19941127 Ver 1_Complete File_19941207

J.I#-
December 5, 1994
District Engineer
Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402
ATTENTION: Regulatory Branch
Dear Sir:
R. SAMUEL HUNT I I I
SECRETARY
(1-pso'l I&
Subject: Stanly County, SR 1741, Replacement of Bridge
No. 28 over Jacobs Creek, Federal Aid Project
No.BRZ-1741(1), State Project No. 8.2680801,
TIP No. B-2631.
Attached for your information are three copies of
the project planning rep=a ect project.
The project is being pr e Federal Highway
Administration as a tlusion" in
accordance with 23 C R 7There re?, we do not
anticipate requesting a 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.
2745 (Categorical Exclusion) will apply to this project,
and are providing one copy of the CE document to the
North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management,
for their review.
e -

11,27
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
19
,d.- \ d
If you have any questions or need additional
information, please call Mr. Doug Huggett at 733-3141.
Sincerely,
/?'?? --_?
B. J. Quin , PE
Assistant ranch Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
BJO/dvh
cc: w/attachment
Mr. Robert Johnson, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DEM
Mr. John Parker, NCDEHNR, DCM
w/out attachment
Mr. Kelly Barger, PE, Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, PE, Highway Design Branch
Mr. A.L. Hankins, PE, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. John L. Smith Jr., PE, Structure Design Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, PE, Roadway Design Unit
Mr. B.G. Payne, PE, Division 10 Engineer
Mr. Phil Harris, Planning and Environmental Branch
Mr. Davis Moore, Planning and Environmental Branch
? .. It

Stanly County
SR 1741
Bridge No. 28 over Jacobs Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1741(l )
State Project No. 8.2680801
T.I.P. No. B-2631
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N.C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
H. Franklin Vick, P.E., anager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
!$ -94
DATE
_44
Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
' Division Administrator, FHWA
DA i
7 ;

Stanly County
SR 1741
Bridge No. 28 over Jacobs Creek
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1741(1)
State Project No. 8.2680801
T.I.P. No. B-2631
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
August, 1994
Documentation Prepared By Ko & Associates, P.C.
Lisa Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager - Ko & Associates
%
Q SS/ 1Y
SEAL
15810
1? S. HiLNY?P
For North Carolina Department of Transportation
L. G ' mes, . E , Unit Head
Consultant Engin ng Unit
Phil Ham
Project Planning Engineer
Stanly County
SR 1741
Bridge No. 28 over Jacobs Creek
Federal-Aid Proj ect BRZ-1741(1)
State Project No. 8.2680801
T.I.P. No. B-2631
Bridge No. 28 is included in the 1995-2001 NCDOT Transportation Improvement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The project
is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
1. All standard procedures and measures, including NCDOT's Best Management Practices
for Protection of Surface Waters, will be implemented, as applicable, to avoid or
minimize environmental impacts.
2. The boundaries for thick pod white wild indigo (Baptisia allia) will be staked by a
qualified biologist prior to construction and avoided to the extent possible. If avoidance
is not possible, the NC Plant Conservation Program will be given the opportunity to
relocate specimens found within construction limits of the project.
3. Detailed hydraulic studies will be performed during the final design stages to determine
length and opening size necessary to accomodate peak flow.
4. Construction will be scheduled during the summer months to minimize impacts on school
bus traffic.
II. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 28 will be replaced in its existing location as shown in Figure 2. It will be replaced
with a double barrel 3.1 meter x 2.1 meter (10 ft x 7 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert.
The roadway grade will be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) above the existing bridge grade
at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft)
grassed shoulders for approximately 150 meters (500 ft) to the west of the culvert and 240 meters
(800 ft) to the east of the culvert.
During construction, traffic will be detoured along existing roads as shown on Figure 1.
The estimated cost, based on current prices, is $181,000 including $31,000 for right-of-way and
$150,000 for construction. The estimated cost of the project, as shown in the 1995-2001
Transportation Improvement Program, is $180,000 including $30,000 for right-of-way and
$150,000 for construction.
III. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS
It is anticipated that a design exception for design speed will be required. The recommended
alternate (Alternate B) provides a design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) due
to the existing 115 meter radius (15 degree) horizontal curve on the east approach. To improve
the design speed to 90 kilometers per hour (55 mph), Alternate C would increase project costs
by $96,500. There is a 55 meter radius (30 degree) horizontal curve southeast of the bridge and
a stop sign controlled intersection just west of the bridge. Since the alignment of the
recommended alternate is compatible with the alignment of the remainder of SR 1741 and
projected 2016 traffic volumes are low (900 vpd), the additional costs are not justified.
IV. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1741 (Dennis Road) is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional Classification
System. It serves a rural area of Stanly County approximately six kilometers (3.7 mi) southeast
of Albemarle. Land use is primarily residential and agricultural in the immediate vicinity of the
bridge. Residential homes are scattered throughout the study area. Limited pastures and
cultivated fields are situated along the approaches and woodlands are common along upland
ridges and within riparian areas along stream bottoms.
Near the bridge, SR 1741 has a 5.5 meter (18 ft) pavement width with 1.2 meter (4 ft) shoulders.
The roadway approaches slope down toward the bridge on both sides. The horizontal alignment
is tangent on the bridge with a 115 meter radius (15 degree) curve approximately 120 meters
(390 ft) long on the east approach. The west approach is tangent for about 300 meters (980 ft).
The roadway is situated approximately 1.5 meters (5 ft) above the creek bed.
The projected traffic volume is 500 Vehicles Per Day (VPD) for 1996 and 900 VPD for the
design year 2016. The volumes include one percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and two
percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The speed limit is not posted and assumed to be 88 kilometers
per hour (55 miles per hour).
The existing bridge was built in 1939 and rehabilitated in 1957 (Figure 3). The superstructure
consists of two creosote timber joist spans. Bridge deck construction is timber with an asphalt
wearing surface. The substructure consists of rubble masonry abutments and pier.
The overall length of the bridge is 10.4 meters (34 ft). Clear roadway width is 5.8 meters (19
ft). The posted weight limit is 9979 kilograms (11 tons) for single vehicles and 19,050.9
2
kilograms (21 tons) for tractor trailer trucks.
Bridge No. 28 has a sufficiency rating of 21.3, compared to a rating of 100 for a new structure.
Two accidents were reported at the bridge during the period from January 1, 1990 to May 31,
1993. Both accidents occurred at the east approach during wet roadway conditions and involved
the vehicles leaving the roadway.
Aerial electric and underground telephone lines are located along the south side of SR 1741. The
telephone line is aerial as it crosses the stream.
School buses cross the bridge four times daily.
V. ALTERNATIVES
Three alternative alignments were studied for replacing Bridge No. 28. Each alternate consists
of a double barrel 3.1 meter x 2.1 meter (10 ft x 7 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. The
approach roadway will consist of a 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft) grassed
shoulders.
The alternates studied are shown in Figure 2 and are as follow:
Alternate A: involves replacing the bridge with a reinforced concrete box culvert approximately
25 meters (80 ft) south of the existing roadway alignment. The roadway grade would be raised
approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) above the existing bridge grade. Traffic would be maintained on
the existing bridge during construction. A design speed of 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per
hour) would be provided. A design exception would be required.
Alternate B (Recommended): involves replacing the bridge with a reinforced concrete box culvert
at its existing location. Traffic would be detoured on US 52, SR 1744 and SR 1740, a distance
of 9.2 kiometers (5.7 mi), during the approximate four-month construction period (See Figure
1). The roadway grade would be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) above the existing bridge
grade. A design speed of 50 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour) would be provided. A
design exception for this design speed would be required due to the horizontal alignment of the
east approach.
Alternate C: involves replacing the bridge approximately 15 meters (50 ft) south of its existing
location with a reinforced concrete box culvert. Traffic would be maintained on the existing
bridge during construction. The roadway grade would be raised approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft)
above the existing bridge grade. The design speed for this alternate is 90 kilometers per hour
(55 miles per hour).
3
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
desirable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1741.
Investigation of the existing structure by the Bridge Maintenance Unit indicates that rehabilitation
of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
VI. ESTIMATED COST
The estimated costs of the alternatives studied, based on current prices, are as follow:
(Recommended)
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
Structure Removal $ 4,317 $ 4,317 $ 4,317
Structure 42,695 42,695 42,695
Roadway Approaches 168,988 53,988 134,988
Miscellaneous and Mobilization 45,000 30,000 36,000
Engineering and Contingencies 39,000 19,000 32,000
Right of Way/Const. Easements/Util. 27.500 31.000 27.500
TOTAL $327,500 $181,000 $277,500
VII. TRAFFIC DETOUR
A four month road closure period is anticipated. The detour roadway and bridges are adequate
to accommodate affected traffic during the construction period.
Provision of an on-site detour is not justifiable due to its excessive cost and the availability of
a suitable detour route. A road user analysis was performed for detouring traffic on existing
roads based on 500 vpd and an average of 9.2 kilometers (5.7 miles) of indirectional travel. The
cost of additional travel would be approximately $103,000 during the four month construction
period. The estimated cost of providing an on-site detour is $125,000, resulting in a benefit-cost
ratio of 0.82. The ratio indicates it is not justifiable to maintain traffic on-site during the
construction period.
Construction of the culvert will be scheduled during the summer months to minimize impacts on
school bus traffic.
4
VIII. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 28 will be replaced at its existing location with a double barrel 3.1 meter x 2.1 meter
(10 ft x 7 ft) reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements will be necessary on each approach
to the culvert. Although Alternate B will require a design exception, it is recommended because
there is an existing 55 meter (30 degree) curve southeast of the existing bridge and a stop sign
controlled intersection at US 52 just west of the bridge. Alternate B will provide an adequate
design speed for the existing conditions without the additional costs of Alternates A and C.
A 6.6 meter (22 ft) travelway with 1.2 meter (4 ft) grassed shoulders will be provided on the
approaches. The design speed is 50 kilometers per hour (30 miles per hour).
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis and the 25-year storm, the reinforced concrete box
culvert is recommended to have an opening size of 13 square meters (140 sq ft) and a length of
approximately 17 meters (56 ft). It is anticipated that the elevation of the roadway will be
approximately 1.0 meter (3 ft) higher than the existing bridge. The length and opening size may
be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further
hydraulic studies.
The Divison Office recommends Alternate A with maintenance of traffic on the existing bridge
during construction. As previously noted, this alternate is more costly than the recommended
alternate (Alternate B) and will not provide a significant improvement in the overall horizontal
alignment of SR 1741 except in the immediate vicinity of the replacement.
IX. NATURAL RESOURCES
Methodoloav
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number of
sources including U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) 7.5 minute quadrangles (Albemarle, N.C.),
National Wetland Inventory mapping, Soil Conservation Service soils information (U.S.
Department of Agriculture 1989), and 1992 aerial photography (scale: 1:1200) furnished by the
NCDOT.
The site was visited on October 22, 1993. Plant and animal communities likely to be impacted
by proposed improvements were walked and visually surveyed for significant features. Surveys
were conducted within a study corridor approximately 75 meters (250 ft) in width, symmetrical
to the existing alignment. However, impact calculations were based on potential encroachment
18 meters (60 ft) each side of the centerline along the existing route and 36 meters (120 ft) along
new alignment alternatives. Special concerns evaluated in the field include potential habitat for
protected species, wetlands, and water quality protection in Jacobs Creek.
5
Plant community descriptions were based on a classification system utilized by the N.C. Natural
Heritage Program (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When appropriate, community classifications
were modified to better reflect field observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968). Jurisdictional wetlands were identified using the three parameter
approach (hydrophytic vegetation, hydric soils, hydrology) following U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and
aquatic organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through field
observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation (Martof et al. 1980;
Potter et al. 1980; Hamel et al. 1982; Webster et al. 1985). Water quality information for area
streams and tributaries was derived from available sources (N.C. Department of Environment,
Health, and Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management (DEM 1989, 1993).
Quantitative sampling was not undertaken to support existing data.
Listings of federally protected species with ranges which extend into Stanly County were
requested and received from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) prior to initiation of
field studies. In addition, N.C. Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records documenting
presence of federal or state listed species were consulted before commencing field investigations.
Physiography and Soils
The project is situated in the Carolina Slate Belt. This portion of the slate belt is characterized
by metamorphic mudstone, argillite, and sandstone deposits with thin to thick bedding planes and
frequent axial planar cleavage (Brown 1985). Topography is characterized by rolling and hilly
relief, resulting in moderate to rapid drainage. Elevations in the immediate project area range
from 216 meters (710 ft) along upland ridge lines to 207 meters (680 ft) along creek bottoms.
Soils in the project area consist of the Tatum and Oakboro series in upland communities. Tatum
soils are well drained channery silt clay loams which have formed in residuum from Carolina
slates. These shallow, eroded soils occur on moderate, slightly convex slopes (2 to 8 percent),
which are dissected by intermittent drainageways. Bedrock is generally shallow, located within
1.5 meters (5 ft) of the surface. Oakboro soils include moderately well drained silt loams along
nearly level, narrow floodplains associated with upper headwater reaches of area streams.
Oakboro soils adjacent to the stream channel are generally yellowish brown, with seasonal high
water deeper than 45 centimeters (18 in) from the surface. Hydric soils do not occur in the
project area.
WATER RESOURCES
Waters Impacted
Bridge No. 28 crosses above headwater reaches of Jacobs Creek. Jacobs Creek flows into Lake
Tillery, an impoundment of the Pee Dee River, approximately 6.4 kilometers (4.0 mi) east of
the project. These systems are part of the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin.
6
Best Usage Classifications and Water Oualit
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on the existing or
contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of streams in the basin (DEM 1993).
Jacobs Creek is classified as Class WS-IV, indicating waters protected as water supplies within
moderately to highly developed watersheds. Local programs to control nonpoint source and
stormwater discharge of pollution are required. The subject segment of Jacobs Creek is also
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and
agriculture.
No High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), WS I or WS II Waters
occur within 1.6 kilometers (1 mi) of the project area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) addresses long term trends in water
quality at fixed monitoring sites by the sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrates (DEM
1989). The species richness and overall biomass are reflections of water quality. BMAN
sampling stations are not located on streams in the immediate vicinity of this project.
Stream Characteristics
The primary drainageway measures approximately 9 meters (30 ft) in width and primarily
supports seasonal and stormwater flow. Depth of stream water is generally less than 2.5
centimeters (1 in) with dry surfaces comprising virtually all of the stream bed. Stream flow is
negligible with the exposed substrate consisting primarily of cobblestone, gravel, and pebbles.
Stream banks are well defined with moderate to steep slopes adjacent to the drainageway.
Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Short-term impacts to water quality can be anticipated from construction-related activities which
may increase sedimentation and turbidity. Short-term impacts can be minimized by the
implementation of NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as
applicable. Long-term impacts to water resources are not expected as a result of proposed
improvements.
7
BIOTIC RESOURCES
Plant Communities
Four distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed project:
mesic hardwood forest, upland hardwood forest, agricultural and urban/disturbed. Specific
communities exhibit slight variation dependent upon location and physical characteristics of the
site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.).
Mesic Hardwood Forest
Narrow stream terraces and steep riparian slopes bordering Jacobs Creek support mesic
hardwood forest cover. The canopy is dominated by sweet gum (L.guidambar st raciflua , red
maple (Ater rubrum ,willow oak ( uercus hellos , northern red oak (Q rubra and shagbark
hickory (Cara ovata).
The understory/shrub layer is generally characterized by sapling growth of canopy species along
with dogwood (Cornus florida , sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum , and musclewood (C inus
caroliniana). Understory vines include Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans) and trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans).
Ground cover consists of characteristic mesic forest species such as Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), eulalia (Eulalia sp.) and river oats (Chasmantheum latifolium).
-
Upland Hardwood Forest
Upland ridges support a typical oak-hickory forest community dominated by white oak, southern
red oak, scarlet oak ( uercus coccinea), and mockernut hickory (Carva L____osa . Occasional
growth of sweet gum, red maple and yellow poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera) was noted in some
areas. Understory development includes regeneration of canopy saplings along with dogwood
(Corpus florida , sourwood (Oxydendrum arboreum), and red bud (Cercis canadensis). Ground
cover is sparse, characterized by infrequent growth of wild ginger (Hexastylis arifolia),
pipsissewa (Chimaphila maculata and Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia).
Agricultural
Pastureland maintained for hay production occurs along the eastern bridge approach segment.
In addition, a cultivated field is situated along the western roadway approach. These areas are
characterized by the presence of pasture grasses, clover, and indigenous pioneer species.
8
Urban/Disturbed
This community classification includes disturbed roadside margins and residential properties.
Successional grasses and herbs characterize these sites. Landscape planting supplement natural
vegetation around home sites.
Anticipated Impacts to Plant Communities
The following table summarizes potential impacts to plant communities which could result from
proposed alternative alignments.
Estimated Impacts to Plant Communities
Hectares (Acres)
PLANT COMMUNITY
ESTIMATED IMPACT
(Recommended)
Upland Hardwoods
Mesic Hardwoods
Agricultural
Urban/Disturbed
TOTAL IMPACTS
Alternate A Alternate B Alternate C
0.95 (2.34) 0.89 (2.20) 0.92 (2.27)
0.22 (0.54) 0.21 (0.52) 0.22 (0.54)
0.24 (0.59) 0.22 (0.54) 0.24 (0.59)
0.21 (0.52) 0.21 (0.52) 0.21 (0.52)
1.62 (3.99) 1.53 (3.78) 1.59 (3.92)
Impacts to plant communities as a result of proposed construction are restricted to narrow strips
immediately adjacent to the existing bridge and roadway approach segments. Replacement along
the existing alignment (Alternate B) results in slightly less infringement upon plant communities
than replacement south of the existing bridge (Alternate A and Alternate Q. Proposed
construction is not expected to result in significant adverse impacts to plant communities.
Improvements occur primarily within disturbed right-of-way limits which currently do not
support significant natural communities.
Wildlife
Terrestrial.
Most of the project area consists of rural countryside. The interspersion of forested tracts,
stream channels and open pasture provide all the necessary components (food, water, protective
covering) for mammals and birds adapted to forest fragmentation. Stream channels, including
Jacobs Creek, also serve as travel corridors between habitat areas for transient species.
Sightings or evidence (tracks, scat, burrows, etc.) were noted for several species of mammals
including white-tailed deer (Odocoileus vir ing_ianus), raccoon (Procyon lotor), opossum
9
02iadel his vir iniana and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis).
Avifaunal abundance is typical of rural communities in the upper Piedmont region of the state
where a patchwork of habitat types is available. Common species include Carolina wren
(Thryothorus ludovicianus), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), song sparrow (Melospiza
eor iana , brown thrasher (Toxostoma rufum), prairie warbler (Dendroica discolor) and rufus-
sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophithalmus). Raptors of note include barred owl (Stria varia), red-
tailed hawk (Buteo jamaicensis), red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus) and American kestrel
(Pandion haliaetus).
Aquatic
Jacobs Creek is too small to be of fishing significance (Fish 1968) and most likely does not
support a recreational fishery. The lack of substantial year-round flow or permanent pools
indicates that this segment of Jacobs Creek most likely does not support significant habitat for
aquatic life.
Temporary standing water and occasional flow within the stream channel provides suitable habitat
for semi-aquatic organisms such as the eastern newt (Notophthalmus viridescens), northern dusky
salamander (Desmo nanthus fuscus , several frog species (Rana s . , painted turtle (Chrysemys
icta and northern water snake (Nerodia si on .
Anticipated Impacts to Wildlife
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural systems, the proposed construction will not
result in significant loss or displacement of known terrestrial or aquatic animal populations.
Potential downstream impacts to aquatic habitat will be avoided by sizing the culvert to maintain
regular flow and stream integrity. In addition, temporary impacts to downstream aquatic habitat
from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by the implementation of
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, as applicable.
SPECIAL TOPICS
Waters of the United States
Wetlands subject to review under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) are
defined by the presence of three primary criteria: hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and
evidence of hydrology at or near the soil surface for a portion of the growing season (DOA
1987).
10
Based on this three parameter approach, there are no jurisdictional wetlands in the project area.
Narrow stream terraces bordering Jacobs Creek fail to show evidence of inundation or saturation
for a significant portion of the growing season. In addition, these terraces support predominately
facultative-upland plant species.
Surface waters within the embankments of Jacobs Creek are subject to jurisdictional consideration
under Section 404 as "Waters of the United States" (33 CFR 328.3). Culverting will impact
approximately 0.03 hectares (0.07 ac) at the proposed point of crossing of Jacobs Creek.
Permits
Nationwide Permit (NWP) No. 23 has been issued by the COE for federal agency projects which
are assumed to have minimal impacts. Several other NWPs are available for use including NWP
No. 26 for above headwater impacts and NWP No. 14 for minor road crossings. In addition,
minor impacts due to bridging and associated approach improvement are allowed under General
Bridge Permit (GP) No. 031 issued by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required from DEM before issuance of a nationwide
or general permit. NWP No. 23 and No. 14 and GP No. 031 require prior notification by DEM
before certification can be issued. NWP No. 26 requires DEM notification only if impacts are
greater than 0.13 hectares (0.33 ac).
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) guidelines, it is likely that this project will be subject to the Nationwide
Permit Provisions of 33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23). This permit authorizes any activities, work and
discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part,
by another federal agency that is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation
because it is included within a category of actions which neither individually nor cumulatively
have a significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
Mitigation
Projects authorized under the nationwide permit program usually do not require compensatory
mitigation based on the 1989 Memorandum of Agreement between the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Department of the Army (Page and Wilcher 1991). However, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters will be implemented, as applicable, to
minimize adverse impacts.
11
PROTECTED SPECIES
Federally Protected Species
Species listed as Endangered (E), Threatened ('T) or Proposed Endandered and Proposed
Threatened (PE and PT) are protected under the Endangered Species Act of 1973. Candidate
species (C, C2) do not receive protection under the Act, but are mentioned due to potential
vulnerability. The following federally protected and candidate species are listed for Stanly
County:
FEDERALLY LISTED SPECIES FOR STANLY COUNTY
----------------------------------------
Scientific Name Common Name Habitat
Helianthus schweinitzii
Halieetus leucocephalus
Aster geor ig anus
Juglans cinerea
Lotus helleri
Nestronia umbellula
Verbena 1i pan
Schweinitz's sunflower Yes
Bald eagle No
Georgia aster No
Butternut No
Heller's trefoil No
Nestronia No
Verbena No
Status
E
E
C2
C2
C2
C2
C2
Schwenitz's sunflower is an erect herb, with one to several pubescent stems originating from a
crown and supporting lanceolate leaves. The plant, which produces typical "sunflowers", is
discernible in the field from other members of its genus by the presence of a tuberous root
system, tomentose to pilose leaf undersides, and harsh upper stems which arch upward in a
candelabra-like fashion (Kral 1983). Flowering occurs from September to frost. The species
thrives in full sun characteristic of relic piedmont prairies, successional fields, forest ecotonal
margins, and forest openings.
An on-site survey to determine presence or absence of the species was undertaken on October
24, 1993. All roadside margins and ecotonal fringes were visually evaluated. No sightings of
the plant were noted.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
Bald eagle - This bird has a wingspan of up to 1.8 meters (6 ft). Adults are dark brown with
a white head and tail, and immatures are a mottled brown until their fourth year. The Bald
eagle's primary habitat includes late successional, riparian ecosystems occurring along the coast
or in close proximity to large rivers or other bodies of water. This bird has a wingspan of up
to 1.8 meters (6 ft). Adults are dark brown with a white head and tail, and immatures are a
mottled brown until the fourth year. Bald eagles prefer nesting in large pines or cypress, living
or dead. The habitat is poor for eagles at the project site due to the absence of a large body of
water in the vicinity.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT.
12
State Protected Species
Plant and animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered Species
Act (G. S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979 (G. S. 106-
202.12 et seq.).
NCNHP records indicate a population of thick pod white wild indigo (Baptisia alba), considered
significantly rare (SR) in North Carolina, is found in the immediate vicinity of the proposed
bridge. The population is located on the southwest side of SR 1741, just east of the bridge. A
qualified biologist will stake the boundary of this population, and construction equipment and
materials will be excluded from the staked area to the extent possible. If damage to the
population is unavoidable, the NC Plant Conservation Program will be given the opportunity to
relocate specimens. No other known populations of State listed species occur within 1.6
kilometers (1 mi) of the project site.
X. 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 a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and
insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement with a culvert will not have an 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 land use plans or zoning regulations. No significant
change in existing land use is expected to result from construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. No relocatees are expected with
implementation of the proposed alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected to
adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of
national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project.
No geodetic survey markers will be impacted.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires
that for federally funded, licensed, or permitted projects having an effect on properties listed in
or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation be given an opportunity to comment.
13
In a letter dated January 31, 1994, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined
that the bridge was neither listed in or eligible for the National Register of Historic Places, nor
located in or adjacent to any property listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register.
Therefore, the SHPO had no comment on the project with regard to historic structures.
The SHPO, NCDOT and FHWA determined that there are no known archaeological sites in the
area and it is unlikely that any archaeological resources eligible for inclusion in the National
Register of Historic Places will be affected by the project construction. Therefore, no
archaeological investigations were recommended in connection with this project. A copy of the
SHPO letter is included in the Appendix. No further compliance with Section 106 is required.
Since the bridge will be replaced at its existing location (with a culvert), the Farmland Protection
Policy Act does not apply.
The project is located within the jurisdiction for air quality of the Mooresville Regional Office
of the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources. Stanly
County has been determined to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality
Standards. This project is not anticipated to create any adverse effect on the air quality of this
attainment area.
The project will not increase or decrease traffic volumes and the bridge will be replaced at its
existing location with a culvert. Therefore, its impacts 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 accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean
Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are
required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina
Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no underground
storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Stanly County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program, but there is no
study at this site. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not considered to be
significant.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in the recommended
alignment would result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will
be taken to minimize any possible harm.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no adverse environmental effects will
result from implementation of the project.
14
REFERENCES
Brown, P.M. 1985. Geologic Map of North Carolina. North Carolina Department of Natural
Resources and Community Development.
Department of the Army (DOA). 1987. Corps of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual.
Tech. Rpt. Y-87-1, Waterways Experiment Station, COE, Vicksburg, Mississippi.
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). 1989. Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient
Network (BMAN) Water Quality Review 1983-1987. Rpt. 89-08, N.C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Division of Environmental Management (DEW. 1993. Classifications and Water Quality
Standards Assigned to the Waters of the Yadkin Pee Dee River Basin, N. C. Department of
Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh, N.C.
Fish, F. F. 1968. A Catalog of the Inland Fishing Waters of North Carolina, North Carolina
Wildlife Resources Commission, Division of Inland Fisheries, Raleigh, N.C.
Hamel, P. B., H.E. LeGrand, Jr., M. R. Lannartz, and S. A. Gauthreaux Jr.. 1982. Bird
Habitat Relationships on Southeastern Forest Lands, USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep.
5E-22.
Kral, R. 1983. A Report on Some Rare, Threatened, or Endangered Forest-Related Vascular
Plants of the South. Technical Publication R8-TP 2, USDA Forest Service.
Martof, B. S., Palmer, W. M., Bailey, J. R. and Harrison III, J.R. 1980. Amphibians and
Reptiles of the Carolinas and Virginia, UNC Press, Chapel Hill N.C.
Page, R.W. and L. S Wilcher. 1990. Memorandum of agreement between the Environmental
Protection Agency and the Department of the Army concerning the determination of mitigation
under the Clean Water Act Section 404(b)(1) guidelines. Washington, D.C. 6 pp.
Potter, E. F., Parnell, J. F. and Teulings, R. P. 1980. Birds of the Carolinas, The University
of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Radford, A. E., Ahles, H. E. and Bell, C. R. 1968. Manual of the Vascular Flora of the
Carolinas, The University of North Carolina Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
Schafale, M. P. and Weakley, A. S. 1990. Classification of the Natural Communities of North
Carolina: Third Approximation, N.C. Natural Heritage Program, Division of Parks and
Recreation, N. C. Dept. of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources, Raleigh N. C.
U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1989. Soil Survey of Stanly County, North Carolina.
USDA Soil Conservation Service.
Webster, W. D., Parnell, J. F. and Biggs, W. C. Jr. 1985. Mammals of the Carolinas,
Virginia, and Maryland, UNC Press, Chapel Hill, N.C.
15

(?{ 13$ 1906 t 1720
F,I P
2003
1907
61
1739 ,Y
1994 1740
202
5=
i
1956 1785
1984 1908 Z 'yam 180
s?
2021 r 1821 pbS
??
1787
1960
/
2022 r BRIDGE NO. 28 -
1981
_L174t-? i i
1984 ,
,y
-y"
1959 1909 1908 1742 `
?
¦

59 138 -1910'1- 1908 0 n J
• •
1911
1744 "mot
174
1743 ?
I 9i4 1913
'

Po er

,
ice- "
1914
2019
f.
:? • 1781

1958 1916
52
1
1

l
3 ?
9
:' \

_
191
1917 : 1914 *. 1745
all : T 1746
10 •
- f- ?-- , STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE

, f
1 •
•
f
I •
• f

1 ,

8 5
m
:
ll
Misenna
er
\
a
• 1
9
\
tiel ;
8
:
d
?
• .?1
•
¦
/ New Lon
o 8 * 1?1

3 ftj4
Ibema
¦mbert
A
Locust t
ed Cross
NORTH CAROJJNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVI3)lON OF HIONWATS
PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
•` BRANCH
op 'm 0
BRIDGE NO. 28
STANLY COUNTY
B-2631
12/93 SCALE =1:60 000 FIG. I
0 1 2
r ,
(kilometers)
BRIDGE NO. 28
STANLY COUNTY
B-2631
LOOKING EAST
LOOKING WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee
Office of Policy Development, DEHNR
FROM: Dennis Stewart, Manager
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 27, 1994
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 28 on SR 1741 over Jacobs
Creek, Stanly County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-2631
SCH Project No. 94-0489.
Biologists on the N. C.
(NCWRC) staff have the follo,
replacement of Bridge No. 28
Our comments are provided in
North Carolina Environmental
amended; '1 NCAC 25).
Wildlife Resources Commission
sing preliminary comments on the
on Jacobs Creek in Stanly County.
accordance with provisions of the
Policy Act (G.S. 113A-1 et seq., as
Jacobs Creek is a small stream with a gravel and rock
substrate. We have no fish sampling data available for this
stream. However, in the interests of fish and wildlife
conservation, we recommend replacement of the existing structure
onsite, with an offsite detour.
In addition to any specific comments above, the NCWRC
requests NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and
wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The
NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures
throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from
contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement
of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to
pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning
structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing
habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
crossings.
M
Memo Page 2 January 27, 1994
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC
concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact David Cox,
Highway Project Coordinator, at [phone]. Thank you for
the opportunity to review and comment on this project.
CC: Randy Wilson, Nongame Section Manager
David Cox, Highway Project Coordinator
Wayne Chapman, District 6 Fisheries Biologist
Ken Knight, District 6 Wildlife Biologist
Y I
• j
W
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment, Health, and Natural Resources
Division of Land Resources
James G. Martin, Governor PROJECT REVIEW C0Hl1ENTS Charles H. Gardner
Wiliam W. Cobey, Jr., Secretary Director
Project Number: L/-C, County: 5 >1111-e- y
Project Name:
Geodetic Survey
This project will impact geodetic survey markers. . N.C. Geodetic
Survey should be contacted prior to construction at P.O. Box'27687,
Raleigh, N.C. 27611 [phone]. Intentional destruction of a
geodetic monument is a violation of N.C. General Statute 102-4.
This project will have no impact on geodetic survey markers.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Geodetic Survey office at [phone].
Reviewer
Erosion and Sedimentation Control
No comment
Date
This project will require approval of an erosion and sedimentation
control plan prior to beginning any land-disturbing activity if more
than one (1) acre will be disturbed.
If an environmental document is required to satisfy. Environmental
Policy Act (SEPA) requirements, the document must be submitted as part
of the erosion and sedimentation control plan.
? If any portion of the project is located within a High Quality Water
Zone (HQW), as classified by the Division of Environmental Management,
increased design standards for sediment and erosion control will apply.
? The erosion and sedimentation control plan required for this project
should be prepared by the Department of Transportation under the
erosion control program delegation to the Division of Highways from the
North Carolina Sedimentation Control Commission.
Other (comments attached)
For more information contact the Land Quality Section at [phone].
4ut'-d 1,94
Reviewer Date
P.O. Box 27687 • Raleigh, N.C. 27611-7687 • Telephone [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer
y ] ?
DIVISION OF PARKS AND RECREATION
January 28, 1994
Memorandum
TO: Melba McGee
FROM: Stephen Hall S14
SUBJECT:. Scoping -- Bridge Replacement, Jacob's Creek, Stanly
County
REFERENCE: 94-0489
The Natural Heritage Program database contains a new record for
thick pod white wild indigo (Baptisia alba), considered
significantly rare in North Carolina, from the immediate vicinity
of the proposed project. A population of this plant was
discovered in 1993 growing on the southwest side of SR 1741 just
east of the bridge.
Although this plant is not on either the state or federal list,
its rarity within the state makes it worth protecting. The
boundary of this population should be staked by a qualified
biologist and construction equipment and materials excluded. If
damage to the population is unavoidable, we recommend that the NC
Plant Conservation Program be consulted about possible ways to
salvage the species.

S
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources A ?.
Division of Environmental Management -?I
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary C E "PAP!
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, O????f??tt?ffice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihart? Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0489; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #28 Over Jacobs Creek, Stanly
County, B-2631, SR 1741
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Jacobs Creek which is classified WS-IV by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge. DEM requests that permanent spill catch basins be
utilized at all water supply stream crossings.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10496er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
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
,. e
?v r?to
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain. secretary
January 31, 1994
Lisa S. Hilliard, P.E.
Project Manager
Ko & Associates, P.C.
4911 Waters Edge Drive .
Suite 201
Raleigh, NC 27606
Re: Replace Bridge No. 28 on SR 1741 over Jacobs Creek,
Stanly County, B-2631, ER 94-8110, CH 94-E-0000-
0489
Dear Ms. Hilliard:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director
We have received information concerning the above project from the State Clearinghouse,
as well as your letter of December 29, 1993.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and determined that this structure is not
located in or adjacent to any property which is listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places. In addition, the structure is neither listed in nor eligible for
listing in the National Register as an individual property. We, therefore, have no comment
on the project with regard to historic structures.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based on our
present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological resources which may be
eligible for inclusion .in the National Register of Historic Places will be affected by the
project construction. We, therefore, recommend that no archaeological investigation be
conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the
above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at
919/733-4763.
SjDcerQly,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: VState Clearinghouse
N. Graf
H. F. Vick _
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Rakigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources / • •
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
® u FI
Jonathan B. Howes, , Secretary A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
February 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM
TO: Melba McGee, O??n?f??yyf??ice of Policy Development
FROM: Monica Swihartlw2Water Quality Planning Branch
SUBJECT: Project No. 94-0489; Scoping - NC DOT Proposed
Replacement of Bridge #28 Over Jacobs Creek, Stanly
County, B-2631, SR 1741
The Division's Water Quality Section has reviewed the subject
scoping letter. The proposed bridge replacement would occur over
a section of Jacobs Creek which is classified WS-IV by the State of
North Carolina. The environmental document should discuss the
measures the NCDOT would utilize to minimize the potential water
quality impacts associated with construction and the long-term use
of the bridge. DEM requests that permanent spill catch basins be
utilized at all water supply stream crossings.
Written concurrence of 401 Water Quality Certification may be
required for this project. Applications requesting coverage under
our General Certification 14 or General Certification 31 (with
wetland impacts) would require written concurrence. Please be
aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland impacts have
not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
Questions regarding wetland impacts and the 401 Certification
process should be directed to Eric Galamb of this office at
[phone].
We appreciate having the opportunity to provide comments
on this project.
10496er.mem
cc: Eric Galamb
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