19930172 Ver 1_Complete File_20100726

State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, XFWMA
Health and Natural Resources A4 7*A
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary ID FE H N F1
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
May 13, 1994
Alamance and Orange County
DEM Project # 94428,
TIP #B-2100, COE #199300293
State Project No. 8.2471201
APPROVAL of 401 Water Quality Certification
Mr. Barney O'Quinn
NC DOT
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 2520
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. O'Quinn:
You have our approval to place fill material in 0.12 acres of wetlands or waters for
the purpose of temporary construction access for bridge replacement at SR 1005, as you
described in your application dated 3 May, 1994. After reviewing your application, we
have decided that this fill is covered by General Water Quality Certification Number
2727. This certification allows you to use Nationwide Permit Number 33 when it is issued
by the Corps of Engineers.
This approval is only valid for the purpose and design that you described in your
application. If you change your project, you must notify us and you may be required to
send us a new application. For this approval to be valid, you must follow the conditions
listed in the attached certification. In addition, you should get any other federal, state or
local permits before you go ahead with your project.
If you do not accept any of the conditions of this certification, you may ask for an
adjudicatory hearing. You must act within 30 days of the date that you receive this letter.
To ask for a hearing, send a written petition which conforms to Chapter 150B of the
North Carolina General Statutes to the Office of Administrative Hearings, P.O. Box
27447, Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7447. This certification and its conditions are final and
binding unless you ask for a hearing.
This letter completes the review of the Division of Environmental Management under
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act. If you have any questions, please telephone John
Dorney at 919-733-1786.
Sincerely,
reston oward . P.E.
Director
Attachment
cc: Wilmington District Corps of Engineers
Corps of Engineers Raleigh Field Office
Raleigh DEM Regional Office
Mr. John Dorney
Central Files 94428.1tr
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, North Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
"1

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TMNSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GovERNoR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
June 14. 1994
D? str_ct Engineer
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 1590 E)?? 1
Wilmington, North Carolina" 28402 e t
A T T 1-71, T-L0N Ren•-_' atorv Brand,
?s-
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Alamance a hd Gram Cou-nties - Re-Dl.acement
ridae o. 1 = over the Hair :river on S : 1 ,+ 5
T.I.P. No. E-2100; State Project No. 3.24712011
D.0A f>_c iCn TD. 1991n0?9J
Reference our correspondence o May 3 , 1994 , in which we
re uested~ _eview of a proposal to place cs;G temporary rack
.,ause ,7avs -n the Haw River during the construction of the new
bridge. Pe_ sonl,_l at the Corps of Engi eerS ' Raleigh
Regulatory Fi°_ld Off=ce have asked t-hat we provide
- nfor ;l atio on tie Co1ZStr_.C = CIh schedule and Site --estcration
lans.
The proposes t imporary rock causeways will be ne:eSSa=
.CtiGiZ equipment only GIZg eI O?.ate
to provide acc°__s - construction 1
to place t4do bens. in the Tihe attach"li CrGSS-SeCtiGiZ
and GVer:lze. aC...draing? - illustrate - h- l locat-C?n and d l.l
ienS o s
;?; ? .?
of tihe wo proposed causeways in relation to the w. idae .
Placement of these causeways will require temporary fill of a.
total of 310 cubic yards of tiClass II rip rap in v . ? acre
below ordinary high water. It 1.S estimated that the rock
causeways Hill be in the ri-ier from two to three month=: and
that the contractor will perform the work during the summer
months when the water level is lowest. All rip rap used for
these causeways will be removed by the contractor after
construction is completed. The material will be removed with
a clarl bucket, G•{ith the crane working its way back off the
causeway.oward the shore. NCDOT does not anticipate any
permanent impacts to the Haw River as a result of the
proposed m'oui-lCa%ion.

Application is hereby made for Nationwide Permit No. 33
TAT
for Temporary Construction, Access and Dewatering--- TAT
Carolina Division of Environmental Management f401
Water Quality Certification for this project ay 13, 1994.
Thank you for your assistance. If you h
questions, please contact Cyndi Bell at (919) 33-3141.
Sincerely,
t
Assistant Meager
Planning a Environmental Branch
Bio /cla
attachments
cc. M:.. john Dorney, DE M, DEHNR
Mr. J.W. Watkins, P.E.
Mr. N.E. Graf, P.E. FHWA
Mr. Archie Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Services
;"1f1 . Victor Barbour, P . E . , DesignDesign
I?•1= . Tom Shear i _Z, P . E . , Roadway M . Kelly Barger, P . E . , Program Development Bra: c__
Mr, Don Horton, i . E . • Highway Design
M:_. H. Franklin Vick, P.1. , Planning & Environmental
_ir. . Gary j esc _
Mr. John Smith _ . E .
Mr. W . D . Johnson
NOTIFICATION FORM
INFORMATION SHEET
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
A. NOTIFICATION TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS DISTRICT ENGINEER. (REFER TO
ITEM B. BELOW FOR DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT APPLICATION RE-
QUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICALLY NOTE NWP 26 DIFFERENCE.)
Certain nationwide permits require notification to the Corps of Engineers before work can proceed. They are as follows:
NWP 5 (only for discharges of 10 to 25 cubic yards)
NWT 7
NWP 13 (only for stabilization activities in excess of 500 feet in length or greater than an average of one cubic yard
per running foot)
NWP 14 (only for fills in special aquatic sites, including wetlands, and must include a delineation of affected special
aquatic sites)
NWP 17
NWP 18 (required when discharge exceeds 10 cubic yards or the discharge is in a special aquatic site and must include
a delineation of the affected special aquatic site, including wetlands),.
NWP 21 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
NWP 26 (only for greater than 1 acre total impacts and must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites,
including wetlands)
NWP 33 (must include a restoration plan of reasonable measures to avoid and minimize impacts to aquatic resources)
NWP 37
NWP 38 (must include a delineation of affected special aquatic sites, including wetlands)
For activities treat may be authorized by the above listed nationwide permits that require notification, the
applicant shall not begin work
a. Until notified that the work may proceed under the nationwide permit with any special conditions imposed by
the District Engineer, or
b. If notified that an individual permit may be required, or
c. Unless 30 days (calendar) have passed from the time a complete notification is received by the District Engineer
and no notice has been received from the District Engineer, and required state approvals have been obtained.
Required state approvals include: 1) a Section 401 water quality certification if authorization is requested for a
discharge of dredged or fill material, and 2) an approved coastal zone management consistency determination if
the activity will affect the coastal area. .. 1 11
Use of NWP 12 also requires notification to the District Engineer, but work may not begin until written
concurrence is received from the District Engineer. The time periods described above do not apply.
Furthermore, requirements to notify the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMYS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SI iPO), as indicated below and on the
notification form, do not apply. .
B. APPLICATION TO DEM FOR NATIONWIDE PERMIT SECTION 401 CERTIFICATION.
Certain nationwide permits require an application to DEM in order to obtain Section 401 water quality certification.
They are NWP 6, NWP 12, NWP 15, NWP 16, NWP 17, NWP 21, NWP 33, NWP 34, NWP 38, and NWP 40.
Certain nationwide permits were issued general certifications and require no application. They are NWP 3, NWP 4,
NWP 5, NWP 7, NWP 20, NWP 22, NWP 23 (requires notification to DEW, NWP 25, NWP 27, NWP 32, NWP 36,
and NWP 37.
The following nationwide permits were issued general certifications for only limited activities: NWP 13 (for projects
less than 500 feet in length), NWP 14 (for projects that impact waters only), NWP 18 (for projects with less than 10
cubic yards of fill in waters only), and NWP 26 (for projects with less than or equal to one-third acre fill of waters or
wetlands). Projects that do not meet these criteria require application for Section 401 water quality certifications.

C. NOTIFICATION/APPLICATION PROCEDURES.
The attached form should be used to obtain approval from the Corps of Engineers and/or the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management as specified above. The permittee should make sure that all necessary information is
provided in order to avoid delays. One copy of the completed form is required by the Corps of Engineers and seven
copies are required by DEM. Plans and maps must be on 8 1/2 x 11 inch paper.
Endangered species requirement:. For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service and/or the National Marine Fisheries Service regarding the presence of endangered species that may
be affected by the proposed project.
U.S. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE NATIONAL MARINE FISHERIES SERVICE
RALEIGH FIELD OFFICE HABITAT CONSERVATION DIVISION
P.O. Box 33726 Pivers Island
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726 Beauforc, NC 28516
Telephone [phone] Telephone [phone]
Historic resources requirement: For Corps of Engineers notifications only, applicants must notify the State Historic
Preservation Office regarding the presence of historic properties that may be affected by the proposed project.
STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE
N.C. DIVISION OF ARCHIVES AND HISTORY
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
Telephone [phone]
Information obtained from these agencies should be forwarded to the Corps.

DEM ID:' ACTION ID: 199300293
Nationwide Permit Requested (Provide Nationwide Permit #): NWP 33
JOINT FORM FOR 9,?5(,L
Nationwide permits that require notification to the Corps of Engineers
Nationwide permits that require application for Section 401 certification
WILMINGTON DISTRICT ENGINEER WATER QUALITY PLANNING a
CORPS OF ENGINEERS DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MAN _. ,
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY NC DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONME
TH,
P.O. Box 1890 AND NATURAL RESOURCES JUi?d
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890 P.O. Box 29535 ' 6 19?4i.
ATTN: CESAW CO-E Raleigh, NC 27626-0535
Telephone [phone] ATIN: MR. JOHN DORNEY WETLA p
Telephone [phone] WATER uALITY `,. X71
ONE (1) COPY OF THIS COMPLETED APPLICATION SHOULD BE SENT TO THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS.
SEVEN (7) COPIES SHOULD BE SENT TO THE N.C. DIVISION OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT.
PLEASE PRINT.
1. Owners Name:
North Carolina Department of Transportation; Planning & Environmental Branch
2. Owners Address: P. 0. Box 25201; Raleigh, NC 27611
3. Owners Phone Number (Home): --- (Work):
[phone]
4. If Applicable: Agent's name or responsible corporate official, address, phone number:
8. J. O'Quinn, P.E.
Assistant Branch Manager
5. Location of work (MUST ATTACH MAP). County: Alamance & Orange Counties
Nearest Town or City:
Saxapahaw
Specific Location (Include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 101 over the Haw River on
SR 1005
6. Name of Closest Stream/River. Haw River
7-River Basin: Cape Fear
8. Is this project located in a watershed classified as Trout, SA, HQW, ORW, WS I, or WS H? YES [ ] NO V1
9. Have any Section 404 permits been previously requested for use on this property? YES [X] NO [ ]
If yes, explain. NWP 23 permit approved 1/8/93 for bridge replacement.
10. Estimated total number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, located on project site:
Temporary fill in 0.12 acres below OHW
11. Number of acres of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, impacted by the proposed project:
Filled: Temporary 0.12 acres below OHW
Drained:
Flooded:
Excavated:
Total Impacted: Temporary 0.12 acres below OHW
12. Description of proposed work (Attach PLANS-8 1/2" X 11 drawings only,,. Temporary placement of
two causeways
13. Purpose of proposed work: To faciliate access of construction equipment to place bridge bents
14. State reasons why the applicant believes that this activity must be carried out in wetlands. Also, note measures
taken to minimize wetland impacts. //
15. You are required to contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and/or National Marine Fisheries Service
(NMFS) regarding the presence or any Federally listed orproposed for listing endangered or threatened species or critical
habitat in the permit area that may be affected by the proposed project. Have you done so? YES[ ] NO [X ]
RESPONSES FROM THE USFWS AND/OR NMFS SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
16. You are required to contact the. State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) regarding the presence of historic
properties in the permit area which may be affected by the proposed project? Have you done so? YES [ ] NO [ ]
RESPONSE FROM THE SHPO SHOULD BE FORWARDED TO CORPS.
17. Additional information required by DEM:
A. Wetland delineation map showing all wetlands, streams, an&lakes on the property.
B. If available, representative photograph of wetlands to be impacted by project.
C. If delineation was performed by a consultant, include all data sheets relevant to the placement of the
delineation line.
D. If a stormwater management plan is required for this project, attach copy.
E. What is land use of surrounding property?
F. If applicable, what is proposed method of sewage disposal?
Own s Si afore to ?.

s 1958 1958 White
PROJECT ' 6 3 41 •6
'ArL *Z: 1.7 1952 +
1957
1956 •
1959
^'- co 1952
2174 r 4
1953
;. - Cq +&rd :Ch. 2028
+ r Oitins t 2029,,--
1005 FA$ 12.. a• C 2030? 4jf
1.0 v 8 -? r 1 i 1.2 .9
2179 2 FAS 1005
2180 1
2 6
G{Ce '?, 1955 n 951 r
45
1954
I 1.0
r
2340 2181.
> 9
ham ;, 2'182 •2
1. 2341 $ .s r - ..
a
2342 2104 C i A - .. •_. + •• , 2192 - /1 T H Act Ml
NOT TO SCP,LE
ermanl0 -- 1 I --? .Y{,IFs Shur - r ' Gordonton Mills 1 •
5 ?d le 1 •2 -'J ?•. + Matklns _ II 2 Pros r ?. 19 p MorraR
h6 LL j ____ Rou emon
Rur Hall I ?Bete u 1 ?- - 1 1 7 6 ?'
Vyy Creek ?j 11 Osceol I Hwfnrv,. r Carr 5 I '
lStanleyvdLe 6 Su er'hed Browns- 5 Rrs. Union
158 f $6 Caldwell
II '' Oa S mr? ?'WOntmello to Ride 3 ?
a 66 311 alkert n 1 S 6? La.e 5I Itamahs 57 T•ua
2 66 II H Ridge c .rJfm dr 2 Oss,oee 62 l0 19 12 1 Bansma p
?' -
L51 2 6 11 G 6 ti /I A ?"-- C R D I Al Glen ' ' ' G o? r scaler 'r 201 s ? 3r
it w T 5 ? d erne srillel .o` aoara c13, e'• n % NS Elon ven `Bur ingtQn IMeoan8 S 1 16 16,?••F• ?r
yel 7 1 i \ C ` ??o' i ••.r .?,L s?µ?.;ansvill i sonvi olleg 70 RjyerO Egan •Ar -1 + F„o app`.' I •f a !
3 (1 I •7,5. - '+ ok' 70 -,.lia 00 7 / 1,?, aw n M V*?
2' d 7 ' 1 /. . * 1 E r .. r .6 ? " . f1i OFO g,7 -AN.
l r3•• i 2 3 311. ; o , a 'r • 1: " .?I Whitseb :? . + 219 3 r Y IV,
Man, ORA
! ?g?? so le - _ vi«< 25 :}
_ or r.
:mmORS \•{aleensboro 1 o f
d I / ?reToY../- - - - 54 ' + I ?1. 2 5 t
9 szi zza ? 12 r I, C apel
:a ii :y Hig oin 29 5 Plee:.l?n-?t Garden 6 1 ALAMAN
3 • a
9 8 IdwaY 9 i+ 2 70 arpn _t 2 Ktmesville la ?r I a fbOfll: 3 I -
elrnm. 1 F'i}{ ? •? ai`.. 6 W .I..n i \ ,??i (*?jl ", 55 4r 11
\ ?Wrt ` wr d,rl.l.ir ilia. ' rrn.r .•?.,..?. ???r'•' r.r ?i'dlrr arl
?? 121 1Mu., 11 A 1
'r 14u.•r..du 111
10
r ?. , 1 ra1.J +'1'. .... r.. r , ..e.. i, I t.r , \ ?.
? lulr• u1 Mllrf - _ , _ 1 dru f eV! 1 _. _ _ _ ?.' 91 '• r 1 , w•'
0 5 10 20 30 I manSYrII.
3 e PROJECT a
• /vthvdw_ Gray rutchheld X it, earring to .y
0 10 20 30 40 48 are ?9Z ilk Hobe 8T IS ,F, Village Farrrn¢t TSI t2
/
? to r
1 Scale of Kilotmten / 1 1 / 6 P /H (1'1 j( 1 ?I f r. l rS 1
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
VICINITY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
MAPS ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 8.2471201 (B-2100)
BRG.0101 ON SR 1006 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-
ORANGE COUNTY LINE.
SHEET -I- OF _q_
?? L1NE - t?
zo I (A -
IL
1
- I I
Q
x
43
V\A C E Co As
Q?Q3
PIZ
- ---
I
i

d
rl
C3

17 `' III I i
rill=?
I _ cl-j I
c
=- i X
tV
J
OC\-A
J
In
i-n
N ' t
0
z
o 2
H?z x?
U
En 0 U >-< j?4
z x w T OX4
a -4ac?Ho
2q I z 0 ? U)E
H ? z m(
w ? z o-() I j A A w z w
U
P? i z a cqao
I
X N_
? ( ` W Q ? ti-
p IJ Q I
r-v
( -
- -
w
?I- "- - I - 95
J
I- rj--j 10.
21
U, ANC6
o
N? zt"
ti :2
Q UJ
U Q (?
YYo
_1 5(- 8 % /-PROP. GRADE
o \`?? i I I I
139
330
17-too -L -
/8t vo
/9-t v0
b 25, 50
`
HURlzoo7AL SCALE
D 5? l0"
VERTICAL !5--ALE
P,eoP 67ZADE a
I ? I I i
y2v I , I I i ,
i BEM7 I I I
I i ? I I I I
q1o I I BED '+ I I
o-o I I I I I //
I ? I I /
??-
L -?;
C Lfir ?S ?lL
_ ?tP RAC' ?/t?;EwnY
X30
I I 1
I
20+oO - L - ZhOd 22foo
N. C. DEPT.OF TRANSPORTATION
O ZS, 50DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
NORIZUtfTAL SCALD
d 5 /0? PROJECT. 8.2471201 (B-4100)
BRG. 0101 ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
VERTICAL SCALE RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-
ORANGE COUNTY LINE.
SHEET r OF _1_
. rn 20f 00 -L 'ZEv -
g

1Y20
iv
1 4100 BENT
M.W 5.
- - -s-
3?'0
$ r= r>
3-ao I
i
0
i
?II ?-32? 20
CAU5EwAy A
CAUSEWAY
r-- 2'-±
LLIU:i D KIP I?Ap
COFFER PA90
l00`
O 25' Sn
gORIZUk1TAL SCA-t-E
0 5Ib"
imullmakcam UE;ZT/CAL ?SGRLE
/50
200
q SA ct ?? 2v +8? = L kiFv
120 i Go-d
ql1o
y3?
I
L.
y2o
53
oo -i 11 32 Zo'
-SEN
0- A" S-6 WWI
r q. W. s. 2'{
-p A a.
? ? FCX?`r I r.1G-,
I COFFER DAM
Q 50 ??? . ? cx? ? 5? 2cx?
S1=CTtc)" B-F>
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
U 251 ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
bm%rlft
Nv? IZv?.IT???t, c PROJECT. 8.2471201 (B-2100)
0 5' BRG. 4101 ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-
VrzT1c,4L 56AL5" ORANGE COUNTY LINE.
SHEET -2- OF ?_
VOLUME AND ACREAGE OF CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW M.H.W.
CAUSEWAY A 130 CY 0.05 AC
CAUSEWAY B 180 CY 0.07 AC
TOTAL 310 CY 0.12 AC
N. C. DEPT. OF TR A NSINOIt'I A'MON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 8.2471201 (I3-2100)
BRG.9101 ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-
ORANGE COUNTY LINE.
SHEET -8- OF _?
PROPERTY OWNERS
! I ) ROBERT BYRNE
(2) WILLIAM Z. VANDE
ADDERSSES
5350 GREENSBORO-
CHAPEL HILL RD.
GRAHAM, N.C. 27253
P.O. BOX 30700
RALEIGH, N.C. 27622
(3) ROY EDWARDS RT. I BOX 208
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 27514
(4) HOWARD CRAWFORD
RT.IBOX 220
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 27514

STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TP ANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
_ay - , ?? ?=t
Di _r _ -- t E:i7?i ne e-- r
+1 s t:i g , -r. r
P 0. P ---
' ii :iii.=t' ::n-. D-Jna, ns,_" 12
n
?
7'e _ __ .

MAY 61994
WE LANC-S GF-OLIa
!.3J,,ATER .t;
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
T. al ei_z Ji
l J ?
3'r-dge No. 101 C Ve- tl<e Hai"i OT __. 10-10-1;
T._.P. No. 3 -2y0 State- rojec xi 7';
R'h2 anOVe _e`ere.iced p_oject was processed as a
Crate'^Jrica.! Exclusion; which was approved by the U. S. 1+'-`_r'_:1y
Orps of E,gineers on January 8, 1993. Construction of this
nr d ;& will require no ,ermanent fill in wetlands. However ,
su'osequent design studies have indicated the need for
lacelIient tcao -eI pcrari, roc}: catseinrays in the ---w Piv-r
during construction. These causeways will be necessary ,o
provide ac--ess for c;Dllstruction equipICl nt to place zwc be-ts
=n the river. The attaCihed cross-sect-ion and overhe-d
1 -4 Z:
raze the loCati on and d meih'.i` on o. the two
uraw-; ngs i 1 lu;
proposed causeways in r._alation to the bridge. Placement
these causeways will require temporary fill of a total of 310
cubic yards of Class II rip rap in 0.12 acre below ordinary
high water. T,i1 rip rap used for these causeways will be
removed after construction is completed. -
NCDCT does hot anticipate any permanent impacts to the
Haw River as a result of the proposed modification. Please
review this material and inform us of any concerns you may
have regarding the proposed causeways. By copy of this
letter, we are also requesting that the N.C. Division of
Environmental Management inform us of their concerns
regarding impacts to water quality.
«"
i

As t' 14 an

Vv Zj
1: c a r,
JIII-
APPLICATION FOR DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY PERMIT OMB APPROVAL NO. 0710-0003
(33 CFR 325) Expires 30 September 1992
Act reporting burden for this collection of information is estimated to average 5 hours per response for the majority of cases, including the time for reviewing instructions,
cuing existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the collection of information. Applications for larger or more complex
-i-.ts, or two in ecologically sensitive areas, could take up to 500 hours. Send comments regarding this burden estimate or any other aspect of this collection of information,
,,ding suggestions for reducing this burden, to Department of Defense, Washington Headquarters Service, Directorate for Information Operations and Projects, 121S Jefferson
.is Highway, Suite 1204, Arlington, VA 22202-4302; and to the Office of Management and Budget. Paperwork Reduction Project (07104003), Washington, DC 20503. Please
NOT RETURN your completed form to either of these addresses. Completed application must be submitted to the District Engineer having Jud"Ictlon over the
atlon of the proposed activity.
a Department of the Army permit program is authorized by Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, Section 404 of the Clean Water Act and Section 103 of the Marine,
section, Research and Sanctuaries Act These laws require permits authorizing activities in or affecting navigable waters of the United States, the discharge of dredged or fill
aerial into waters of the United States, and the transportation of dredged material for the purpose of dumping it into ocean waters. Information provided on this forth will be used
zvaluating the application for a permit Information in this application is made a matter of public record through issuance of a public notice. Disclosure of the information
;nested is voluntary; however, the data requested are necessary in order to communicate with the applicant and to evaluate the permit application. If necessary information is
t provided, the permit app6cadon cannot be processed nor can a permit be Issued.
9 set of original drawings or good reproducible copies which show the location and character of the proposed activity must be attached to this application (see sample drawings
d instructions) and be submitted to the District Engineer having jurisdiction over the location of the proposed activity. An application that is not completed in full will be returned.
APPLICATION NUMBER (To be assigned by Corps) 3. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TITLE OF AUTHORIZED AGENT
Telephone no. during business hours

NAME AND ADDRESS OF APPLICANT
NCDOT A/C ( ) (Residence)
P . E .
0' Quinn
ATTN : Mr
B
J °? ( ) (Office)
,
.
.
.
Planning and Environmental Branch Statement of Authorization: I hereby designate and authorize
P. 0. Box 25201, Raleigh, NC 27611 to act in my
'etephone no. during business hours behalf as my agent in the processing of this permit application and to furnish,
upon request, supplemental information in support of the application.
A/C ( (Residence) SIG E OF APP DATE
A/C( 91? 733-3141 (Office) 5 3 9
`ETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED ACTIVITY '
ACTIVITY
See Attached Permit Drawings

PURPOSE
See Attached Permit Drawings
z. DISCHARGE OF DREDGED OR FILL MATERIAL
See Attached Permit Drawings -
FORM tL'AQS_ Spin q1 513MON OF JAN 91 is OBSOLM (Prow: CECW-0R)
'eS - 1661 :90M Bulluud luewweAoe -s-n.
(S?EP JWWOd ON3 /O esieAGH)
tgoq jo 'sie" eAq veyl wotu lou Peuosudw! )O 000'0L$ LIMA e)Ow lou peug eq Heys 'Ailue jO luewelels luelnpne4
jo sno!lnoq rile) Aue uleluoa of ewes BulMouli luewnoop jo 6unpm eslel due sasn 1o seNew jo suoneluaseida) )o sluewelels
3ualnP??l 1o snorl?lag 'eSiel Aue sellew jo toel leuelew a e0utep )o 'aweyos ')p
.4 Aue Aq do sxmw jo 'sMeouoo 'satpslel AI{n11HM pUe dl6ut??ouil
salelS Pei!un eyl to ?ue6e )o lusu)aJedap due to uono!psunf idyl ulyllrrt )suuew due ul ')enaoyjy? geyi seplAaad L00L uo.s '?'S'n 8L
•pouais pue ino paOy uaeq sey E >laojq u( juamejejs atp p juaae pezuotpne
djnp a dq pauars aq deal jr jo ()uegydde)14!A oe pesodoid atp altej spun of saitsep oyM uosied eW dq pauars aq I==[OU ayj
3LyO 1N3?JV d0 3aruyN?J!s / UVQ I 1.NV0 VS
•lueo!Idde ey1 to 1ua6e pezuoyine Alnp sy1 se 6u!loe we 1 to se!1!Altoe pesodoid eyl e4eltepun
0l A1!1o4lne e41 ssessod 1 1941 N!ijao je4linl 1 •alelnme pue 'aleldwoo 'enil so uo!lewiolu! dons 1e!leq pue a6pelMotq Aw to lseq 941 o11941 pue 'uo!1eo11dde
841 ul pau!elu00 u011ewIolu! 841 411M ie!lnuel we 11041 A4!1)00 1 •u!eiey peq!josep se!i!A!ioe e41 emoyine of sl!wjed jo ilwied it +ol epew Ageiey so uo!t9a!IddV '0L
d/N
IVIN3O d0 3LV0 IVAOUddV 30 31VO NOLLVOIIddV d0 3LV0 'ON NOLLVOI-LLN301 IVAOdddV 3dKL AON39V VNinssl
uaieo!ldde s!41 u! peq!rlsap S8111Anoe
ieylo io sa6je4os!p 'uo!ionilsuoo 'sainionlls Aue col sepuede leaol 10 elels 'alelsrelu! 'Im"l 18410 wal peA!eoel sle!uep pue su011e3114Jeo i0 sleAOldde Ile isn -g
•s6u!MeJp idyl 1,10 V0m 6u!lsnc8 8418t90!Pul 'P9lelduim seM A4!A!loe 941 jeBA pug yluow %voseei 8A!6 seA, so ieMsue 11
ON C S3A ? 4e1e1dwo0 Mou 146nos so ualenioyine 40!4m jol Al!A!toe e4l to uo!uod Aue sl 1e
misou3A0 NoLLOIOSRinf H11M Awe `JNINEGAOEJ IVOOI
3000 dIZ 31V1S kwnoO
ON euTj AqunoO abue.z0/eoueweTV
r' NOLLVO013ALLdiuos 0 u33Hio do 31no1d 'ovoid 1133ELLS
A
O3SOdOUd SI k10 S1SDS AIWMV 3U3HM ONVI NO NOLLVOOI 'L
9001 JS uo TOt *ON 96pzs8 eoeTdaa `.X9AT8 MeH
03SOdOtld SI HO S1SIX3 AUALLOV 3U3HM AO08H31VM NO NOLLVOOI ONV AOOSH3IVM
s6uTmesO 4TWJad p840eT4V aaS
AVMH3.LVM 3H1 SNIOPOV OSIV A U3dOHd 3SOHM " 013 'S33SS31 'SU3NMO MIMc OHd EJNINIOPOV d0 s3SS3ti0OV ONv S3nvN 'S
•S .1958 PROJECT .6 1958 Whit* '
3 7 .6
?
1.7 .1952
t
1957
1959 1951
"- OR 1952
2174 - - . r 4
1953
i. - C466ord -Ch. 2028 1
C0
llin5 1 2T 1 ..
t 005 Fi?$ ),Z.:: ?. 0 2030 1
1 1.2 .9 -
2.179 2 FAS 1005
2180
1955 951 r
45 h
1.0 1954 1
..':... '
2340 2181. ".'
ham 11.3 2'182 .2 _
1. 2341 •5
2342 210,4 2102 H A T H A.a . M
?
.? fi, _ o =NOT TO SCALE
-ermanto+ 2 1 ca =--- 1 / tork Milfs lam, `\?
__S_ 5 ?d le \ .d """ " /• Wy07a spur Matklns _ 11 1 Prostjl s Gordonton Is ?:` MoriaR
Rur I Hail 1 < Bete Osced 1Carr ] - - 6 _ Ro`ugemon
7 1 Creek Zj 1t' l t Hwluror. i 5 1
StanS?r?d a 158 ( 5 Su =,v f'. d- ro..ns - S Rex. Union
1 ( Surnmrta JMon icello 10 Ridge 3 86 Caldwell I `\ .a;
s 65 311 v,/ ll H n IRdle 1 dQ ? v! ?'?' I (Itamana 62 10 17 '57 eanama Lou i)ee y Sr ?? G e ti /I i? C• R I dl Gten / I I Groff r
;d m 5 ScnleY 1 'r . 501 '? rM 31
it 1 ? erne srillel o` .oarx c l " „? r+s Elon ven _ Bar Ingtgn I o 15 Id s' t
CBI 1 1 7 C7 t r)r, . ` C ??o?'u 'y/MC,ypnsvill? 1 sonvi olleH , O lw ?IVe10 McOa ! Ellaal t + c.o a??` I a It
i a' 1 / * 1 0 Sedalia . f a 3 h. 'lI orb 9. 1?+?s
FI / a ?Y?7 -
t r3'' i 2 311 '? s 1:VI Y/hitseb :? . ®lt9 7
i" sa _ s 4` o? z + ® Alams nc raIt 11111 OR A E ? ' e.n eir D
:mmons Tmg.'? or en$boro 1 fr s a le f - - ?rr.r. 1st .
?.i d I ?re?w ,/- - 81 _-' S! 1 I 1. 2 5 : i
:adia 9 52. Hig O'nt say ?5 2 Ple .rant Garden d I A LA M A N fa r „ apel ill
9 rdwar I 2 70 _
8 9 e e\pPA 2 Klmesville /la t rbor0; 9
.tn,m. 1 6a . ? 1 ?-..., 5 F.7 u.., i
?' Ibmna?riiln 111ii1n1 dAlr ?.' tliu••• !.r T/f lnrr rr.....•......? r Lr/4i•Q 1 art /
* nu•• A\ / /'1 • nnw 1. 14ur.••'.•r° 1 nwiis r
r•?? tra ?.~. \/?16?1i1 i1.,••n.V , it..rll ii.• T , f'? .I _/..iAr 1 •. I.. r. •/// ?` \?'
5-le of Mlliia ??)G 1 ihi•? 1• f 1 _ - - - . 91
0 S 10 20. 30 sndlerns PROJ ea
ECT / a Mornswll
/vtnvdi! ray rutcnlreld X rds 81 Village lageo y
0 10 20 30 40 48 a 9 " TL ilk Ho oe p Farnngt
I ScaloofKilomet+rse P I?H la 1i 15 / ?If L°;v;:, .S1
........ N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
VICINITY DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
M n n ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
!7 C" PROJECT: 8.2471201 (B-2100)
BRG. 0101 ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-
ORANGE COUNTY- LINE.
SHEET -I- OF _q_
20 ? ? IA
I
- LJ
1
4
CD,
Ld ?-
G-
x
w
10 I I

E C°
?p
c
ry
.
As

(?1 Q ? Q 3

-
--- -, v IIJ
v VI

i I

a
w
?ry
a
3
t •
I I t,V I
LLJ
,u
N
J
J

UN
J
in
_Ln ,
N
0

2q C3 I ' ??
zlo.
x i
w
wQ
>
(PC a -
OMN Q.
A
/J I
21 PQ
I I
I
pie
M ATCH
i
I
w a i ?
3. ? v
I N_
I
t,
? w
ILn
C\j
NCE
LAW
0
`` :2 ° a
w
v Q
00
_1.568
/0
PROP. GRADE
- ?ExisT ?.7RADE
? ? ? I I 1
s I I
' I
G. ? 1 I I I
.. I I
\ I I
1390
sea
I
/7+U0 -?-
0 25" 5o
HORI 0077AL. SCAL E
O 5, l0,
VERT/CA` SCALE
/8 t CCU /9? UO
I - 1 1 i.
PROP 67ZAC r- 22 7o
Lqao L Y,15T. GRADE
--r- -? ----r- -- i -- -7- J
y2o I , I I i ( \
I EEMT *3 I I I
yiv I I BEST ?+
L
? I I I ?
yvo . I I
Cf_<iSS ITIP RAt' ?nu?EV??nY
O
1
20?UV - L - 2hoo 22foo
0 ZS' 50"
HORIZOMTAL. SCALE
d 5' lo'
VERTICAL SCALE

? I ? 5TA 20 i00 -L ZEv-
ni*L-
-Y!W
q-3 Q --,
I20
I iv
qUO BENT ?`
N.W 5.
3?i o --
?o I
0
C.L./?JJ ? ?IP IRAN
COFFER TaM
I I
/0
J' ECTION A - A
O 25 50
I' ;I NORIZOdTAL 5C- F-
0 5 ' 1 O'
UEZT/CAL 5C-ALE
1
/50
I _
Zoo
CAU,5G:WAY A
Il3Z ZD,
CAUSEWAY
I q SrA ?t ?rx? 2v +8(0 = L ?EV
20? 80-?
q
y3?
y2o
C CRU5CWay -2
53
,Voa SENT ?{ it 3 2 2o'
1q. W. 5.- 1
A e.
C fau S£ W? y
2 ?+

BAD '
TIP
? ? ?Gx3T I tiIG,
C-vFFC-R DAM
Q 50 ?? . I as 150` Zvo
SECTION }????
O 25' So'
Nv? izv?? r,?? ?x?
o 5 lo"
U?QT/GfJL SG/?L?? ._
VOLUME AND ACREAGE OF CLASS II RIP RAP BELOW M.H.W.
CAUSEWAY A 130 CY 0.05 AC
CAUSEWAY B 180 CY 0.07 AC
TOTAL 310 CY 0.12 AC
N. c. 1) u)-r c)1, '1'lt A NStrOWPA'1'lON
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 8.2671201 (B-2100)
BRG. u101* ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE A_LAMANCE-
ORANGE COUNT'- LINE.
SHEET -8- OF _?
PROPERTY OWNERS
ADDERSSES
III ) ROBERT BYRNE
(2) WILLIAM Z. VANDE
5350 GREENSBORO-
CHAPEL HILL RD.
GRAHAM, N.C. 27253
P.O. BOX 30700
RALEIGH, N.C. 27622
3) ROY EDWARDS RT. I BOX 208
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 27514
(4) HOWARD CRAWFORD
RT.IBOX 220
CHAPEL HILL, N.C. 27514
N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
ALAMANCE-ORANGE COUNTIES
PROJECT: 8.2471201 (B-2100)
13RG. 9101 ON SR 1005 OVER HAW
RIVER AT THE ALAMANCE-_
ORANGE COUNTY. .LINE.
SHEET -9- OF -9-
STATE
ti
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
P.O. BOX 25201
RALEIGH 27611-5201
JAMES G. MARTIN
GOVERNOR
THOMAS J. HARRELSON
SECRETARY
October 14, 1992
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. 0. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
WILLIAM G. MARLEY, JR., P.E.
STATE HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATOR
Subject: Replacement of Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 over Haw River,
Alamance-Orange Counties, B-2100, State Project 8.2471201,
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for
the subject project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway
Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with
23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an
individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C)
of these regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We do not anticipate that a permit will be required from the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources for this project.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please call me at
733-3141.
Sincerely,
L. J. ard44, Manager
LJW/plr Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
cc: Mr. John Parker, Permit Coordinator, w/report
Mr. John Dorney, Environmental Management, w/report
Mr. C. W. Leggett, P. E.
Mr. J. T. Peacock, Jr., P. E.
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Jr., P. E.
Mr. John Watkins, P. E.
An Equal Opportunity /Affirmative Action Employer
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2411201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100
I.
Y
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
f. APPROVED:
0
9 /7
ATE J.. Ward, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
19/zs/ 7Z
c 2, ? 9 ?_
DATE is s Graf, P. E.
ra4ivision Administrator, FHWA
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
Ju a A. Hunkins, E.
P Ject Planning Engineer - Er' c _
184916
ft?fflitf`1'f,
Wayne liott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100
Bridge No. 101 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
a Federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 101 should be replaced on new location approximately 40
feet south (downstream) of its present location as shown by Alternate 2 in
Figure 3.
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long and
32 feet wide. This structure width will consist of a 24-foot travelway
with 4-foot shoulders. Four-foot shoulders and a bicycle-safe rail will
be provided on the new bridge to accommodate bicyclists.
Approximately 1500 feet of new approach roadway will be needed to
transition the replacement structure into the existing roadway. The new
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot minimum
shoulders. Two feet of the shoulder width will be paved to accommodate
bicyclists. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 1,843,000. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $ 15525,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No wetlands will be disrupted by this
project. Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize impacts
of construction activities.
If the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determines that an
intensive archaeological survey be conducted for this project, the survey
will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1005 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal Aid Secondary
System (FAS-4609).
2
The project is located in a rural part of Alamance and Orange
Counties, approximately three miles east of Eli Whitney. The project area
is rural with scattered residential development. Two homes are located in
the immediate project area. One house is located on the northwest
quadrant of the project (see Figure 3), and a mobile home has been placed
recently on the northeast quadrant (not pictured).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1005 has a 20-foot pavement with
5-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). Horizontal alignment is fair in the
immediate vicinity of the bridge. The existing curves on both approaches
to Bridge No. 101 have a degree of curvature of about 2.5 degrees; chevron
alignment signs are posted on these curves. The existing bridge is
tangent. Vertical alignment is poor through the project area; the roadway
slopes downward moderately on both approaches to the bridge.
The speed limit on SR 1005 is statutory 55 MPH.
Utilities in the immediate project area consist of a three phase
electrical distribution line along the south side of the existing
structure. There is also an abandoned underground telephone cable south
of the existing bridge.
The current traffic volume of 1500 VPD is expected to increase to
3000 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 29-. truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
This portion of SR 1005 is part of the NC 2 Mountains-to-Sea
Bicycling Highway which runs from Murphy to Manteo across the state.
The existing bridge (see Figure 2) was constructed in 1947. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete end bents; some piers
consist of reinforced concrete caps with timber piles and others consist
of reinforced concrete posts and beams.
The overall length is 523 feet. Clear roadway width is 20.2 feet.
The posted weight limit is 10 tons for single vehicles and 12 tons for
trucks with trailers. Narrow bridge warning signs are posted on both
approaches to the structure.
Bridge No. 101 has a sufficiency rating of 10.3 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
y One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 101 during
the period from July, 1988 to June, 1991. The accident involved a vehicle
hitting a deer.
Four school buses cross over this bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 101 were studied. These
alternates are shown in Figure 3. Each alternate involves a new
replacement structure which consists of a bridge 540 feet long and 32 feet
wide. The recommended structure width will accommodate a 24-foot
3
travelway with four feet of lateral clearance on each side. The 4-foot
shoulders on the structure satisfy AASHTO standards for bicycle safety.
The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot
minimum shoulders. Two feet of the shoulder width will be paved to
accommodate bicyclists.
In each alternate studied, it was assumed traffic would be maintained
on-site during the construction period due to the high traffic volume and
the lack of a suitable detour route.
The alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replacement on new location about 40 feet north of the
existing structure. Approximately 1900 feet of new
approach roadway would be needed to replace the bridge at
this location. Based on preliminary design, the horizontal
alignment would provide a design speed of about 60 MPH;
however, due to vertical alignment constraints, a design
speed of about 35 MPH would be provided. Based on this
information, a design exception would be required during
design.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - Replacement on new location about 40 feet
south of its present location. About 1500 feet of new
approach roadway would be required for this alternate.
Based on preliminary design, the horizontal alignment will
provide a design speed of about 55 MPH; however, due to
vertical alignment constraints, a design speed of about 40
MPH will be provided. Based on this information, a design
exception will be required during design.
An alternate which replaces the bridge at its existing location and
would provide a temporary on-site detour to maintain traffic during the
construction period was given cursory consideration. This alternate was
rejected due to the excessive cost of the on-site detour structure and
because this alternate offered no apparent advantages.
The "do nothing" and "rehabilitation" alternatives were also
evaluated. The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1005. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible
due to its age and deteriorated condition.
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternates studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $ 884,000 $ 884,000
Roadway Approaches 629,000 595,000
Detour Structure & Approaches -- --
Structure Removal 58,000 58,000
Engineering & Contingencies 230,000 231,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 135,000 75,000
Total $ 19936,000 $ 1,843,000
VI. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
1 41
Bridge No. 101 should be replaced approximately 40 feet south
(downstream) of its present location, as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 3.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during the construction
period. The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long
and 32 feet wide. The recommended structure width will accommodate a
24-foot travelway with four feet of lateral clearance on each side. The
recommended 4-foot shoulders on the structure, per request of the Bicycle
Unit, satisfy AASHTO standards for bicycle safety. A bicycle-safe rail
will also be provided on the new bridge.
The relocation of the bridge will require construction of about 1500
feet of new approach roadway. The recommended typical section consists of
a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot minimum shoulders. Two feet of the
shoulder width will be paved to accommodate bicyclists.
Based on preliminary design, the horizontal alignment will provide a
design speed of about 55 MPH; however, due to vertical alignment
constraints, a design speed of about 40 MPH will be provided. Based on
this information, a design exception will be required during design.
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long,
located immediately downstream of the existing bridge. It is also
recommended that the new bridge be built on a vertical grade to ensure
positive drainage for the bridge deck. The structure dimensions may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
5
Replacement of the bridge south of its present location, as
represented by Recommended Alternate 2, is preferred since it costs
$93,000 less than Alternate 1. Furthermore, Alternate 2 results in less
impact to the homes located on the north side of the project, and
Alternate 2 will provide a higher design speed than Alternate 1. The
division engineer concurs with the recommended alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not
the quality of the human or natural
NCDOT standards and specifications.
have a significant adverse effect on
environment with the use of current
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
There are no Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) resources located in the
project area.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during a scoping meeting on
September 10, 1991 during which it was determined that there are no
buildings over 50 years old located within the Area of Potential Effect
(APE). Bridge No. 101 was built in 1947 and is not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO will be given the opportunity to review the archaeological
aspects of the project to determine whether an intensive survey should be
undertaken. Early coordination with the SHPO indicates there are several
archaeological sites within the general project area. The closest
recorded site (310R238) dates from the Archaic period. If the SHPO
determines that an intensive survey is needed, the survey will be
completed prior to construction.
The project corridor, which is primarily wooded, consists of three
predominant vegetative communities. The roadside community is composed of
tall fescue (Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium sp.) and wild
onion (Allium sp.).
6
The bottomland hardwood forest community canopy/subcanopy is composed
of river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus Occidentalis), box elder
(Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and black
walnut (Juglans ni ra). A vine/herbaceous layer, made up of Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Cam psis
radicans) and members of the family Poaceae, covers the floor of the
forest.
The mixed pine-hardwood forest community canopy/subcanopy is composed
of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), scrub pine
ba),
(P. virginiana), beech (Fa us grandifolia), white oak ( uercus al
willow oak ( uercus p hellos , oaks ( uercus sp.), hickories (Carya sp.),
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), river birch, tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Li uidambar styraciflua),
and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The shrub/vine/herbaceous layer
includes roses (Rosa sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, heartleaf
(Hexastylis sp.) and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Construction of the subject project will result in the loss of
existing roadside habitat along SR 1005 and creation of new roadside
habitat along the new road shoulders. Portions of bottomland hardwood and
mixed pine-hardwood forest communities will be removed by construction of
this project.
Approximate impacts to the plant communities in the project area are
as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Roadside 0.8 acres 0.6 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 1.0 0.7
Mixed pine-hardwood forest 1.6 0.3
TOTAL 3.4 acres 1.6 acres
Amphibian species likely to be found in the area include spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), northern dusky salamander (Desmo nathus
fuscus), two lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), American toad
(Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog
(Rana palustris).
Characteristic reptiles likely to occur in the area include snapping
),
turtle (Chelydra ser entina), painted turtle (Chrysemys jS
yellowbelly slider Chrysemys scri ta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), ground skink
(Scincella lateralis), worm snake (Carphophis amoenus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), eastern hognose snake
(Heterodon platyrhinos), northern water snake erodia sipedon), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Birds common in the vicinity of the project include wood duck (Aix
sponsa), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern
phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis), Carolina wren (TT ryotiorus ludovicianus),
ruby-crowned kinglet (Regulus calendula), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), red- eyed verio (Verio olivaceus), prothonotary
warbler (Proton iart iart a citrea), black-and-white warbler (Mniotilta varia),
yellow-rumped warbler (Den?roica coronata), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus
motacilla), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), summer tanager
(Piran a rubra) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Mammals, such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris
noctivagans), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), Norway rat (Rattua norvegicus), red
fox (Vulpes vul es), raccoon (Procyon lot or), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), are likely common inhabitants of the area.
Fish likely to occur in the Haw River include largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white
crappie (Pomoxis annularis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear
sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), warmouth (Lepomis ug losus), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black
bullhead (Ameiurus melas), chain pickerel (Esox niger), bowfin (Amia
calva) and gizzard shad (Dorosoma cepedianum).
The Haw River is the only water resource located in the project area
and is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Channel width in the study area
averages approximately 90 feet and depth ranges from 6 inches to over
6 feet. This river flows from the northwest above Burlington southeast
through the project study area and into B. Everett Jordan Lake in Chatham
County. The river channel is dotted with boulders, and its bottom is
covered by silt, clay and sandy sediments. River banks at the project
study site are steep.
The Haw River has a best usage classification of C. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters designated as WS-1
or WS-11 will be impacted by the proposed project, nor are these resources
located within 1 mile of the subject area.
8
Potential impacts to Haw River from project construction could affect
the aquatic environment due to increased sedimentation from construction-
related erosion. This impact, however, is viewed as temporary. Strict
enforcement of sedimentation control measures and Best Management
Practices will be observed to minimize impacts.
Anticipated impacts are categorized as bank-to-bank waters of the
United States and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and are likely to be authorized by provisions of
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23.
The soil found in the study area is classified as Georgeville-Herndon
association. This association is characterized by gently sloping and
sloping, well-drained soils that have a surface layer of silt loam and a
subsoil of clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam and clay found on
uplands. The soils located along the project alignment are
Chewacla loam (Ch) and Mixed alluvial land (Md).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. No federally protected species are currently listed
for Alamance County. The federally protected species listed for Orange
County as of March 16, 1992, are: red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides
borealis), Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii), and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata). No impacts to federally protected species will
occur. Although suitable habitat exists in the study area for several
federal candidate and state protected species, no surveys were conducted
for these species.
The red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally endangered species, is found
in scattered locations throughout the southeast. Nesting habitat is made
up of open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood
stands, (50 percent or more pine). The proposed project will not impact
suitable nesting or feeding habitat for this species; therefore, it is
concluded that the subject project will not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Michaux's sumac, an endangered plant, is currently known from only 17
locations, 16 of which are in North Carolina. The species usually occurs
on sandy or rocky soils in open woodlands and clearings and appears to be
dependent upon some form of disturbance to maintain the open condition.
Suitable habitat for this species does occur within the project area. This
species has recognizable field characteristics year-round, thus searches
for this plant are not limited to it's flowering period. A detailed
survey for this plant was conducted on May 4, 1992. Areas of suitable
habitat, along the existing roadway shoulders, were searched visually on a
plant by plant basis. No individuals of this species were found within
the project area during the search; therefore, it is concluded that the
project will not impact this species.
9
The project area also contains suitable habitat for the smooth
coneflower, a federally proposed endangered species, which flowers from
May through July. A detailed survey for this species was also conducted
on May 4, 1992. No individuals of this species were found in the project
area; therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project will not impact
the smooth coneflower.
The following candidate species may occur in the area: Atlantic
pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni Savannah lilliput mussel (Toxolasma
ulla nestronia (Nestronia umbellula), and a liverwort (Plagiochila
columbiana). Candidate species are species which are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. (The species listed above are listed
for Orange County; no Federal Candidate species are listed for Alamance
County.)
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs records
failed to turn up any records of occurrence of state- protected species in
the study area. The following federal candidate species, however, are
also protected by North Carolina state law: Atlantic pigtoe mussel
Fudconaia masoni , Savannah lilliput mussel (Toxolasma ullus , Diana
fritillary butterfly S e eria diana and nestronia (Nestronia umbellula).
Coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) indicates
Alternate 1 will impact approximately 2.3 acres of statewide important
farmland soils and Recommended Alternate 2 will impact about 1.5 acres of
prime farmland soils. The Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, was completed for both alternatives (see Attachment 1). The SCS
indicates that the relative value of the farmland which would be converted
by Alternate 1 has a moderate relative value of 51 on a 100-point scale,
while Recommended Alternate 2 was assigned the highest relative value of
100 on the same scale. The total site assessment for Alternate 1 is 81
points on a 260-point scale. Recommended Alternate 2 received a rating of
130 points on the same scale. If a site rating is 160 points or more,
mitigation of the impacts to farmland soils should be considered. As the
rating for the recommended alternate is well below the 160-point
threshold, no mitigation is being considered for this project.
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont and Eastern
Piedmont Air Quality Regions. The ambient air quality for Alamance County
and Orange County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in
an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770
do not apply to this project.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. There-
fore, the impact on noise levels and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accor-
dance with applicable local and laws and regulations of the North Carolina
State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the noise and air quality assessment
requirements of 23 CFR 770 and 772, and no additional reports are
required.
10
Both Alamance and Orange Counties are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in
the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to
be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JH/jh
i
O a?

I r t .

r
_
8 s
e ?-

( E^°R W GO 46 a?,l

V
7 - I
C Q
Y '
•

O ^ RIO

c
CC
?
I ?
( N • •
°D Z I

1 ?p ? ?? l 1••? Qm 1 •

1
•
•
e

w
Q a
d d
Z m
W O LL

U] Q Z!9
A ¢ (Oj N W
2 >
OOMO
0
?+ Q ?•
=
Z
?zOzV
? 16?
W
?uj >
Z
O
d
¢ 8 o
Z F
.C9 It1. ? a m
v'
<1 3 W) • ?'o
o • P
O
N
W)
P ; P /
s •L , • •
6 i e cal
P +# Q
1 0
• N ` LL I
CO 1 O ?
N ?
O P
• N, ` (V
N O. V
CV /L 1 N h
< £ O ` P
•
CID ^ v^j o
P • N Sl
P
LO N
P
' - r b
P • • -le
h
N • P ` cor.
P U g' • O -
J
I
N ! h P A N I C V
P 6
a
? 1.3 o b - ?
C `• •D ?.. 1 O co O N'
?o o m 8 N cr E AS b
N I
0. CN Cc,
3 N O <° O N` GPS 6 C4
N O t 5

,Q
P v
?' V •?• O N

N A 0
c`?
lv

N •4
N t N R ?,.
K n ?? FPS
N
P

r

N /
N W)l
o, L
o

:

a?olli

S 3
-
N

co
C1
V
N

w ?L

I , o
7 A CN

A N
v
N y
y
c^. I
2

?PS N MI I

N

O o (n
N N
10
X

nl
O U
D
I
V
,-
`?' ' U

v l

C
z ri .
V
.8 to
I L
6' T r c
o. v 'o
0 N
A ?
N I

7 ? .f
B-2100
ALAMANCE /
ORANGE COUNTIES
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1005
FROM BRIDGE NO 101
LOOKING WEST
ON SR 1005
FROM BRIDGE NO. 101
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
FROM BRIDGE NO. 101
FIGURE 2
D
t

.. . ?' •,F??'? ?? ?? ?? ? 4.25
45
4Z4 C
BRIDGE NO. 101 '
f ?.
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
0-\ 7 ?ZZ
'} , c : Eta A k a2I
?-
0
I
FIGURE 4
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
Oate Of Land Evaluaton rieouest \\G?C?a
`\ \
RT 1176 be comoleted by seders/ Agency!
Federal Agency Involved
Name Of Project .?„ )c>
County And State
`
? CO c-
c-
OC ar
Proposed land use
O ..?.. G
r\ -
oat est Rec ?8 CS
RT II (To be completed by SCSI
Yes NO

ide or local important farmland?

Rerage Farm Size
Acres Irrigated Av
%c?w%?c•? s
Does the site contain prime, unique, statew
te additional parts of this form). ?
l
0 ? L
D QQ-
FP
e
(/f no, the FPPA does nor apply - do not comp
F r le land Govt. Jurisdiction q2? 1
ov
56
'12`
; in
atined
Fa Inland
p`ayr,e t??, 2x.1t1.t e, 11'
'O CA, (0
?
c•
`
M?iorCroP/sl A ei?.
% 3
0-,C-Y%
C A 2Lg o
Oate lsnd valwaon Rtturned By SCS
-
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Aaasmant System
'M0A%I(J ONCCLM?A Q ?'s Alternative Site Raun
Site O
RT III (To be completed by Federal Agency) Site A
Site C
Site e
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirect)
C. Total Acres In Site .
ART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information '
O
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
13 D
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
d o O k 0100%
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converte
l
1
ue -1
,
D. Pementage Of Farmland In Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Va
1RT V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
verted (Scale of0to 100Points) 1j
C
B
on
e
Relative Value Of Farmland To
1RT VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
;e Assessment Criteria (These crrcaris are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(6) Points

n Nonurban Use 5
1. Areal
\p \
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use
p 'O
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
Protection Provided By State And Local Government
4
.
_
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services b
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average \
S
S. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Su ort Services O
10. On-Farm Investments a S
11. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services
12 Compatibility With Existin Agricultural Use
30
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS 160 30
MW V11 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V) 100 5 \04
°?o?al Site Assessment (From Part V1 above ora local 160 3p 30
sure assessment/
260 g 1 \3
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2lines)
was A Locsl Sita Assessment Used?
Date Of Selection
Yes ? No ?
ite Selected:
Cason For Selection:
ATTACHMENT 1
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
IN REPLY REFER TO January 8, 1993
Regulatory Branch
JA E 919M
Action ID. 199300293 and Nationwide Permit No. 23 (Approved Categorical
Exclusions)
North Carolina Department
of Transportation
Division of Highways
ATTN: Mr. L. J. Ward, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Ward:
Reference is made to your letter of October 14, 1992, concerning the
discharge of fill material into the Haw River in association with replacement
of Bridge No. 101 located on S.R. 1005, approximately 1.2 miles east of S.R.
2180, southeast of Saxapahaw, adjacent to and below the headwaters of the Haw
River, Alamance and Orange Counties, North Carolina. In that letter you
informed us that the project is being processed as a "Categorical Exclusion"
and that you intend to proceed under Nationwide Permit authorization in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 23, 1991.
For the purposes of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Regulatory Program,
Title 33, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 330.6, published in the
Federal Register on November 22, 1991, lists nationwide permits (NWP).
Authorization, pursuant to Section 10 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899
and Section 404 of the Clean Water Act, was provided for activities
undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or
in part, by another Federal agency or department where that agency or
department has determined, pursuant to the CEQ Regulation for the Implementing
the Procedural Provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act, that the
activity, work or discharge is categorically excluded from environmental
documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human
environment, and the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished
notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical
exclusion and concurs with that determination.
We concur with your determination that the proposal can be processed as a
"Categorical Exclusion," and that the work is authorized by the above
NWP provided it is accomplished in strict accordance with the enclosed
conditions. This NWP does not relieve you of the responsibility to obtain any
required State or local approval. Questions concerning Water Quality
Certification should be addressed to Mr. John Dorney, North Carolina Division
of Environmental Management, at telephone [phone].
r-4h
-2-
Questions or comments may be addressed to Ms. Jean Benton, Raleigh Field
Office, Regulatory Branch, telephone [phone].
Sincerely,
G. Wayne Wright
Chief, Regulatory Branch
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (without enclosure):
Mr. John Parker
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
"'Mr. John Dorney
Water Quality Section
Division of Environmental Management
North Carolina Department of
Environment, Health and
Natural Resources
Post Office Box 27687
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-7687
a..aSWpo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT. JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
February 11, 1993
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
SAM HUNT
SECRETARY
Subject: Alamance-Orange Counties, Bridge No. 101 on SR
1005 over Haw River, State Project No. 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609 (3) TIP No. B-2100.
Attached for your information is a copy of the project
planning report for the subject project. The project is
being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b).
Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual
permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide Permit in
accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November
22, 1991, by the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of
Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these regulations will be
followed in the construction of the project.
We-anticipate that 401 General Certification No. 2734
(Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are
providing one copy of the CE document to the North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health and Natural Resources,
Division of Environmental Management, for their review.
If you have any questions or need additional information,
please call Robin Little at 733-9770.
Sincerely,
B O`Q n
Assis ant Manager, PE
Planning and Environmental Branch

r

BJO/dlp
Attachment
cc: G. Wayne Wright, Chief Regulatory Branch
Eric Alsmeyer, Asheville Field Office
Jean Benton, Asheville Field Office
John Dorney, NC DEHNR DEM
John Parker, NC DEHNR DCM/Permit Coord.
Kelly Barger, Program Development Branch, PE
Don Morton, State Highway Engineer- Design, PE
A.L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit, PE
John L. Smith, Jr., Structure Design Unit, PE
Tom Shearin, State Roadway Design Engineer, PE
J.W. Watkins Division Engineer, PE
Julie A. Hunkins, P.E. Project Planning Engineer
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100
s
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
9 /7 .2.
ATE J.? ard, P. E., Manager
??L.
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
z
c
DATE icVhs Graf, P. E.
?a ivision Administrator, FHWA
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
September, 1992
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
/•,
*1011 1 l N ?t L / ??r?i
Y
JJAA H unkins, E. ect Planning Engineer r, c
u
J .
1&? 6
"
Wayne l i ott
Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head
Alamance-Orange Counties
Bridge No. 101 on SR 1005 Over Haw River
State Project 8.2471201
Federal-Aid Project BRS-4609(3)
T.I.P. NO. B-2100
Bridge No. 101 has been included in the Federal-Aid Bridge
Replacement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
a Federal "categorical exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 101 should be replaced on new location approximately 40
feet south (downstream) of its present location as shown by Alternate 2 in
Figure 3.
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long and
32 feet wide. This structure width will consist of a 24-foot travelway
with 4-foot shoulders. Four-foot shoulders and a bicycle-safe rail will
be provided on the new bridge to accommodate bicyclists.
Approximately 1500 feet of new approach roadway will be needed to
transition the replacement structure into the existing roadway. The new
approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot minimum
shoulders. Two feet of the shoulder width will be paved to accommodate
bicyclists. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during the
construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $ 1,843,000. The
estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1993-1999 Transportation
Improvement Program, is $ 1,525,000.
II. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts. No wetlands will be disrupted by this
project. Best Management Practices will be utilized to minimize impacts
of construction activities.
If the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determines that an
intensive archaeological survey be conducted for this project, the survey
will be completed prior to construction.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1005 is classified as a rural major collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is part of the Federal Aid Secondary
System (FAS-4609).
2
The project is located in a rural part of Alamance and Orange
Counties, approximately three miles east of Eli Whitney. The project area
is rural with scattered residential development. Two homes are located in
the immediate project area. One house is located on the northwest
quadrant of the project (see Figure 3), and a mobile home has been placed
recently on the northeast quadrant (not pictured).
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1005 has a 20-foot pavement with
5-foot shoulders (see Figure 2). Horizontal alignment is fair in the
immediate vicinity of the bridge. The existing curves on both approaches
to Bridge No. 101 have a degree of curvature of about 2.5 degrees; chevron
alignment signs are posted on these curves. The existing bridge is
tangent. Vertical alignment is poor through the project area; the roadway
slopes downward moderately on both approaches to the bridge.
The speed limit on SR 1005 is statutory 55 MPH.
Utilities in the immediate project area consist of a three phase
electrical distribution line along the south side of the existing
structure. There is also an abandoned underground telephone cable south
of the existing bridge.
The current traffic volume of 1500 VPD is expected to increase to
3000 VPD by the year 2015. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-tired vehicles (DTT).
This portion of SR 1005 is part of the NC 2 Mountains-to-Sea
Bicycling Highway which runs from Murphy to Manteo across the state.
The existing bridge (see Figure 2) was constructed in 1947. The
superstructure consists of a reinforced concrete deck on I-beams. The
substructure is composed of reinforced concrete end bents; some piers
consist of reinforced concrete caps with timber piles and others consist
of reinforced concrete posts and beams.
The overall length is 523 feet. Clear roadway width is 20.2 feet.
The posted weight limit is 10 tons for single vehicles and 12 tons for
trucks with trailers. Narrow bridge warning signs are posted on both
approaches to the structure.
Bridge No. 101 has a sufficiency rating of 10.3 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure.
One accident was reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 101 during
the period from July, 1988 to June, 1991. The accident involved a vehicle
hitting a deer.
Four school buses cross over this bridge daily.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Two methods of replacing Bridge No. 101 were studied. These
alternates are shown in Figure 3. Each alternate involves a new
replacement structure which consists of a bridge 540 feet long and 32 feet
wide. The recommended structure width will accommodate a 24-foot
3
travelway with four feet of lateral clearance on each side. The 4-foot
shoulders on the structure satisfy AASHTO standards for bicycle safety.
The approach roadway will consist of a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot
minimum shoulders. Two feet of the shoulder width will be paved to
accommodate bicyclists.
In each alternate studied, it was assumed traffic would be maintained
on-site during the construction period due to the high traffic volume and
the lack of a suitable detour route.
The alternates studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replacement on new location about 40 feet north of the
existing structure. Approximately 1900 feet of new
approach roadway would be needed to replace the bridge at
this location. Based on preliminary design, the horizontal
alignment would provide a design speed of about 60 MPH;
however, due to vertical alignment constraints, a design
speed of about 35 MPH would be provided. Based on this
information, a design exception would be required during
design.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - Replacement on new location about 40 feet
south of its present location. About 1500 feet of new
approach roadway would be required for this alternate.
Based on preliminary design, the horizontal alignment will
provide a design speed of about 55 MPH; however, due to
vertical alignment constraints, a design speed of about 40
MPH will be provided. Based on this information, a design
exception will be required during design.
An alternate which replaces the bridge at its existing location and
would provide a temporary on-site detour to maintain traffic during the
construction period was given cursory consideration. This alternate was
rejected due to the excessive cost of the on-site detour structure and
because this alternate offered no apparent advantages.
The "do nothing" and "rehabilitation" alternatives were also
evaluated. The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate
closure of the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service
provided by SR 1005. "Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible
due to its age and deteriorated condition.
Y
4
V. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated cost of the alternates studied are as follows:

Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Structure $ 884,000 $ 884,000
Roadway Approaches 6299000 595,000
Detour Structure & Approaches -- --
Structure Removal 58,000 58,000
Engineering & Contingencies 230,000 231,000
Right-of-Way, Utilities 135,000 75,000
Total $ 1,936,000 $ 1,843,000
V1. DISCUSSION OF RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 101 should be replaced approximately 40 feet south
(downstream) of its present location, as shown by Alternate 2 in Figure 3.
Traffic is to be maintained on the existing bridge during the construction
period. The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long
and 32 feet wide. The recommended structure width will accommodate a
24-foot travelway with four feet of lateral clearance on each side. The
recommended 4-foot shoulders on the structure, per request of the Bicycle
Unit, satisfy AASHTO standards for bicycle safety. A bicycle-safe rail
will also be provided on the new bridge.
The relocation of the bridge will require construction of about 1500
feet of new approach roadway. The recommended typical section consists of
a 24-foot travelway with 8-foot minimum shoulders. Two feet of the
shoulder width will be paved to accommodate bicyclists.
Based on preliminary design, the horizontal alignment will provide a
design speed of about 55 MPH; however, due to vertical alignment
constraints, a design speed of about 40 MPH will be provided. Based on
this information, a design exception will be required during design.
The recommended replacement structure is a bridge 540 feet long,
located immediately downstream of the existing bridge. It is also
recommended that the new bridge be built on a vertical grade to ensure
positive drainage for the bridge deck. The structure dimensions may be
increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
5
Replacement of the bridge south of its present location, as
represented by Recommended Alternate 2, is preferred since it costs
$93,000 less than Alternate 1. Furthermore, Alternate 2 results in less
impact to the homes located on the north side of the project, and
Alternate 2 will provide a higher design speed than Alternate 1. The
division engineer concurs with the recommended alternate.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact.
Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic
operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "categorical exclusion" due
to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a significant adverse effect on
the quality of the human or natural environment with the use of current
NCDOT standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or
zoning regulation. No significant change in land use is expected to
result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No significant adverse effect on public facilities or services is
expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social,
economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no Section 4(f) (49 U.S.C. 303) resources located in the
project area.
Pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.4, the North Carolina State Historic
Preservation Office (SHPO) was consulted during a scoping meeting on
September 10, 1991 during which it was determined that there are no
buildings over 50 years old located within the Area of Potential Effect
(APE). Bridge No. 101 was built in 1947 and is not eligible for inclusion
in the National Register of Historic Places.
The SHPO will be given the opportunity to review the archaeological
aspects of the project to determine whether an intensive survey should be
undertaken. Early coordination with the SHPO indicates there are several
archaeological sites within the general project area. The closest
recorded site (310R238) dates from the Archaic period. If the SHPO
determines that an intensive survey is needed, the survey will be
completed prior to construction.
The project corridor, which is primarily wooded, consists of three
predominant vegetative communities. The roadside community is composed of
tall fescue (Festuca sp.), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica),
common dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), clover (Trifolium sp.) and wild
onion (Allium sp.).
The bottomland hardwood forest community canopy/subcanopy is composed
of river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore (Platanus Occidentalis), box elder
(Acer negundo), red maple (Acer rubrum), green ash (Fraxinus caroliniana),
ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), hackberry (Celtis occidentalis) and black
walnut (Juglans nigra). A vine/herbaceous layer, made up of Japanese
honeysuckle, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Cam psis
radicans) and members of the family Poaceae, covers the floor of the
forest.
The mixed pine-hardwood forest community canopy/subcanopy is composed
of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda), shortleaf pine (P. echinata), scrub pine
(P. virginiana), beech (Fa us grandifolia), white oak ( uercus alba),
willow oak ( uercus hep llos , oaks ( uercus sp.), hickories (Carya sp.),
red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), river birch, tulip tree (Liriodendron
tulipifera), red maple (Acer rubrum), sweet gum (Li uidambar styraciflua),
and flowering dogwood (Cornus florida). The shrub/vine/herbaceous layer
includes roses (Rosa sp.), Japanese honeysuckle, poison ivy, heartleaf
(Hexastylis sp.) and Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
Construction of the subject project will result in the loss of
existing roadside habitat along SR 1005 and creation of new roadside
habitat along the new road shoulders. Portions of bottomland hardwood and
mixed pine-hardwood forest communities will be removed by construction of
this project.
Approximate impacts to the plant communities in the project area are
as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 2
Roadside 0.8 acres 0.6 acres
Bottomland hardwood forest 1.0 0.7
Mixed pine-hardwood forest 1.6 0.3
TOTAL 3.4 acres 1.6 acres
Amphibian species likely to be found in the area include spotted
salamander (Ambystoma maculatum), northern dusky salamander (Desmo nathus
fuscus), two-lined salamander (Eurycea bislineata), slimy salamander
(Plethodon glutinosus), red salamander (Pseudotriton ruber), American toad
(Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), spring peeper (Hyla crucifer), upland chorus frog
(Pseudacris triseriata), bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana) and pickerel frog
(Rana palustris).
Characteristic reptiles likely to occur in the area include snapping
turtle (Chelydra serpentina), painted turtle (Chrysemys piq ),
yellowbelly slider (Chrysemys scri ta), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), eastern fence lizard (Sceloporus undulatus), five-lined skink
(Eumeces fasciatus), broadhead skink (Eumeces laticeps), ground skink
7
.,
(Scincella lateralis), worm snake (CarphoPh_is amoenus), ringneck snake
(Diadophis punctatus), rat snake (Elhe obsoleta), eastern hognose snake
(Heterodon platyrhinos), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon), rough
green snake (Opheodrys aestivus), and copperhead (Agkistrodon contortrix).
Birds common in the vicinity of the project include wood duck (Aix
sponsa), red-tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo
lineatus), belted kingfisher (Ceryle alcyon), red-bellied woodpecker
(Melanerpes carolinus), downy woodpecker (Picoides pubescens), eastern
phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), barn swallow (Hirundo rustica), Carolina
chickadee (Pares carolinensis), Carolina wren T r otFo_r_us ludovicianus),
ruby-crowned king et (Regulus calendula), blue-gray gnatcatcher
(Polioptila caerulea), red- eyed verio (Verio olivaceus), prothonotary
warbler (Proton a citrea), black-and-w Tte warbler (Mniotilta varia),
yellow-rumped warbler (Dendroica coronata), Louisiana waterthrush (Seiurus
motacilla), American redstart (Setophaga ruticilla), summer tanager
(Piran a rubra) and northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis).
Mammals, such as Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana),
southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), silver-haired bat (Lasionycteris
noctivagans), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus), gray squirrel
(Sciurus carolinensis), beaver (Castor canadensis), eastern harvest mouse
(Reithrodontomys humulis), white footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus),
meadow vole (Microtus pennsylvanicus), Norway rat (Rattua norvegicus), red
fox (Vulpes vul es), raccoon (Procyon lotor), and white-tailed deer
(Odocoileus virginianus), are likely common inhabitants of the area.
Fish likely to occur in the Haw River include largemouth bass
(Micropterus salmoides), black crappie (Pomoxis nigromaculatus), white
crappie (Pomoxis annularis), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), redear
sunfish (Lepomis microlophus), green sunfish (Lepomis cyanellus),
pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), warmouth (Lepomis ulosus), channel
catfish (Ictalurus punctatus), yellow bullhead (Ameiurus natalis), black
bullhead (Ameiurus melas), chain pickerel (Esox niger), bowfin (Amia
calva) and gizzard sha(Dorosoma cepedianum).
The Haw River is the only water resource located in the project area
and is part of the Cape Fear River Basin. Channel width in the study area
averages approximately 90 feet and depth ranges from 6 inches to over
6 feet. This river flows from the northwest above Burlington southeast
through the project study area and into B. Everett Jordan Lake in Chatham
County. The river channel is dotted with boulders, and its bottom is
covered by silt, clay and sandy sediments. River banks at the project
study site are steep.
The Haw River has a best usage classification of C. Class C waters
are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. No waters classified as High
Quality Waters, Outstanding Resource Waters or waters designated as WS-1
or WS-11 will be impacted by the proposed project, nor are these resources
located within 1 mile of the subject area.
8
Potential impacts to Haw River from project construction could affect
the aquatic environment due to increased sedimentation from construction-
related erosion. This impact, however, is viewed as temporary. Strict
enforcement of sedimentation control measures and Best Management
Practices will be observed to minimize impacts.
Anticipated impacts are categorized as bank-to-bank waters of the
United States and fall under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) and are likely to be authorized by provisions of
Nationwide permit 33 CFR 330.5 (A) 23.
The soil found in the study area is classified as Georgeville-Herndon
association. This association is characterized by gently sloping and
sloping, well-drained soils that have a surface layer of silt loam and a
subsoil of clay loam, silty clay, silty clay loam and clay found on
uplands. The soils located along the project alignment are
Chewacla loam (Ch) and Mixed alluvial land (Md).
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered,
Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened are protected
under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended. No federally protected species are currently listed
for Alamance County. The federally protected species listed for Orange
County as of March 16, 1992, are: red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides
borealis), Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii and smooth coneflower
(Echinacea laevigata). No impacts to federally protected species will
occur. Although suitable habitat exists in the study area for several
federal candidate and state protected species, no surveys were conducted
for these species.
The red-cockaded woodpecker, a federally endangered species, is found
in scattered locations throughout the southeast. Nesting habitat is made
up of open pine stands (minimum age 60 years) or mixed pine/hardwood
stands, (50 percent or more pine). The proposed project will not impact
suitable nesting or feeding habitat for this species; therefore, it is
concluded that the subject project will not impact the red-cockaded
woodpecker.
Michaux's sumac, an endangered plant, is currently known from only 17
locations, 16 of which are in North Carolina. The species usually occurs
on sandy or rocky soils in open woodlands and clearings and appears to be
dependent upon some form of disturbance to maintain the open condition.
Suitable habitat for this species does occur within the project area. This
species has recognizable field characteristics year-round, thus searches
for this plant are not limited to it's flowering period. A detailed
survey for this plant was conducted on May 4, 1992. Areas of suitable
habitat, along the existing roadway shoulders, were searched visually on a
plant by plant basis. No individuals of this species were found within
the project area during the search; therefore, it is concluded that the
project will not impact this species.
9
The project area also contains suitable habitat for the smooth
coneflower, a federally proposed endangered species, which flowers from
May through July. A detailed survey for this species was also conducted
on May 4, 1992. No individuals of this species were found in the project
area; therefore, it is concluded that the proposed project will not impact
the smooth coneflower.
The following candidate species may occur in the area: Atlantic
pigtoe mussel (Fusconaia masoni Savannah lilliput mussel (Toxolasma
ulla nestronia (Nestronia umbellula), and a liverwort (Plagiochila
columbiana). Candidate species are species which are not legally
protected under the Endangered Species Act and are not subject to any of
its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or
listed as Threatened or Endangered. (The species listed above are listed
for Orange County; no Federal Candidate species are listed for Alamance
County.)
A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Programs records
failed to turn up any records of occurrence of state- protected species in
the study area. The following federal candidate species, however, are
also protected by North Carolina state law: Atlantic pigtoe mussel
(Fudconaia masoni , Savannah lilliput mussel (Toxolasma ullus , Diana
fritillary butterfly S e eria diana and nestronia (Nestronia umbellula).
Coordination with the U. S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS) indicates
Alternate 1 will impact approximately 2.3 acres of statewide important
farmland soils and Recommended Alternate 2 will impact about 1.5 acres of
prime farmland soils. The Form AD-1006, Farmland Conversion Impact
Rating, was completed for both alternatives (see Attachment 1). The SCS
indicates that the relative value of the farmland which would be converted
by Alternate 1 has a moderate relative value of 51 on a 100-point scale,
while Recommended Alternate 2 was assigned the highest relative value of
100 on the same scale. The total site assessment for Alternate 1 is 81
points on a 260-point scale. Recommended Alternate 2 received a rating of
130 points on the same scale. If a site rating is 160 points or more,
mitigation of the impacts to farmland soils should be considered. As the
rating for the recommended alternate is well below the 160-point
threshold, no mitigation is being considered for this project.
The project is located within the Northern Piedmont and Eastern
Piedmont Air Quality Regions. The ambient air quality for Alamance County
• and Orange County has been determined to be in compliance with the
National Ambient Air Quality Standards. Since this project is located in
an area where the State Implementation Plan (SIP) does not contain any
transportation control measures, the conformity procedures of 23 CFR 770
do not apply to this project.
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. There-
fore, the impact on noise levels and air quality will be insignificant.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If
vegetation is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accor-
dance with applicable local and laws and regulations of the North Carolina
State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC
2D.0520. This evaluation completes the noise and air quality assessment
requirements of 23 CFR 770 and 772, and no additional reports are
required.
10
Both Alamance and Orange Counties are participants in the National
Flood Insurance Regular Program. The approximate 100-year floodplain in
the project area is shown in Figure 4. The amount of floodplain area to
be affected is not considered to be significant.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
JH/jh
;t .2 O? to A H
N N r T ?
A n P N O
<D
P fD V 1+? f
• 3 lw JL 9
? A
1 N
n 8• iA n .2
S
U S ??
n n iN
T ?p w
A
C n I(?
N
f? r N w O
ol w A
A O
w
N °D V' Z
A
O I'
w 1N -? : fTl
N
2
iW ? ? N s
co O
S U W
w ?Sd?
10 4
A
ti
C,
I 'All
?. W J
I N N p .?.
IA W N IV
¦ n A •? W W ? ? T _
N n
x
n
0
S
n

P
o'
v_
p
V
N
oA P
I
i
?
/v
= O
A N
A
N

¦
N
-40
;aD
C ? $ Sd
a

N
°

a

U
I
N
n i,l a
I '
®
I n
T
N o D
¦ q Sd N N N 8'
_
N A m _
O
?' C°n jV

: _
m
'O¦ ' n o.
7
A
i`' T3 I N

, o
D ¦
¦
I
D
'o • 1.8 03 O
• au 9 , o ti
r 1,
i• 1 o 00
00
° U V
_ ?w V T
Lh N 1 T
A '
N ti?o 1
N W
T , N J • 1
D J ` co 1
_ w .
O N • ? 1 1 F
1j v, ` 9 • .?
• N
L ?
J ? \
o 'a
0
O
(-j
?s
0
O
P
r

W
N
M D

°
? m 0 w rdZZ

o
Mo x °zo
3 Wn•
M
i ? >
° noz
> o
z
°*
°M00 dx.3
o2
m
M
0
y
=
0
MC

z o?
m y
T
a
r 0

•
1

•
1
• 1
e
•._ --- - N3` no m

"r J
>>
P • a + ti 1,.
I z
=
/ a
? A? I
I
. ? _
q
° d
f O v iO

? I es i '?
n D ae?
"A ?., F
/ Z na %
d d
Q 9, S? CD mw ?oLL9 I
I
?
? N
"' W y
G J
q

?o- IN-
B-2100
ALAMANCE/
ORANGE COUNTIES
LOOKING EAST
ON SR 1005
FROM BRIDGE NO. 101
LOOKING WEST
ON SR 1005
FROM BRIDGE NO. 101
LOOKING DOWNSTREAM
FROM BRIDGE NO. 101
FIGURE 2

i i
9o 100 -YEAR FLOODPLAIN
4o 0
I
• ' ' .fir. ?- ? ?, ?
<25 R
\ t1 1'. 9 1 0 0 424
BRIDGE NO. 101 '
:1A
`1 1
t ' 't
7'- _
6TZ
,a
t t .?
,Z
O
1
FIGURE 4
r U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
oat* Of Land Evaluation rieauest
RT 1 (To be cornorered by Federal Agency)
Name Of Agency Involved
Of ?rolect
a\ 0 County And State N
Proposed Una Use Q1? arm ?•?.+G`n -? ?O
Oat R ess' Rece d aY CS
RT it (To be completed by SCS) 3 Yes No Acres irri4ated Average Fern, Size
a.yVAawC'V- s
Does the site contain prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland?
(if no, the FPPA does not apply -donor complete additional parts of this farm). ? A Qt? b o0'Fartnl0 -4%4 t b in FP An and F rile Land Govt. Jurisdiction a?Z• 1 A \4Y?•AM •.s? . 2.21 s v 1 % 1 ,
Major Croo(s) A \evwavee : 51'12 L. % 3 zz O ag• b
C. 0',(-'1(1 Oat* Land valuation Rstwned By SCS
Name Of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of Local Site Assessment System , ` n+A..P
'NV1 !t tit Ca COY 4 1n ?. -
,RT+111 (To be completed by Federal Agency)
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
8 Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly
C. Total Acres In Site
ART IV !To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A. Total Acres Prime And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland
C. Percentage Of Farmland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted
0. Percentage Of Farmland in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
%RT V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points)
%RT VI (To be completed by Federal Agency) Maximum
. . _ _, -_ ? ` Cn eKA 41h1 Points
Area In Nonurban Use
L7erimatar In Nonurban Use
0 oe...-r of Citn Reina Farmed
4_ Protection Provided By State And Local Government
5. Distance From Urban Bujltup Area
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average
A rrnatinn Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9 Availability Of Farm
to n.,_l=arm Investments
11. Effects of Conversion On Farm Sl
12 Compatibility With Existing Antic
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
ART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
?tal Site Assessment (From Parr V/ above ora
sate assessment!
TOTAL POINTS (Total of above 2 lines)
:ta Selected:
season For Selection:
Data of Selection
-------------
Alternative Site Raan Site
iits A ?te Site C
.3 ?
pot O.ool
.,` . "1. 2
? ? apt
?5

. O
C
160 1 So 1 30
100 51 fob
160 30 30
260 g \3 0
Wes A I.OCaI Site Assessment Used?
Yes ? No ?
Lr
ATTACHMENT 1