew (Cryptotis parva), and
eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus).
Bird species identified during the field visit are Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), black-
and-white warbler (Mniotilia varia), yellow-breasted chat (Icteria virens),
northern mockingbird (Mimes polyglottos), gray catbird (Dumetella
carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), eastern meadowlark
(Sturnella magna), dickcissel (Spina americana), red-winged blackbird
(Agelaius phoeniceus), field sparrow (Spizella pusilla), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos), common yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas),
chipping sparrow (Spizella passerina), pine warbler (Dendroica pinus),
downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), common grackle (Quiscalus
quiscalus), indigo bunting (Passerina cyanea), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), eastern towee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), and
mourning dove (Zenaida macroura). Streamside and disturbed habitat
might be expected to also support wood duck (Aix sponsa), white-eyed
vireo (Vireo griseus), white throated sparrow (Zonotrichia albicollis),
yellow-bellied sapsucker (Sphyrapicus varius), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), American
goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), American robin (Turdus nrigratorius), belted
kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon), white-breasted nuthatch (Sitta
carolinensis), and yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata).
No terrestrial reptile or amphibian species were observed within the study
corridor. Species that might be expected in this habitat are five-lined
skink (Eumeces fasciatus), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus),
Carolina anole (Anolis carolinenisis), rough green snake (Opheidrys
aestivus), eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina), marbled salamander
-12-
(Ambystoma opacum), slimy salamander (Plethodon glutinosus),
American toad (Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), and
rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta).
No aquatic amphibian or reptile was observed during the field visit. Long
Creek provides suitable habitat for aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles
including snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle (Chrysemys
pitta), queen snake (Regina septemvittata), eastern ribbon snake
(Thamnophis sauritus), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon).
Typical amphibian species for this habitat type include northern dusky
salamander (Desmognathus fuscus), three-lined salamander (Eurycea
guttolineata), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and eastern newt
(Notophthalmus viridescens). Several mussel shells belonging to the
invasive Asian clam (Corbicula flumenea) were found inside the stream
channel. No other evidence of mollusks was found.
No sampling was undertaken in Long Creek to determine fishery potential.
Small minnows were seen during visual investigations, but no larger fish
were noted. Species which may be present in Long Creek include chain
pickerel (Esox niger), satinfish shiner (Notropis analostanus), brown
bullhead (Ictalurus nebulosus), margined madtom (Notorus insignis),
rosyside dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis
leptocephalus), Carolina darter (Etheostoma colis), bluegill (Lepomis
marochirus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), redbreast sunfish
(Lepomis aurilus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), and fantail darter
(Etheostoma flabellare).
4. Wildlife Impacts
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial
habitat fragmentation is expected since most permanent improvements
will be restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction
noise and associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on
avifauna and migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts
are expected to be minimal for each of the alternatives. For each of the
alternatives, potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitats will be
avoided by bridging the systems to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to
downstream habitats from increased sediment during construction will be
minimized by the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
-13-
E. Jurisdictional Issues
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Long Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping
depicts Long Creek as a palustrine-forested, broad-leaved, deciduous,
temporarily flooded wetland (PFOIA; Cowardin et al. 1979). The field
investigation indicates that Long Creek can be characterized as a perennial
stream with an unconsolidated bottom consisting of a gravel and sand
mixture with some finer sediments present in slower flowing reaches.
During removal of the existing bridge and project construction, no
components of the bridge will be dropped into waters of the United States.
In consideration of surface water impacts, this project can be classified as
Case 3, where there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in
Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands are subject to jurisdictional consideration under
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (33
CFR section 328.3). These areas are defined by the presence of three
primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of
hydrology at or near the surface for a portion (12.5 percent) of the growing
season (DOA 1987). No vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional
consideration occur within the study corridor. Jurisdictional impacts are
avoided by all considered alternatives. The only expected effect of bridge
construction will be continued shading of the area of Long Creek under the
replaced bridge.
3. Permits Required
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made
available Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December
13, 1996) for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has made
available a General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23.
4. Mitigation
Fill or alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). Compensatory mitigation is not
expected to be offered for this project due to avoidance of jurisdictional
-14-
impacts. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
indirect impacts to Long Creek. A final determination regarding
mitigation rests with the COE and DWQ.
F.
Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The
term "Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become
an Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Federally protected
species listed for Stanly County (February 25, 2003 FWS list) are provided
in the following table.
Federally Protected Species. Species name and status for federally-protected
species in Stanly County (February 25, 2003 FWS list).
Common Name Scientific Name Federal Status
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(Proposed for
delisting)
Schweinitz's Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
sunflower
Bald Eagle - The bald eagle is a large raptor with a wingspan greater than
6.0 feet (1.8 meters). Adult bald eagles are dark brown with a white head
and tail. Immature eagles are brown with whitish mottling on the tail,
belly, and wing linings. Bald eagles typically feed on fish but may also
take birds and small mammals. In the Carolinas, nesting season extends
from December through May (Potter et al. 1980). Bald eagles typically
nest in tall, living trees in a conspicuous location near open water. Eagles
forage over large bodies of water and utilize adjacent trees for perching
(Hamel 1992). Disturbance activities within a primary zone extending 750
to 1500 feet (229 to 458 meters) from a nest tree are considered to result in
unacceptable conditions for eagles (FWS 1987). The FWS recommends
avoiding disturbance activities, including construction and tree-cutting.
within this primary zone. Within a secondary zone, extending from the
primary zone boundary out to a distance of 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) from
-15-
a nest tree, construction and land-clearing activities should be restricted to
the non-nesting period. The FWS also recommends avoiding alteration of
natural shorelines where bald eagles forage, and avoiding significant land-
clearing activities within 1500 feet (458 meters) of known roosting sites.
The study corridor contains no large bodies of open water that might serve
as bald eagle habitat. The nearest lake (Long Lake) is approximately 3.0
miles (4.8 kilometers) to the south; however, it is most likely not of
sufficient size to support bald eagles. Tall, old trees which might serve as
perching sites do grow near Long Creek, but lack of access to open water
is probably a key limiting factor at the study corridor. NHP records
document no occurrences of bald eagle within 5.0 miles (8.0 kilometers)
of the study corridor, and no eagles were observed during the site visit.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: The Long Creek study corridor
contains no suitable open water habitat for bald eagles. No occurrences
have been documented by the NHP, and no eagles were seen during the
site visit. Based on these factors and professional judgement, the proposed
project will have NO EFFECT on bald eagle.
Schweinift's Sunflower - Schweinitz's sunflower is an erect, unbranched,
rhizomatous, perennial herb that grows to approximately 6 feet (1.8
meters) in height. The stem may be purple, usually pubescent, but
sometimes nearly smooth. Leaves are sessile, opposite on the lower stem
but alternate above. Leaf shape is lanceolate and averages 5 to 10 times as
long as wide. The leaves are rather thick and stiff, with a few small
serrations. The upper leaf surface is rough and the lower surface is usually
pubescent with soft white hairs. Schweinitz's sunflower blooms from
September to frost; the yellow flower heads are about 0.6 inch (1.5
centimeters) in diameter. The current range of this species is within 60
miles (96 kilometers) of Charlotte, North Carolina, occurring on upland
interstream flats or gentle slopes, in soils that are thin or clayey in texture.
The species needs open areas protected from shade or excessive
competition, reminiscent of Piedmont prairies. Disturbances such as fire
maintenance or regular mowing help sustain preferred habitat (FWS
1994).
Within the study corridor, suitable habitat occurs for Schweinitz's
sunflower along road shoulders and within the fallow agricultural fields
adjacent to the road. The original site visit occurred outside of the
blooming season (September to frost) for Schweinitz's sunflower. The
site was revisited on September 19, 2001, and again on September 8, 2003
by NCDOT biologists. Plant by plant surveys were conducted within the
project area for Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) and no
specimens were found. A review of NHP records on September 8, 2003
-16-
revealed no documentation of this sunflower within 1.0 miles (1.6
kilometers) of the study corridor.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: Surveys for Schweinitz's sunflower
were conducted during, the blooming season (September to frost) on
September 19, 2001 and September 4, 2003. No individuals of
Schweinitz's sunflower were identified within the study corridor. In a
letter dated September 23, 2003 (Appendix A), the USFWS agreed that
there will be no effect for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii). The biological conclusion is No Effect on the
Schweinitz's sunflower
Federal Species of Concern - The February 25, 2003 FWS list also
includes a category of species designated as "Federal species of concern"
(FSC) in Stanly County. A species with this designation is one that may or
may not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species
under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information
to support listing). FSC species occurring in Stanly County are provided
in the following table.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for
species listed. NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
Federal Species of Concern.

Common Name
Scientific Name Potential
a itat State
Status"
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis yes SR
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa yes N/A
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana yes SC
Georgia aster Aster georgianus yes T
Butternut Juglans cinerea yes N/A
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri yes C
Yadkin River goldenrod Solidago plumosa yes E
Riverbank vervain Verbena riparia yes C
* * E = Endangered; T = threatened; SC = Special concern; SR = Significantly Rare; C = Candidate;
P = Species has been formally proposed for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern;
W5 = NC Plant Watch List: rare because of severe decline (Amoroso 1999; LeGrand and Ha111999).
-17-
2. State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and
Hall 1999) 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.). No species with these
designations are documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study
corridor. However, NHP documents the occurrence of smooth sunflower
(Helianthus laevigata), a Significantly Rare species, about 5.3 miles (15.9
kilometers) northwest of the study corridor near the headwaters of Long
Creek.
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, and implemented by the Advisory Council
on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified
at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires 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 a reasonable opportunity to comment
on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effect (APE) was conducted on March 1,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
June 1, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there
are no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the
National Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence
form is included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
As stated in a memorandum dated February 1, 2001 (see Appendix), the State
Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) concluded that if the bridge is replaced on
the existing alignment, no archeological survey is recommended. However, they
requested an archeological survey if the bridge is replaced on new location.
Although the recommended alternative replaces the crossing at the existing
-18-
location, an archaeological survey was completed. This survey found one site that
was determined not eligible for listing in the National register of Historic Places
and recommended no further archaeological survey work. In a memorandum dated
Augusi 19, 2002, the SHP0 concurred with these conclusions (see Appendix).
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement 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 preferred
alternative.
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 or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or
low income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not
expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-
owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, State,
or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
A GeoEnvironmental Impact Evaluation was conducted along the project. An
examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage
tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area. Based on the field reconnaissance
survey and a review of the Geographical Information Service (GIS) map, there were no
anticipated Underground Storage Tank (UST) impacts, no Superfund sites, no regulated
or unregulated landfills or dumpsites located within the project limits.
-19-
The project is located in Stanley County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR part 51 is not applicable,
because diC proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not
anticipated to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area. This
bridge replacement 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.
If vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with
applicable local laws and regulations of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality of the 1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the NEPA
process and no additional reports are necessary.
Since the project is located along the existing alignment and will not substantially
increase traffic volumes, the impact on noise levels will not be substantial due to the
undeveloped nature of the project area. Noise levels will increase during construction,
but the increase will only be temporary. Also, construction activities are usually
conducted only during daylight hours along projects of this nature. Therefore, traffic
noise reports are considered unnecessary. This noise assessment completes the
requirements for evaluating highway traffic noise in Title 23 of the Code of Federal
Regulations, Part 772.
Stanly County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. Bridge No. 187
is located in a 100-year Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) floodplain. It
is included as part of the detailed FEMA Flood Insurance Study for Long Creek in Stanly
County. The study gives the 100-year floodway elevation at the downstream side of the
bridge as 489.7 feet (149.3 meters). As this crossing is in a detailed FEMA Flood Study,
an increase in the backwater is not permitted. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the
project area is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not
substantial. The final design of the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation will
not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits. The length of the new
structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies. The proposed replacement will not adversely
affect the existing floodplain, or modify flood characteristics, and will have minimal
i,ripacts on the floodplain due to roadway encroachment. The existing drainage pattern
will not be affected.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
-20-
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials and
vamus agencies to involve them in the planning development with scoping letters.
IX. AGENCY COMMENTS
United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comments: Our records for Stanley County indicate known locations for the federally
endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianthus schti,einitzii) in the
vicinity of this project. If this species occurs in the project area, additional
consultation will be required.
Response: On September 19, 2001, qualified personnel conducted a survey for this
species and no individuals were identified in the project area. In a letter
dated September 23 , 3003 (Appendix A), the USFWS agreed that there
will be no effect for the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzii).
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Comment:
This segment of Long Creek may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Control Measures be used to minimize
project impacts to this species.
Response:
High Quality Sedimentation and Control Measures will be implemented during the
construction of this project.
-21-
\ 1491 \
1 R, 1214
1435 \ r Austin Mill \
\
\
I
1 \
\
1423
426 Bridge No. 187 `
i \ 1487
I 1422
1214 i 4
i p
1463
1425 \
i
N 01 Meters 800
,' t ! 0 Miles 0.5
Ali ial
New Lo a = APPROXIMATE SCALE
'leas$" Beam
A. i

9Y1116 ambert
S A 5
Kus I 6 Pater O .O - O
f eA Cross 52
Ookba PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
ACWR o a a

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
STANLY COUNTY
Bridge No. 187
on SR 1214 (Austin Road)
over Long Creek
TIP No. B-3700
Figure I

STANLY COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 187 ON SR 1214
OVER LONG CREEK
B-3700
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING SOUTH

EAST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
?I ?• c
o?

o
?••o "'moo
z
N O
W
r/] '1
0
o?
? N ? C ? y O

o o
o
`b `ob

,"-` 2?
CO i
N 0
f
rF ??
i
L aD .d Of ?
sz?a?
. ?
a ?m N' c o
., o,c 3z
m p > F
w
Q
0
O
U
Its_
a u
A 1
? ?v

1 1 i I I L l? li l li

RM
19-1
LIMIT OF ?-
DETAILED STUDY

0 S00
FEET
APPROXIMATE SCALE
Carolina
& Environmental Anal,
STANLY COUNTY
Bridge No. 187
on SR 1214 (Austin Road)
over Long Creek
TIP No. B-3700

I i II?I,i,, II I

F?cl?rul.+id =BRZ-121-1(3) TIP =6--,700 Crnew •: Stank
CUNCLRRENCE FORA FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridle No. 187 on SR 1214 over Lone Creek
On June 1. 2000, representatives of the
1;.1?1,1,/ North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
uJ/ Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
Q"-/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
[photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty vears old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect.
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property. properties
identified as Fy-c4:? b ('-!, are considered not elieible for the National
Resister and no fu er evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Resister-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Sinned:

Representative. CDOT Date

FHWA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Date

Repr s tative. SHPO Date
Ilk

State Historic Preservation Officer ate
If .:.urn ev rL!nmi is prepared. n tin..^.1 •um of this form anti the anach:Li list N\ ill he included.
s „? 5[AtF n?

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
February 1, 2001
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Re: Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 over Long Creek, B-3700, Stanly County, ER 01-8191
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, 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. However, since a survey has not
been conducted in over a decade, there may be structures of which we are unaware located
within the planning area.
If the bridge is replaced on the existing alignment, no archeological survey is recommended.
However, we do recommend an archeological survey if the bridge is replaced on new
location.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of 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
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618 [phone] •715-4801
. ti.
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisuciii C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
August 19, 2002
MEMORANDUM 117
1
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Brancll-.'-s
NCDOT Division of Highways !L
.,
FROM: David Brook
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 187 on SR 1214 over Long Creek, B-3700,
Stanly County, ER 01-8191 and 02-9330
Division of Hictoricsl Rmnktrrrc
David J. Olson, Director

Thank you for your letter July 24, 2002, of transmitting the archaeological survey report by Nick
Bon-Harper for the above project.
The following property is determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic
Places:
* 31ST183/183**
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. In all
future communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
cc: FHWA
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613 [phone] 9715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 2 7699-46 1 8 (919) 7334763 •7154801
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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.
Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have ^^ J V °p°^iV11T•1^
• V V
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 -Gaston County -Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3 506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County -Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
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.
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This =,^- allo•?? suff?cier?t water ueptii 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-3404 -Anson County -Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421 - Cabarrus County -. Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway. No
comment.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity.
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 - Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over 1-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 - Davie-Forsyth counties -Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary
structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain
saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and
root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the
steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of
requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can
recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim
Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species maybe
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
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co . ator
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-350rA B-
3694, and B-3700.
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
GASTON COUNTY
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(SIA)`
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus C1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Invertebrates
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus C1
Tall larkspur Delphinium exaltatum FSC*
Smooth coneflower Echinacea laevigata Endangered*
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Virginia quillwort Isoetes virginica FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauzii Endangered*
STANLY COUNTY
Vertebrates
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis collis FSC
Bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
(proposed for delisting)
Invertebrates
Brook floater Alasmidonta varicosa FSC
Carolina creekshell Villosa vaughaniana FSC
Vascular Plants
Georgia aster Aster georgianus C1
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Butternut Juglans cinerea FSC
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts
occur.
2. B-3677 Mecklenburg County: B-3700. Stanl County: B-3404. Anson County. Our records
for these counties indicate known locations for the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of these projects. If this species occurs in
the project areas, additional consultation will be required.
3. B-3828. Cleveland County. Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near the
project. If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
4. B-3835, Davie-Forsyth Counties. Our records indicate there is a Down ?ocztie : of Lhe
federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxii) near the project. If this species
occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
8281258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-01-252.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1548
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kernersville, North Carolina 27284-9180
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1621
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
As-hcvillc i ield Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 25, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail_ Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements: B-3677, Mecklenburg County; B-3822, Catawba County;
B-3840, Gaston County; B-3700, Stanly County; B-3828, Cleveland County; B-3839,
B-3454, Forsyth County; B-3421, Cabarrtis County; B-3637, Davie County; B-3835,
Davie-Forsyth Counties; B-3404, Anson County; DOT contractor TGS Engineers
We have reviewed these projects and provide comments in accordance with the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act, as amended (16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species
Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether or not habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are primarily limited to the known
locations of listed species and species of federal concern. When the Categorical Exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects we can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed are species lists from the nine counties included in this package. These lists provide
the names of species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants, as well as species of federal concern. Species of federal concern are not legally protected
under the Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, unless they are
formally proposed or listed as endangered or threatened. We are including these species in our
response to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any
are found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
1. B-3822 Catawba County B- 3840, Gaston County B-3839 -3454 Forsyth County
B-342L Cabamis County: B-3637. Davie County. There are no known locations of species of
concern near these projects. However, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for
[v- vul I VtH 7J17b777 Nu.545
I
STATE OF NORTfi CAROLINA i
D DAP,iiit NJT n? T-D ?1u?CUv1?TA''`nNT
Mtc{iAEL F. EAsLEY LYNDO TIPP)= IT
GOYERNOR SsCRETARY
September 8, 2003
Memorandum To: Stacy Baldwin, P.E., Unit Head
Consultant Engineering Unit, NCDOT
A"ention: Elmo Vance, Project Engineer
Consultant Engineering Unit, NCDOT
From: Chris Underwood, Environmental Biologist C5U
Natural Environment Project Management Unit
• i
Subject: Protected Species Update for Replacement of Bridge No. 187 on f
SR 1214 Over Long Creek in Stanly County, NC (TIP No. B-3700, +
State Project No. 8.2681401, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
1214(3)). '
References: Natural Resources Technical Report (NRTR), (NCDOT; May
2001).
The following memorandum provides information that updates the May 2001 NRTR.
The memo addresses federally protected species.
The project site was visited on September 4, 2003 by NCDOT biologists Chris
Underwood, Michael Twchy, and Tyler Stanton. A plant by plant survey was conducted
within the project area for Schweinitz's sunflower (Flefianthus schweinftzii) and no
specimens were found. 'Additionally, a September 8, 2003 review of North Carolina
NannnJ Heritage records no Schweinitz's sunflower occurring within 1.0 mi. (1.6 km) of
B-3700. Since suitable habitat exists within the project area and no individual was found,
the biological conclusion is changed to "May Affect, Nor Likely To Adversely Affect".
If you bave any questions, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at [phone].
cc: B-3700 project file, PDEA Branch, NCDOT
MOILING ADDRESS, TEL4PAONE: 818.733.3141 LOCATION:
NC DEPART~ OF TPANSPORTAT-CN FAX: [phone] TRANSPOATATON OVILM 40
DaojecT DEVE1Wmm AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILI'mGTON STREET
1510 MA16 SERNCE CENTER WEASITE; HrM.-/ I4%W.NCDOT.ORO( RALFiom NC
AALmH NC 77088.1 W
o r??ee? 09:29

NC DOT PDEA 4 93196999
The information provided, we agree that there will be no effect to federally listed species for this
project.
We believe the requirements under section 7(c) of the Act are fulfilled regarding listed species
for the subject projects. However, obligations under section 7 of the Act must be reconsidered if
(1) new information reveals impacts of this identified action that may affect listed species or
critical habitat in a manner not previously considered, (2) this action is subsequently modified in
a manner that was riot considered in this review, or (3) a new species is listed or critical habitat is
determined that may be affected by the identified action.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff' at
8281258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our log numbers (shown above for each project).
Sincerely,
NO. 656 D03
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
+v u r ? CC/YJJ
N e
q N "
e7:dy NC DOT PDEA 4 93196999
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 U icoa Street
Asheville, NoM Carolina 28801
September 23, 2003
Mr. Chris Underwood
Environmental Biologist
Project Development and'Eavironmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1548
Dear Mr. Underwood:
NO. 656' WT
Subject: Endangered Species Concurrence for Three Bridge Replacements--B-3485, Bridge
No. 16 on SR 1470 over Cartoogeebaye Creek, Macon County; .&3415, Bridge No. 181
on NC 151 over South Hominy Creek, Buncombe County; and B-3700, Bridge No. 187
on SR 1214 over Long Creek, Stanly County, North Carolina
As requested by the North Carolina Department of Transportation, we have reviewed the natural
resources information and biological conclusions for federally protected species for the subject
projects. We provide the following continents in accordance with the provisions of section 7 of
the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
B-3485 (our Log No. 4-2-03-414) - We have reviewed the updated survey information provided
for impacts to the federally threatened spotfin chub (Cyprinella manacha) and Virginia spiraea
(Spiraea virginiana) and the federally endangered Appalachian elktoe (Alasmidonta raveniliana)
and littlewing pearlymussel (Pegias fabula). Given the information provided, we agree that there
will be no effect to federally listed species for this project.
B-344 (our Log No. 4-2-03-416) - We have reviewed the updated survey information provided
for impacts to the federally threatened Virginia spiraea (Spiraea vfrginfana) and the federally
endangered Appalacluan elktoe (Alasmidonta ravenftfana) and mountain sweet pitcher plant
(Sarracenia jonesio. Given the information provided, we agree that there will be no effect to
federally listed species for this project.
B-3700 (our Log No. 4.2-03417) - We have reviewed the updated survey information provided
for impacts to the federally endangered Schweinitz's sunflower (Helianrhus schweinirzii). Given
NORTH CAROLINA
1491 1458
Austin Mills
? 1418
1214
1214 1400
1429 x
1485 PROJECT S 1421
' - Albemarle
1214 1487 Ca
1422 1400
N
1469 14011 \
1409 1495
'
1425
1409 1408
VICINITY
MAPS
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
STANLY COUNTY
PROJECT: 33240.1.1 (B-3700)
BRIDGE NO. 187 OVER
LONG CREEK ON SR 1214
SURFACE WA\7ClEll$ IMPACTS
SITE MAP
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO. NAMES ADDRESSES
JAMES R. MAUNEY, JR. PO BOX 40
NEW LONDON, NC
28127
E C
ry
m L
Ei
Zco
?
OI N
y W m O
U x t E
W U
Q
IL

it

w
_
iL

o

ao
Q CL C/) m o 0

E 0

?- 0 0
w
U
Q
cn r.
? v) v
fn C C U
O m
O

m
co
3
m .?
o
Z
LL

Q ?
y °c' _

Z? p
C'C O U
v
- O
N d
U
H
V c to
°
IL v)
F- -
U > o

W Z _ y
o
Z g r?
C y
O
g LLJ
? E

w

o
z w
¢

n a

U)
M
j

C7
m J --
\ m W
m
2 Z w (
n
i w
N

0 LL,
a
C O
OCE J
?
O
N LL +
(O

G N
J
fA Z 0
N
0
z
8 iz ax
m Lu

SNOISIA311

IPNdld 1IWOJ-04-OOLCOV4-1-3?
96+51
MEN
aN_ In
a
?8
D
8 ?

r ?q

'WWag
m LLJ a

SNOISLA33
uBp-I"PNHIJ IIWL J-04
"G 6

.E
?s

J
1'?l -1 Z
bd W
a
? O
U

? R
N R

O NN
OL
OL NN
OC
? m 03 O7
M
t

N
C4
cl
cl
O
f U
'Y
't
N N M
U r ? c ?
r

-ill
z
0
a
? N
?N
LL- ii
Q?
%?3
0
N V
rrww rai
v, ?J
O
N A
O
ry
c V
Q
O
OM O
h W
a,
O

ml
z
II
? i

0

o 0
o
0
?
p n
W
h
U ? O
a
0.
?v
a J 3?t10 9"07
?
w
W
? Z1
iii'
m
.
°o
d4 y
1
O
O N
O
+

I

I

?
ti O

I I^
I
I I°
II
? CM 'I =1
_? ?• of
s
r
ml
s ? h
C ? Y
a? ?I 0Vy
Y ?
HI Y
?I U N
Y a ? A
CA
a?
?+ G
a
a
's
W
a
Q
O
m
0
W
H
J
D3
N
yW
7
N U!
W =
a?
00
Z I--
m "'
o
U_ ua
Z a
W
m
U)
`z
L tu
3°
O 'n
H
Go
°z
a
u
0

®oLF ft :BREDard dyLL PZFIOZD =LLD LIZi Fri®V
66/80/60
SJ0 1D
4S?'OOLEB\1o 4d\CDmpD0d
9Z:80 b00Z-A%

k
a
LLJ
CL
J r
M
0? a
a <
a NA
z La
m
Ln
40
cm C14
om m
o
o`
G c
0
i N Cl) u u n n n u?
p C4 0 F-
N N ? F
O O
a
ti
o?
C
Cos
Z
fir

aE O
L

a. ? n
a
m •o
+
F+ ? Z N
o H
Z m
Z
' W Q
° G •--• tg
+ 4
g Q!!{
3 (/? W
?y O
ri
G?<3 Ogg ar
QX +O
Q] W r. >
uw Tu
?
'n
o a
z 4m
0
z
o o
0
+
0
W
O
C,
O Y
r r
a
N

e

•o Y

q 0
?
r-

50 o? W Z o
M Z
o?
° 0° "-' Z
p
t'

O U
F- W
° lL to
" a

0-

(n
Z
w 0
Q.
oG
W W
a X,?
> W
W

n
a
tlo
W? m
O
py.
)LL
FF O N) a
J
(
?
°
m m
W m< u w

-J
j W
W y
y
F
3w 1"
<s
0 0 w
W wa a
U
? ? a
U ? mJ o0
U)
?o ?a u)

z i0m h a
a
a O
0
W
L n
?- <a
O
~
N ?
J C O
U W W
d

0 39 3< ?a

I-
Jn 6
JW
3J

W 1? 6
6 J
r
<LL ?
q
<> (
(
2LL
W O < 6 0 6
7 ?
W •
=
? W
< a a
2 t 2
< <<
C3 lV Y ? O
< J a
,J ww? ? N
Q C CO 6 W L
z 6
>
L 0C
n m
~
1.1
LL. 6
«m O >
« 6
o O
n:i?ai sw d< ? ? w
M '? n< < W
a u
i
U O W ¢ ~ O
n

W
W h n n N

W
p C,
O GD
:2

v
W .I

W O O 0
1-
L U
m
=
N N Q
o W 0-

y av -o N
LU + + t t
W
N
FF ~~ F
Q

N
M
0
a?
?E
? a
8 .? x
g
£8
1
I
J
bbb`=?0? Y
QO+11?CvWi
a £1'28+OZ JNid
?
= 7
'Y3 g
?ba?
?
O ,
mm ?
s
:
44
ry?
oz
"'ate
qq++
?g a
t
Cc)
a ? W ,. Saorr? I
?e
m?
N
I
W2 J
"'SO?ttoM
oomo
am, +
Wig g „ o
J ? ? G S
? n n n
o v m e
1? ?y L
W? y?J?7 S
J N
S
D O4C i ? V Q
W ? ? rl
a _ +
J Q
cOo FF
• T M
1-
/ ? t
n n n h
D O m D
?i
Qm: e
b y
?W? V C
~ o J S
O
J ? ?Q<
r Y„
a v r
'? n h
m m o
Y
x
r
Ja? ?
F?r .o
W 'O
4
J +.
5L
2-CA. "M
O
U sg

a1
ro)
V
LT4
0
[C-01?
g
o z
g
a,.
F 34{ I?
15+g

1
i

31
9
1?
Swo
h
II
1
II ?
OL
»k!4
sR
I p'+ S

SNOISIA31

i( 31
ma ?I
I:
4vi 1
v
C,
k
?2 f

:sl
" na
o`
a2S?
a?
n ?
lia
.
I ¢^
lei

1
I
p
s? ?? r
u
c
{

•
I q
- 4 o
g
-
,e
?. aF ?

?? q
R

5?
a v
r
rrrrM
6r,
929?o?sy,?d
`,u Y
„ ?.I oI
0
M
0
Q•1
M
o$
O m ?
Jinn
?9m
N `
?1O
T
ti
N
O ? N
? t
z
1
1
CID
a + ZI ,ZI
J
\ N oz
+ _+
W U
(7 Q
+ pG W
a-
CO C
oa a d
J
Z
W
I
I
l\Sl
I
I
£ 71 7,
00 00
t
W
(7
im E +
m? \
ZQ Q+
W
CD I t Y
J U-
I a
oQ
of -
12L L/)
W
QI
zo zo
,ZI I
x
U
h
a O

r e ?`
6

JJ
a

O
J?
V ti F

W
d
N d
S

O O
j
Y
V
LZ --
J?? g
Oag
W
4 ?

O

o v n 3

J V 4?
O ?

OQ
T
r I

1
?fl =
to
O
FZ
--
a
J
w
Z
W
w
Q

W
,£ U
0
[D
(7
_Z
O
In
x
U
W
N
.;_