19960822 Ver 1_Complete File_19960827

waye STA7?dA,
` 4011ssuED
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA 19 6 0
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ?J
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 22, 1996
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers h.
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890 l
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 s AUG z , 1996
ATTENTION: Mr. Cliff Winefordner G. _
Chief, Southern Section WA
Dear Sir:
Subject: Cabarrus County - Replacement of Bridge No. 149 on SR 1132 (Miami
Church Road) over Irish Buffalo Creek; State Project No. 8.2662301;
T.P. No. B-2934
Un" ur information is a copy of the project planning report for the
subjecoject is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as
a "Catin accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticip Individual Permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit. ith 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Carps 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.
0
104W. '.
If you have any questions, please call Cyndi Bell at [phone], Ext. 306.
Sincerely,
% - /a
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
Attachment
cc: Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P. E., Hydraulics
Mr. William Rogers, P. E., Structure Design
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., Roadway Design
Mr. B. G. Payne, P. E., Division 10 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, Planning & Environmental Branch
Cabarrus County
Bridge No. 149 on
SR 1132 (Miami Church Rd.)
over Irish Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1132(2)
State Project 8.2662301
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2934

CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
??96 /
'? at H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
Dat Nicho Gra E.
Di vis on Administrator, FHWA
.. ..

Cabarrus County
Bridge No. 149 on
SR 1132 (Miami Church Rd.)
over Irish Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1132(2)
State Project 8.2662301
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2934

CATEGORICAL.EXCLUSION
AND
PROGRAMMATIC SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
February, 1996
Documentation Prepared in
Planning and Environmental Branch By:
is ele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
A'
kllvz
Teresa A. Hart
Project Planning Unit Head
%
SEAL ?i
z8 °6
.. 6944
R. B. avis, . E., Assistant Manager ?,•,•t
Planning & Environmental Branch .,,,?y? ,?1E?Q:PJ???•?
pp 0 ?.
roPla,,t?te? BFI???'``'
Environmental Commitments
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid and
minimize environmental impacts. Best Management Practices will be carried
out during construction.
Due to the impacts associated with the historic bridge and roadbed,
the NCDOT will add the bridge to the North Carolina Metal Truss Bridge
Re-evaluation Study and further document by aerial photography as
mitigation measures for the No Adverse Effect decision,

Cabarrus County
Bridge No. 149 on
SR 1132 (Miami Church Rd.)
over Irish Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1132(2)
State Project 8.2662301
T.I.P. I.D. No. B-2934
Bridge No. 149 is included in the 1996-2002 Transportation
Improvement Program. The location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project has been classified as
a "categorical exclusion".
I. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 149 will be replaced on new location as shown by
Recommended Alternate 2 in Figure 2. The recommended structure length is
43 meters (141 feet) and a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). The structure
will provide a 7.2-meter (24-foot) travelway plus 1.0-meter (3-foot)
shoulders on each side. A 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with 2.4-meter
(8-foot) turf shoulders will be provided on the approaches.
The horizontal alignment will be improved on the northeast approach
as shown on Figure 2.
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the
estimated 9-month construction period.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $694,000, which includes
$44,000 for Right of Way and $650,000 for construction. The estimated
cost of the project, as shown in the 1996-2002 Transportation Improvement
Program, is $694,000.
II. ACTIONS REQUIRED BY OTHER AGENCIES
A Nationwide Section 404 permit [33 CFR 330.5 (a) (23)] from the
Corps of Engineers (COE) and a Section 401 Water Quality Certification
from the Division of Environmental Management (DEM) will be required prior
to project construction.
Wetland impacts are estimated to be <0.1 hectare (<0.25 acre) for
Alternate 2.
III. EXISTING CONDITIONS
SR 1132 is classified as a minor collector in the Statewide
Functional Classification System and is a Federal Aid route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1132 has a 6.1 meter (20-foot)
pavement with 1.5 to 2.1-meter (5 to 7-foot) shoulders (see Figure 3).
The southwest approach is tangent; however, a sharp curve exists on the
northeast approach. The two-lane structure is situated 5.2 meters
(17 feet) above the creek bed. The approaches are on embankments 2.1 to
2.7 meters (7 to 9 feet) above natural ground.
2
A line of wood poles on the southeast side of the bridge carry a
three-phase distribution voltage power line, cable TV, and a high voltage
power line. A fire hydrant is on the northeast side of the stream
approximately 15 meters (49 feet) northwest of the road.
The current traffic volume of 1600 VPD is expected to increase to
2200 VPD by the year 2017. The projected volume includes 0% truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and 2% dual-tired vehicles (DT).
.The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1964. The
superstructure consists of a timber deck with steel girders. The
substructure consists of timber caps and piles.
The overall length of the bridge is 37 meters (121 feet) and the
clear roadway width is 6.1 meters (20 feet). The posted weight limit is
15 tons for single vehicles and 19 tons for trucks with trailers.
Bridge No. 149 has a sufficiency rating of 36.9 compared to a rating
of 100 for a new structure. The estimated remaining life of the existing
bridge is 8 years.
The speed limit is posted 70 km/h (45 MPH).
Five accidents were reported in the vicinity of the bridge from May,
1991 to April, 1994, as indicated by the NCDOT Traffic Engineering Branch.
School buses travel across the studied bridge daily for a total of 13
crossings per day. The Transportation Director for Cabarrus County
indicated that road closure would be a problem.
IV. ALTERNATIVES
Three methods of replacing Bridge No. 149 were studied. Each
alternate has a design speed of 80 KM/H (50 MPH). The alternates studied,
shown in Figure 2, are as follows:
Alternate 1 - would replace the bridge at its existing location with road
closure. The new bridge would be 43 meters (141 feet) in length.
Traffic would be detoured along existing roads during construction,
as shown in Figure 1.
Alternate lA - is identical to Alternate 1 except that during
construction, traffic would be maintained on-site with a temporary
detour on the northwest side of the existing structure.
Alternate 2 (Recommended) - will replace Bridge No. 149 approximately
21 meters (70 feet) northwest (upstream) of the existing bridge. This
alternate will consist of a bridge 43 meters (141 feet) in length and
a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). Traffic will be maintained on the
existing structure during the construction period, thus alleviating
the need for an on-site detour.
3
The "do-nothing" alternative would eventually necessitate closure of
the bridge. This is not prudent due to the traffic service provided by
SR 1132.
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.
V. ESTIMATED COST
Estimated costs of the alternatives studied are as follows:
Recommended
Alternate 1 Alternate 1A Alternate 2
Structure $ 211,500 $ 211,500 $ 211,500
Roadway Approaches 106,800 180,800 349,800
Detour Structure & -- 72,000 --
Approaches
Structure Removal 17,700 17,700 17,700
Engineering & 64,000 68,000 71,000
Contingencies
Right-of-Way, 22,000 30,000 44,000
Utilities
Total $ 422,000 $ 5809000 $ 694,000
VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Alternate 2 was selected due to the improved horizontal alignment and
will alleviate the need for an on-site detour during construction.
Bridge No. 149 will be replaced with a bridge 43 meters (141 feet)
in length and a width of 9.2 meters (30 feet). The new structure will be
located approximately 21 meters (70 feet) northwest (upstream) of the
existing bridge as shown by Recommended Alternate 2 in Figure 2.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) roadway with 2.4-meter (8-foot) turf shoulders
will be provided on the approaches.
Based on preliminary studies, the Hydraulics Unit recommends that the
proposed elevation at the new structure location stay the same as the
existing bridge. The length and height may be increased or decreased as
necessary to accommodate peak flows as determined by further hydrological
analysis and hydraulic design.
4
Traffic will be maintained on the existing structure during the
estimated 9-month construction period.
The Division Office concurs with the recommendation of Alternate 2.
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 "categorical exclusion" due to its
limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have a substantial 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 change in land use is expected to result from
construction of the project.
No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated.
Right-of-way acquisition will be limited.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The
project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious
opportunities in the area.
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.
The 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 if a
federally-funded, licensed, or permitted project has an effect on a
property listed on or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of
Historic Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given
the opportunity to comment.
Photographs, maps, and information about the area of potential effect
(APE) were provided by the North Carolina Department of Transportation and
reviewed with the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). An NCDOT
staff architectural historian conducted a survey within the APE. An
abandoned metal truss bridge, over 50 years of age, was discovered within
the APE. The SHPO considers the truss bridge and a section of the old
roadbed approaching the bridge from the north, eligible for the National
Register of Historic Places under Criteria A and C. A July 12, 1995
letter from the SHPO is included in the Appendix (A-1).
A February 1, 1996 letter from the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation concurring with the FHWA's determination (supported by SHPO)
that the proposed project will have a No Adverse Effect upon the metal
truss bridge is included in the Appendix (A-1A). The No Adverse Effect
was rendered with the condition the bridge be added to the North Carolina
Metal Truss Bridge Re-evaluation Study and be further documented by aerial
photography.
An archaeological survey was conducted for this bridge replacement
project to locate and assess any significant archaeological remains that
could be damaged or destroyed. The results of the archaeological study
indicate no evidence of archaeological sites. Therefore, no further work
is recommended. A May 10, 1995 letter from the SHPO regarding the
archaeological aspects of the project is included in the Appendix (A-2).
The structure is to be replaced northwest of its existing location.
Therefore, the project is not exempt from the Farmland Protection Policy
Act. The relative value of the farmland impacted by Alternate 2 is 50.8
on a scale of 100 points. Completion of the site assessment portion of
the Farmland Conversion Impact Rating Form (AD-1006) produced a total
point-score of 120.8, on a scale of 260, for Alternate 2. Consideration
of other alternates is required for proposals which score over 160 points.
The completed Farmland Conversion Impact Rating form is included in the
Appendix (A-3).
Cabarrus County lies in the Piedmont physiographic providence. The
topography of the project area is characterized as gently undulating. The
project area, located approximately 162 to 170 m (530 to 560 ft) above
mean sea level, is located within the Elon-Mecklenburg-Poindexter soil
association. This association contains gently sloping to very steep, well
drained soils exhibiting a clayey or loamy subsoil. These soils formed in
residuum from mixed acidic and basic igneous and metamorphic rock.
Table 1 provides an inventory of specific soil types which occur in
the project area.
Table 1. Soils in the Project Area
Map Unit Map Unit Percent Hydric
Symbol Slope Class
Altavista Sandy Loam AaB 2 to 6 B
Poindexter Loam prof 15 to 45 ---
Poindexter Loam PoD 8 to 15 ---
Chewacla Sandy Loam, Freq. Flooded Ch B
Note: "Bin Hydric Class denotes soils with inclusions of hydric soils
or which have wet spots. "-" in Hydric Class denotes a non-hydric soil.
6
Irish Buffalo Creek, located in the Yadkin Pee-Dee Drainage Basin,
originates to the east of Concord and flows in a southeasterly direction
where it converges with Coldwater Creek. This water body then flows to
the south approximately 1,220 m (4,000 ft) and empties into Rocky River.
Irish Buffalo Creek is approximately 9 m (30 ft) wide and 0.2 to
0.5 m (0.5 to 1.5 ft) deep. The creek will be crossed once by each of the
proposed alternates. The substrate is primarily composed of boulders and
cobbles underlain by sand and silt. The flow rate was moderate during the
site visit. An intermittent ditch, which is crossed by all three
alternates, empties into Irish Buffalo Creek approximately 67 m (220 ft)
north of the existing bridge. The ditch, which is approximately 1 m (4 ft)
wide and 0.6 to 1.0 m (2 to 4 ft) deep, was dry during the site visit.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the
Division of Environmental Management (DEM). The best usage classification
of Irish Buffalo Creek is C (1993, DEM). Class C waters are defined as
suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation, and agriculture. Neither High Quality Waters (HQW),
Water Supplies (WS-I or WS-II) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur
within 1.6 km (1 mi) of the project study area.
The Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by
DEM and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program
which addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses
water quality by sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms
at fixed monitoring sites. Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very
subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species richness and overall
biomass are reflections of water quality. No BMAN surveys have been
conducted in the vicinity of the project area.
Point source dischargers located throughout North Carolina are
permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any discharger is required to register for a permit. No
licensed dischargers are located in the vicinity of the project area.
Construction related impacts to water resources include reduced water
quality which can be attributed to increased sedimentation and erosion
during activities conducted in and adjacent to Irish Buffalo Creek and the
introduction of toxic compounds via roadway and construction machinery
runoff.
Activities in Irish Buffalo Creek will likely result in alterations
of the water level due to interruptions or additions to surface and/or
ground water flow. In addition, the destruction of natural substrate will
invariably occur during bridge construction. Removal of streamside canopy
during bridge and roadway construction typically results in decreases in
dissolved oxygen, temperature instability of the stream, and increases in
sedimentation resulting from devegetation of stream banks.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area,
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface
Waters and Sedimentation Control guidelines will be strictly enforced
during the construction stage of the project. This would include
reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into Irish
Buffalo Creek and minimization of activities conducted in the Creek.
7
Three distinct terrestrial communities were identified in the project
study area and include maintained community, mixed hardwood forest, and
fallow field. Many faunal species are highly adaptive and may populate
the entire range of terrestrial communities.
Maintained communities are land parcels in which the vegetation is
kept in a low-growing, non-to early-successional state. This community is
represented by roadside shoulder and pasture. Roadside shoulder is
located along SR 1132. Pasture is located between the mixed hardwood
forest which borders Irish Buffalo Creek and roadside shoulder bordering
SR 1132. This community is dominated by fescue (Fescue sp.), white clover
(Trifolium re ens), wild onion (Allium sp.), broom-sedge (Andropogon sp.),
Carolina geranium (Geranium sp.), and henbit (Lamium purpureum). Several
species of trees and shrubs are located in the roadside shoulder along
SR 1132 and include sycamore (Plantanus occidentalis), ashleaf maple (Acer
ne undo), red maple (A. rubrum), sugar maple (A. saccharum), red cedar
(Juniperus virginiana), and privet (Ligustrum sinense). Blackberry (RUbUS
sp.), grape (Vitis sp.), catbrier (Smilax sp.), and Japanese honeysuc le
(Lonicera j! j nica) are several species of vines that are located in this
community.
Few animals reside in maintained communities because of limited size
and complexity of the habitat; however, several opportunistic faunal
species use this habitat as a foraging zone or a corridor between forested
habitats. Avian species that may reside in adjacent wooded habitats and
forage in this community include American robin (Turdus migratorius),
Eastern kingbird (Tyrannus tyrannus), bobwhite (Colinus virginianus),
killdeer (Charadrius vociferus), and indigo bunting (Passerina c_yanea).
The common crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and turkey vulture (Cathartes aura) scavenge on carrion,
prey on small mammals or reptiles inha iting this community.
Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) and raccoon (Procyon lotor)
forage nocturnally in this habitat and are often observed as road kill on
adjacent roadways. The least shrew (Cryptotis parva), Eastern cottontail
(Sylvilagus floridanus), Eastern harvest mouse (Reithrodontomys humulis),
and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus) frequent disturbed or open areas
dominated by herbaceous vegetation which provide foraging and nesting
habitat. Snakes such as the black racer snake (Coluber constrictor),
timber rattlesnake (Crotalus horridus), and eastern garter snake
(Thamnophis sirtalis) may venture into this community to feed on small
mammals and insects. The Carolina anole (Anolis carolinensis) and ground
skink (Scincella lateralis) are additional reptiles that inhabit disturbed
roadside abitats.
Fallow field is a community that has been previously used as
agricultural land but has not been farmed or disturbed for several years.
This community is bounded by the intermittent ditch, maintained community
bordering SR 1132, and mixed hardwood forest adjacent to Irish Buffalo
Creek. Dominant flora in this community includes cocklebur
(Xanthium strumarium), henbit, cranesbill, broomsedge, microstegium
(Microstegium virmineum), and plantain.
8
Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris), Eastern harvest mouse, and
hispid cotton rat forage on invertebrates and vegetation and nest in
fallow-type communities. Avian species utilize this habitat to prey or
scavenge on small mammals typically include turkey vulture and red-tailed
hawk.
Mixed hardwood forest is located along Irish Buffalo Creek. The
canopy is dominated by black cherry (Prunus serotina), sycamore, red
cedar, honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos), American elm (Ulmus
americana), pecan (Carya illinoensis), and hickory (Carya sp.). Privet,
ashleaf maple, American elm, and sugar maple were observed in the
understory. The herbaceous and vine component of this community was
dominated by Japanese honeysuckle, catbrier, broom sedge, grape, maiden
cane (Arundinaria gigantea), and onion.
Mammalian species commonly occurring in upland forested piedmont
habitats adjacent to water often include white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), Southern short-tailed shrew (Blarina carolinensis), and
white-footed mouse (Peromyscus leuco us). Eastern chipmunk (Tamias
striatus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) prefer mature forests
dominated by hardwoods for foraging and nesting habitat. Carolina
chickadee (Parus carolinensis) and tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) are
permanent residents of woodlands throughout the piedmont. American toad
(Bufo americanus), Fowler's toad (B. woodhousei), Northern cricket frog
(Acris crepitans), and upland chorus frog (Pseudacris triserita) are
amphibians that inhabit woodlands and often live under forest litter.
Several reptiles including rough green snake (0pheodrys aestivus) and
Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) inhabit woodland margins and mixed
woods.
One aquatic community type, piedmont stream, will be impacted by the
proposed project. Physical characteristics of the water body and
condition of the water resource reflect faunal composition of the aquatic
communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also
greatly influence aquatic communities. Amphibians and reptiles commonly
observed in piedmont streams with moderate flow rates include Northern
cricket frog, pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and Eastern musk turtle
(Sternotherus odoratus). Fish species commonly encountered in streams
located in Cabarrus County include common carp (Cyprinus carpio), chub
(H by opsis sp.), shiner (Notro is sp.), flat bullhead (Ictalurus
platyicephalus), and killifish Fundulus sp.).
Calculated impacts to terrestrial resources reflect the relative
abundance of each community present in the study area. Project
construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these
communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these
biotic communities resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts
are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24 m (80 ft).
Usually, project construction does not require the entire right of way;
therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less.
Table 2.
COMMUNITY
Maintained Comm.
Mix. Hardwood F.
Fallow Field
TOTAL IMPACTS
Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
ALT 1
0.3 (0.6)
<0.1 (0.1)
<0.1 (0.1)
0.4 (0.8)
ALT 1A ALT 2
Perm. Temp.
0.3 (0.6) 0.3 (0.6) 0.7 (1.8)
<0.1 (0.1) <0.1 (0.1) 0.2 (0.5)
<0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.1) 0.1 (0.2)
0.4 (0.8) 0.4 (0.8) 1.0 (2.5)
Note: - Values cited are in hectares (acres)
- Impacts for Alternate lA include replacement of bridge in
existing location (Perm.) and temporary detour (Temp.).
The four biotic communities found within the project area will be
altered as a result of project construction. The terrestrial communities
serve as nesting, foraging, and shelter habitat for faunal organisms. The
loss of this habitat will displace animals from this area as they search
for additional suitable habitat. This may concentrate animals into a
smaller area in which causes degradation of habitat.
The proposed construction of Alternates 1A and 2 would result in
habitat fragmentation which increases roadway related mortality among
several animal species such as deer and Virginia opossum. Individual
mortalities are likely to occur to terrestrial animals (i.e. shrews,
snakes, etc.) from construction machinery used during clearing activities.
The construction of Alternate 1 would result in habitat reduction.
Strict erosion and sediment controls will be adhered to during
project construction to minimize erosion and siltation.
Construction activities will invariably impact Irish Buffalo Creek.
Increased sedimentation and siltation is often directly attributable to
construction activities. Changes in light incidence and water clarity will
affect the photosynthetic ability of several species of primary producers
that inhabit Irish Buffalo Creek. The suspended particles will also
impact filter feeders inhabiting the creek. These impacts eventually are
magnified throughout the food chain and ultimately affect faunal organisms
located in higher trophic levels such as fish, mammals, and reptiles.
Construction activities often affect water level and flow due to
interruptions and/or additions to surface and groundwater flow. The
change in water level may severely impact spawning activities of mobile
and non-mobile organisms. Toxic runoff from spills, construction runoff,
and highway spills may result in mortality to aquatic species inhabiting
Irish Buffalo Creek. Strict adherence to BMPs will be maintained during
the construction phase of this project.
10
Surface waters and wetlands fall under the broad category of "Waters
of the United States," as defined in Section 33 of the Code of Federal
Regulations (CFR) Part 328.3. Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR 328.3, are those
areas that are inundated or saturated by surface or ground water at a
frequency and duration sufficient to support, and under normal
circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted to
life in saturated conditions. Any action that proposes to place fill into
these areas falls under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers (COE) under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344).
Criteria to delineate jurisdictional wetlands include evidence of
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and hydrology. A small, isolated
wetland is located in the maintained community along the northern-most
right of way portion of Alternate 2. Red maple, river birch (Betula
nigra), green ash (Fraxinus enns lvanica), ashleaf maple, blackberry, and
rush (Juncus sp.) were observe in this habitat. These plants are
commonly found in wetland ecosystems. The soil exhibited a matrix color
of 10YR5/1 and a mottle color of 5YR4/4. These colors are representative
of a hydric soil. Evidence of wetland hydrology was observed and included
inundation, stained leaves, and oxidized rhizospheres.
This wetland is classified as Palustrine Forested, Scrub/Shrub,
Broad-leaved Deciduous, Seasonally Flooded as defined by Cowardin et al.
(1979).
The construction of the recommended alternate has the potential to
impact jurisdictional wetlands located in the study area. These impacts
can severely affect the functions that wetlands provide in an ecosystem.
Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing
storm runoff which ultimately reduces the danger of flooding in
surrounding and downstream areas. Recent studies suggest that some
wetlands recharge groundwater systems. In the few studies available,
recharge was related to the edge: volume ratio of the wetland, suggesting
that it is relatively more important to small, isolated wetlands.
Wetlands have been documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients
and toxic materials from water that flows across them. The presence of
wetlands adjacent to roadways can act as filters to runoff pollutants and
toxins.
Wetland impacts are estimated to be <0.1 ha (<0.1 ac) for
Alternate 2.
Impacts to jurisdictional wetlands and surface waters are
anticipated. In accordance with provisions of section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344), a permit will be required from the COE for the
discharge of dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States."
11
A Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States from the proposed project.
This permit authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency
or department where:
(1) that agency or department has determined the pursuant to the council
on environmental quality regulation for implementing the procedural
provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act;
(2) 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;
(3) that 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.
A North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section
401 Water Quality General Certification is also required. Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act requires that the state issue or deny water
certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that may
result in a discharge into waters of the United States. The issuance of a
401 permit from DEM is a prerequisite to issuance of a CAMA or Section 404
Permit.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) has adopted through the Council on
Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the
concept of "no net loss of wetlands and surface waters and sequencing.
The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical,
biological and physical integrity of Waters of the United States.
Mitigation of wetland and surface water impacts have been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts, minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts,
reducing impacts over time, and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20).
Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable
possibilities of averting impacts to wetlands. According to a 1990
Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures
to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the
scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the analyzation of appropriate and practicable
steps to reduce the adverse impacts. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions.
12
Practicable means to minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands
impacted by the proposed project include:
- Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the
reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road
shoulder widths
- Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the
protection of surface waters and wetlands
- Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water
bodies
- Reduction and elimination of direct and non-point discharge into
streams
- Minimization of in-stream activities
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated
impacts to wetlands have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent
possible. It is recognized that "no net loss of wetlands" functions and
values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate
and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable
adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable
minimization has been required. Compensatory actions often include
restoration, creation and enhancement of wetlands. Such actions should be
undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site.
Actions authorized under Nationwide Permits usually do not require
compensatory mitigation according to the 1989 MOA between the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of the Army.
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the
process of decline either due to natural forces or their inability to
coexist with man. It is important to determine why these declines take
place so that man may better understand how to coexist with natural
systems. Federal law (under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act
of 1973, as amended) requires that any action, likely to adversely affect
a species classified as federally-protected, be subject to review by the
Fish and Wildlife (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection
under separate state laws.
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E),
Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of March 28, 1995, the FWS lists the
following federally-protected species for Cabarrus County (Table 3).
13
A brief description of each species characteristics and habitat follows.
Table 3. Federally-Protected Species
for Cabarrus County
SCIENTIFIC NAME COMMON NAME STATUS
Lasmigona decorata Carolina heelsplitter E*
Helianthus schweinitzii Schweinitz's sunflower E
E denotes Endangered (a species that is threatened with extinction
throughout all or a significant portion of its range).
"*" No specimen from Cabarrus County found in the past twenty years.
A review of the Natural Heritage Program database of uncommon and
protected species revealed no recorded occurrence of federally-protected
species in or near the project study area.
Lasmigona decorata (Carolina heelsplitter) E
Animal Family:
Date Listed: February 19, 1993
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Mecklenburg, Union.
The Carolina heelsplitter has an ovate, trapezoidal, unsculptured
shell which is greenish, yellowish, or brownish in color with greenish or
blackish rays. The nacre is usually pearly-white to bluish-white graying
to orange near the umbo and in older specimens the entire nacre may be
mottled orange. The umbo is flattened and the beaks are depressed and
project a little above the hinge line.
Habitat for the Carolina heelsplitter has been found in creeks,
streams, and rivers. Individuals are most often found in shaded areas,
either in a ponded portion of a small stream, or in runs along steep banks
with a moderate current. Water less than three feet deep and substrates
that are composed of soft mud, sand, muddy-sand, and sandy gravel are
preferred. Presently, only three known populations of this mussel species
exists; two of these populations are found in the North Carolina streams
of Waxhaw Creek, Catawba River System, Union County and Goose Creek, Pee
Dee River System, Union County.
Irish Buffalo Creek was surveyed for the presence of the Carolina
heelsplitter from fall 1986 through fall 1987 by Eugene P. Keferl as part
of field sampling incorporated in "The Final Report on a Status Survey of
the Carolina Heelsplitter, Lasmigona decorata and the Carolina Elktoe,
Alasmodonta robusta." The exact sampling location was not specifically
revealed in the above-mention report; however, a map located in the report
depicts the sampling location very near (if not at) the project area. No
specimens of Carolina heelsplitter were collected in Irish Buffalo Creek
as part of this extensive survey.
14
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) E
Plant Family: Asteraceae
Federally Listed: June 6, 1991
Flowers Present: mid September-early October
Distribution in N.C.: Cabarrus, Davidson, Mecklenburg,
Montgomery, Randolph, Rowan, Stanly, Stokes, Union.
Schweinitz's sunflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that grows
1-2 m tall from a cluster of carrot-like tubrous roots. The stems are
deep red, solitary and only branch above mid-stem. The leaves are rough
feeling above and resin-dotted and loosely soft-white-hairy beneath.
Leaves of the sunflower are opposite on the lower part of the stem and
usually become alternate on the upper stem. The broad flowers are borne
from September until frost. These flowers are yellow in color and
arranged in an open system of upwardly arching heads. The fruit is a
smooth, gray-black achene.
Schweinitz's sunflower is endemic to North and South Carolina. This
species is currently known from roadsides, power line clearings, old
pastures, edges of open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods, woodland
openings, and other sunny to semi-sunny situations. It is generally
located on poor, clayey (montmorillonitic), and/or rocky soils, especially
those derived from mafic rocks; however, the species also appears to occur
on intermediate and even felsic rocks. The sunflower appears to be
notably absent from granite, metamorphosed granite, metamorphosed quartz
diorite, quartzite, and other granitic rocks present in some abundance in
parts of most of the counties in the species' range. Natural fires and
large herbivores are considered to be historically important in
maintaining open habitat for these sunflowers..
Suitable habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower exists throughout the
maintained community and fallow field. The General Soil Map of North
Carolina (NC Geological Survey, 1985) indicates that soils present at the
site are classified as metamorphosed quartz diorite (foliated to massive).
These soils are not known to support populations of Schweinitz's
sunflower. However, due to the inexact (and often inaccurate) nature of
generalized soil mapping, it is impossible to dismiss the possibility,
although likely remote, that Schweinitz's sunflower exists in the project
area. A plant-by-plant survey was conducted in May 1995 when the species
could be identified vegetatively. No Schweinitz's sunflower were found.
Construction of this project will not have an adverse affect on any
federally protected animal or plant species.
The project is located in Cabarrus County, which has been determined
to be in compliance with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards.
40 CFR part 51 is not applicable, because the proposed project is located
in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
15
This project will not substantially increase traffic volumes.
Therefore, its 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 accordance with applicable local laws and regulations of the
North Carolina State Implementation Plans for air quality in compliance
with 15 NCAC 2D.0520.
Cabarrus County currently participates in the National Flood
Insurance Program and Irish Buffalo Creek in this vicinity is included in
a detailed flood study. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the
project area is shown in Figure 4.
VIII. SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION
An NCDOT staff architectural historian conducted a portion of the
roadbed associated with a survey in the APE and identified one structure
over fifty years of age. The abandoned structure, which remains standing
in its original location, is a single-span, pin connected Pratt Pony truss
bridge. This abandoned metal truss bridge carried the old Camden Road
across the creek. Although the decking has rotted away, this abandoned
metal truss bridge remains structurally intact, unaltered, and in its
original location. The bridge retains a high degree of overall integrity
and its historical association with the Camden Road. For these reasons,
the truss bridge and a section of the old roadbed approaching the bridge
from the north are considered eligible for the National Register under
Criteria A and C for transportation and design, respectively.
Since this project necessitates the use of a portion of the roadbed
associated with a historic bridge and meets the criteria set forth in the
Federal Register (July 5, 1983), a programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation
satisfies the requirements of Section 4(f).
The following alternatives, which avoid use of the historic bridge
structure, have been fully evaluated: (1) do nothing; (2) build a new
structure at a different location without affecting the historic integrity
of the structure, as determined by procedures implementing the National
Historic Preservation Act; and (3) rehabilitate the historic bridge
without affecting the historic integrity of the structure, as determined
by procedures implementing the National Historic Preservation Act. These
alternatives were not found to be feasible and prudent.
See attached programmatic 4(f) checklist in the Appendix (A-4).
All possible planning to minimize harm to the historic bridge have
been incorporated into the project. Measures to minimize harm include
16
Mitigation Measures
- Bridge No. 149 will be added to the North Carolina Metal
Truss Bridge Re-evaluation Study
- The bridge will be documented by aerial photography °
This project has been coordinated with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (SHPO) whose correspondence is included in the
Appendix (A-1B). Section 106 has been resolved and documented, and the
SHPO concurs with the proposed mitigation.
Approval of the programmatic Section 4(f) evaluation by the Federal
Highway Division Administrator is included in the Appendix (A-4).
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no serious
adverse environmental effects will result from implementation of the
project.
MJ/tp
fleffRAES
NORTH CAROLINA ?" I? Kannapolis M,g°""
_ ell ? l3 0 i2
\ M
N ncofd+
svllle e 13 7 Moon PI
s . r? y; 6 I
` 4 i
y l 2A R, U S///
R. 2 .4,
© ,?vNSrnsDurs I
'ae.a S'
g a iw?
+ Mldl
'.n . r
g
(/ / ::rte :• :•%? 1 ° s 2636
2 ?.?
k•' .
506 b 7 .
2?
J'
r ? 2b3 I.q w 2

. BYP
BY :2676 2661
2676 2661
.
?
! •- 601
p 2672
C
l
} 2630
t,
b i 2633
?I?' ?gOY • 2656 2630
2686
/? /Y Q
. 1D •t.7 ?
! -lam ? -1 ?1 1 -1
Faggert L l 1132
4
1185 5 .9

Q ?Q f 2688 !
LL ?? y 263 2681
2630 f
1153 ti 4 11250 q 0261 2229
S
1132
247
4
A `1t y
1270'..
_ 1150 t3
?? J I 1246 BRIDG
'" E NO. 149 x
`r 2670
1245 2 1
1244 ^ 0
1217 2698 4? 1 •0 1 0 2671
257 4 115 ?? 1151
'5 1149 t
-1-' 200
1
1274 1256 /•6
b
ROCKY 1148
N

I ti.
1132 11 148 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
1 139 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Cedar Grove . LS H G AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ock River B
BRIDGE NO. 149
SR 1132, REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 149
OVER IRISH BUFFALO CREEK
CABARRUS COUNTY
STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE B•2934

0 mile 1 FIG. 1
B--2934
BR I DGE NO. 149
CABARRUS COUNTY
LOOKING NORTH-EAST

r
t

..lL
LOOKING SOUTH-WEST
SIDE VIEW
FIGURE 3

RM 105
100-YEAR FLOODPLAIN
I
Ii
I I
I I
l?
\ v '
BRIDGE NO. 149 I
\ IRISH BUFFALO A andoned I
CRL''E , Road /
?...
44,
U ?RM106
/ OP
7 Q'
m
IZ
\ hOi// I
1
_ R M 107
1=3 li
I
s/Mpg ?°? r y !I
I
1)
1a0 H°
RM36
M108
n p7
;..
\-\ lkR
FIGURE\4
?` ?`
' ..? SU7F o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary William S. Price, Jr.. Director
July 12, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf G E d v
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation Z
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 J(1? 1
1c+ 1995
11
Re: Historic Structures Survey Report for 1
replacement of Bridge 149 on SR 1 132 over Z DIVIStGOF
Irish Buffalo Creek, Cabarrus County, B-2934, +1GHWAYS
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1 132, State Project ?N?jROtrt?ft~?P
8.2662301, ER 96-7004
Dear Mr. Graf:
Thank you for your letter of June 28, 1995, transmitting the historic structures
survey report by Clay Griffith concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation
Act, we concur that the following property is eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Abandoned Metal Truss Bridge. The bridge is significant under Criterion A
for its association with the old Camden Road, an important trade route
thorugh the county and region in the nineteenth century, and under Criterion
C as an intact example of a pin-connected Pratt pony truss bridge. We
believe the proposed boundfaries are appropriate for this property.
The report in general meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretary of the
Interior.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
A-1
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf
July 12, 1995, Page 2
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.
Sincerely,
avi)dB?ir?o o k
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw
cc: ?I. F. Vick
B. Church
Advisory
Council On
Historic
Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue. NW. #809
Washington. DC 20004
r-o - 1 1996
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf. P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh. NC 27601
REF: FAP No. BRZ-1132(2)
Replacement of Bridge No. 149
Cabarrus County. North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
On January 16, 1996, the Council recei?-ed your determination, supported by the North Carolina
State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). that the referenced undertaking. as modified, will
in the
have no adverse effect upon the metal truss bridge determined to ble f Council's
National Register of Historic Places. Pursuant to Section 800.5(d)(2)
regulations, "Protection of Historic Properties" (36 CFR Part 800), we do not object to your
determination. Therefore, you are not required to take any further steps to comply with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act other than to implement the undertaking as
proposed and consistent with any conditions you have reached with the North Carolina SHPO.
Due to the partial shutdown of the Federal government, brought about first by the impasse
between the Congress and the President over the budget and then by the recent snow emergency,
the Council has been closed for nearly four weeks. We
time being we are experiencing delays he for backlog of requests for Council comments, b
We regret any inconvenience this may have caused you.
We appreciate the well-organized and thorough documentation which accompanied your
submission. Thank you for your patience and cooperation.
Sincerely,
kud.-
MaryAnn Naber
Historic Preservation Specialist
Eastern Office of Review
A-1A
Federal Aid ,', ?c-x 1132. ?? TIP 7"r 13 •'LIV4 County Ga,6a?us
CONCURRENCE FORM
FOR
ASSESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Brief Project Description
[' LAGS PIr4IQG-e- 40. 141 114 41L?t72 Atef- l9-P7%4FFAL-V C4z.EEV__
On OKoDZ;L' '4 1115' representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Ofnce.(SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project and agreed
there are no effects on the National Register-listed property within the project's
area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there are no effects on the National Register-eligible properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
there is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property-properties and the effect(s) are
listed on the reverse.
? there is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/properties within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed
on the reverse.
Sicned:
r the Divi
OT, Historic Architectural resources zecuon
Administrator, or ocher t•ederal Aeency
eQ ,2
Representative, SHPO
Date

D??-?A. (9qs
Date
/v .7 c? -
Date

ate Historic Preservation Ofncer
(over)
S
f
A-1B
Federal Aid 13R? tl'?-{ TIP 2a?4 County
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property is
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within area of potential effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status (NR
or DE) and describe effect.

C t)El - ? o ??/2d?iv ?rYc? J i ? Irv Go??+•r.
?p?A.rJ?orJe-D l?Eta.l? TRuas ?-??G? /J
?Ual' v yv10?hPr ? jNV yY1?I?1 6W",
v ?? ?wlKakevt
lp"i
'9 Nvt?
?r11tr.Y ,lot,N.,,viwiFcd. b?? ?ia? ?1na?aL? .
Reason(s) why effect is not adverse (if applicable).
Initialed: NCDOT -Cl- F H W A G S SHPO
LI)

r f ?3E
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
May 10, 1995
Nicholas L. Graf
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442
Re: Bridge No. 149 on SR 1132 over Buffalo Creek,
Federal-Aid Project BRZ-1132(2), State Project
8.2662301, TIP B-2934, Cabarrus County, ER 95-
8913
Dear Mr. Graf:
Division of Archives and History
William S. Price, Jr., Director

MAY 15 1995
DIVISION OF
c IGHWAYS
Thank you for your letter of April 20, 1995, transmitting the archaeological survey
report by John J. Mintz and Anna L. Gray, North Carolina Department of
Transportation, concerning the above project.
No archaeological sites were identified by the archaeological survey and the
proposed undertaking does not involve significant cultural resources.
The report meets our office's guidelines and those of the Secretar, f the Interior.
The move comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the W , ' al Historic
Preservation Act of 1966 and the Advisory Council on Historic PrE- vation's
Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at 36 CFR : : 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.
Sincerely,
David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw ,
cc. H. F. Vick
John Mintz/Anna Gray
A-2
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Q3P

1
NORTH CAROLINA DIVISION
FD AL NATIONTWIDE SECTION 4(f) EVALUATION AN-D APPROVAL
FOR FEDERALLY-AIDED HIGHWAY PROJECTS WITH 1XIIN'OR INVOLVEMENT
WITH HISTORIC SITES
F. A. PROJECT: BRZ-1132(2)
STATE PROJECT : 8.2662301
T. I. P. PROJECT: B-2934
DESCRIPTION: $eMlace Bridge No. 149 on SR 1132 over Irish Buffalo Creek• Cabarru ounty
YES NO
1. Is the proposed project designed to improve the operational
characteristics, safety, and/or physical condition of the 7-1
existing highway facility on essentially the same alignment? '-
2. Is the project on new location? --??
3. Is the historic site adjacent to the existing highway? --
4. Does the project require the removal or alteration of 7-,
historic buildings, structures, or objects? -X-
5. Does the project disturb or remove archaeological
resources which are important to preserve in place i
rather than to recover for archaeological research? --
6. (a) Is the impact on the Section 4(f) site considered
minor (i.e. no effect, no adverse effect)? -
(b) If the project is determined to have "no adverse
effect" on the historic site, does the Advisory
Council on Historic Preservation object to the r-1
determination of "no adverse effect"? -
A-4
7. Has the SHPO agreed, in writing, with the assessment
of impacts and the proposed mitigation? -X
8. Does the project require the preparation of an EIS? `-?
ALTERNATIVES CONSIDERED AND FOUND NOT TO BE FEASIBLE AND PRUDENT
The following alternatives were evaluated and found not to be
feasible and prudent:
1. Do nothing
Does the "do nothing" alternative:
(a) correct capacity deficiencies?
or (b) correct existing safety hazards?
or (c) correct deteriorated conditions?
and (d) create a cost or impact of
extraordinary measure?
2. Improve the highway without using, the adjacent
historic site.
(a) Have minor alignment shifts, changes in
standards, use of retaining walls, etc., or
traffic management measures been evaluated?
YES
x
i f
iu
i?
EEI
x
NO
X
(b) The items in 2 (a) would result in:
(circle, as appropriate)
(i) substantial adverse environmental
impacts
or (ii) substantial increased costs
or (iii) unique engineering, transportation,
maintenance, or safety problems
or (iv) substantial social, environmental,
or economic impacts
or (v) a project which does not meet
the need
or (vi) impacts, costs, or problems which
are of extraordinary magnitude
YES NO
3. Build an improved facility on new location without
using the historic site. X
(a) An alternate on new location would
result in: (circle, as appropriate)
(i) a project which does not solve the
existing problems
or (ii) substantial social, environmentaL
or economic impacts
or (iii) a substantial increase in project
cost or engineering difficulties
and (iv) such impacts, costs, or difficulties
of truly unusual or unique or
extraordinary magnitude
: IN][ IZAUON OF HARM
YES NO
1. The project includes all possible planning to minimize
harm necessary to preserve the historic integrity of the site.
2. Measures to minimize harm have been agreed to, in
accordance with 36 CFR Part 800, by the FHWA, the
SHPO, and as appropriate, the ACHP. -X -
3. Specific measures to minimize harm are described as follows:
Note: Any response in a box requires additional information prior to approval. Consult
Nationwide 4(f) evaluation.
SEE THE NEXT PAGE FOR RESPONSES
B-2934
Bridge No. 149 will be replaced approximately 21 meters (70 feet) northwest (upstream)
of the existing bridge. This alternate was selected due to the improved horizontal
alignment and to alleviate the need for an on-site detour during construction. One property
over fifty years of age, an abandoned metal truss bridge, was identified within the APE for
this project. The roadbed associated with the metal .truss bridge will be impacted by the
proposed project. The truss bridge and a section of the old roadbed approaching the
bridge from the north are considered potentially eligible for the National Register under
Crites A & C for transportation and design, respectively.
After consultation with the SBPO, it was determined that a programmatic document
would be appropriate for the section 4(f) evaluation due to the minimal impacts and
effects.
COORDIlvATION
The proposed project has been coordinated with the following (attach correspondence):
a. State Historic Preservation Officer
b. Advisory Council on Historic Preservation -
C. Property owner
d. Local/State/Federal Agencies -- x
e. US Coast Guard (for bridges requiring bridge permits)
SUNDAARY AND APPROVAL
The project meets all criteria included in the programmatic 4(f) evaluation approved on December 23,
1986.
All required alternatives have been evaluated and the findings made are clearly applicable to this project.
There are no feasible and prudent alternatives to the use of the historic site.
The project includes all possible planning to minimize harm, and the measures to minimize harm will be
incorporated in the project.
All appropriate coordination has been successfully completed with local and state agencies.
Approved:
to Manager, Planning & Environmental Branch NCDOT
Date j ?visio dministrator, FHWA
X C. +DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
TRANSMITTAL SLIP DATE
g 3 114
PTO:
ErriC. ?s' A.la,?ai REF. NO, OR ROOM. BLDG,
1J?M- BEN t?R
'
FROM: .,' REF. N
O..OR ROOM, BLDG.
? ? ??)
c
ACTION
?.NOTE'AND FILE ? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER. YOUR REQUEST
? RETURN WITH -MOREDETAILS. ? . FOR YOUR APPROVAL
>. ? NOTE AND SEE' ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE"ANSWER ?^FOR YOUR COMMENTS
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ?.SIGNATURE
? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:

AUG)

X-' ' J
.F.
Hdwa?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT, JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS R. SAMUEL HUNT III
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
August 1, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
FROM: H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Replacing Bridge No. 149
on SR 1132 over Irish Buffalo Creek, Cabarrus County,
B-2934
Attached for your review and comments are the scoping sheets for the
subject.project (See attached map for project location). The purpose of
these sheets and the related review procedure is to have an early "meeting
of the minds" as to the scope of work that should be performed and thereby
enable us to better implement the project. A scoping meeting for this
project is scheduled for September 20, 1994 at 10:00 A. M. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 434). You may provide us
with your comments at the meeting or mail them to us prior to that date.
Thank you for your assistance in this part of our planning process.
If there are any questions about the meeting or the scoping sheets, please
call Michele James, Project Planning Engineer, at 733-7842.
MJ/pl r 0?0 I Z
Attachment

134 \? ?,0 C,L ?lC 1/i /- / )- ? " (Z)
S
4 5',-??i
X651,

Y'Vi

bAt 3 ors
?pu.SES

onn-

•

BRIDGE
PROJECT StsOPTNG SfIF.FT
DATE --...... _8-/.-y4
REVISION DATE: _
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT -STAG --
PROGRAMMTNG
P I:ANN :I NG _.--
1)ES1'GN
TIP PROJFC`I' .-_._-.__._---._.-__ '•`3; ?!-._.-.-_._-_._._..
STATE PROJECT 1:):[ VTS f ON L0
COUNTY
ROUT)'' - --- -- - -- _Sti{__:?_ _-i2
PU.RPOS:I OF PROJECT: R'EPLACF; ORSOL.ETE BRIDGE
DESCR]:UTION OF PROJECT- REP?A,:F BRIDE <F, NO 1.45 OVER I - I I ,[= FAA .:'
: ?E K ON SR 1.132, CABf0R-'I US
i
M?'3.'IaOD OF REPIAC`,!')NM:Ntf :
1- E.X:FS1'1 NG I.OCA`,'1 ON - ROAD CLOSURE
2- EXISTING LOCATION -- ONSTTE DE'T'OUR
3- REJ,OCAILJON
4 OTHER
WILL `i'}II;':RE BF; Sill?'C i Af:: :i UND-f NG PAIZI'TCIPATION BY MUNI CIPA1_17'Y ,
DE# VE3 ,OPERS , OR XI a
- - --- NO IF YES, BY WHOM AND !T'HA'I' AMOUNT : ($) (X)

-E ,)R I: IX. E
`[,RAFFIC_ CURRENT _._l60.Q.---__ VPD;
T'Y'r'IC;A M)AT)WAY
EXI. ST.! NG STRUC `PUKE = 3 EM31.1-C E; ;t3
_12a,.
P.ROPOSi;I)
COPING SHEET
DESIGN YEAR VPD
METERS; WI:IY?H
VEET
l3T IXrT: I EITGTI? -- - ---- METER13
WIDTH -y M.;1:'F..RS
? ?-- FEET 3Q KEET
Obi --
GUILV h Rl' -- - -X - - .. METERS
?? ?
- -- ?? - -- FEET
M."ITIOU. ?`['!?;.
i;,UP. -
METERS, WI:T)`.t`T-, TuT)-.'PF tt
MI LI,I:METER;)
---- ------ INCHES
CONSTRUCTJO?
:FORCE: ACCOUNT l'I'Ej
( L ?..._i!).LNG ENGINE ERING AND
CC)'?'J'INIGENCIES)-,----- ---- ------
r:I:t):;LUDING RELOCAT-LON, I'I'CI,
AND ACQUIS.-L'T.'ION)----------- ------- $
is $
ll.'O'l 'AL
T:iP CON ON Co,
----- ------ -------- $ 350v000
TIP RI(3H'r O?" WAY COiT---------- ------- ------------- g 30,(>(j0
- -- --
St73 ''C)'PrL -
- - -------- - -------- -- • --- $ 330,0 ---
00
-F
PI?IC.?1? Y:AFZ,? COOT'('------------------
. --------- ---- $

URI DGE
PROJECT SCOPING SHEET
A}:tl?] .l.IUNAI:, CQMMEN? ,: USG;-, QUAD G(M.:O;-Lt, SOUTHEAST
ER 1112 1S CIASS10% AS A MINOR WWWOR,
PREPARED BY: Michele Jame,_..
DATE: 8-2-94

do
M
NORTH CAROLINA 5enhei ?`;.
A Kannapolis
_ ell . \3? t2 i!
36
7
*, ncord+
wllle b ] 7 Moun P)
. .`.N 8 ` .. 6 i / ,
2
A R4UeSg,
,.?•Harrisburg R. 200
Ied

IAidl'
.
•-n \ r
9
h
2636 2 ?•?

-0 2_6,,p
7
.
L 263 :q w 2 .
r
P. !Q
BYP
r- 00 2676 2661

601
2672
r.I
?•.::: ? 'c,?+ 2630

1 4 2633
f 2630
2656 1y.
.. ..v.:. ? j •.4 'cP 2686
-
4 `
Faggerts
?'-
1i32
1. j

'P 8
1185
5
•t
'
' .
!:.
?
:; ..
tom. ?
?` ` ?~
.. 2688
}
•S
3?
268
1
b 1230 2630
2689
1 153 -wb

,
11
32
`
'4 0
2629
,
>1
i \ •2
24
7
'
..
1270 c a
J w ? 1150..
.v 1246
1245
`L 1- x

r X670
?
`'S ~ 74 ' 0
1 4 \ i
121J269 12-0 1.0 1 2671.
--
_
5 4 1151
257 1152
1149 t
200
1274 T256 1.6
.
ROCKY 11as

1 132 11 148 NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
113 9 DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
Cedar Grove
' PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL
ock River BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 149
SR 1132, REPLACE BRIDGE NO. 149
AVER IRISH BUFFAL•OCREEK
CABARRUS COUNTY
B - 2931
0 mile 1 FIG. 1
r
n
g ??7p N
Ln
O 00
U
71
L?
L'i
C
0.
C
v ?
fx
[s-
?zLO
W
U
d
W
?z
`-,WU

N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
, ?,-d>
DATE
TRANSMITTAL SLIP 1? / 1q
'TO:
cut `\J {M W r •! REF. NO. OR ROOM, BLDG.
M: ^
O
FFR REF. NO. OR ROOM. BLDG.
^'
/
?/
l-&
` ACTION
? NOTE AND FILE- '? PER OUR CONVERSATION
? NOTE AND RETURN TO ME ? PER YOUR REQUEST
-: ? RET.URN.WITHM ORE DETAILS. ? FOR YOUR APPROVAL -
? - NOTE AND SEE ME ABOUT THIS ? FOR YOUR INFORMATION
? PLEASE- ANSWER ? FOR YOUR COMMENTS -
? PREPARE REPLY FOR MY SIGNATURE ? SIGNATURE
. ? TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION ? INVESTIGATE AND REPORT
COMMENTS:
... . I '. .
?...
_ `:: h

t
- ? •i ?
? 4 1

- _ s. a . s
? e
JAMES B. HUNT, JR.
GOVERNOR
.. ?a wSfAT£°
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
December 7, 1994
MEMORANDUM TO:
Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR, 6th Floor
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
FROM: Michele L. James
Project Planning Engineer
SUBJECT: Replacement of Bridge No. 149 on SR 1132 over Irish
Buffalo Creek, Cabarrus County, B-2934, State Project
8.2662301, F. A. Project BRZ-1132(2)
A scoping meeting for the subject project was held on September 20, 1994
at 10:00 AM in Room 434 of the Planning and Environmental Branch.
The following people were in attendance:
Brian Williford
Sue Flowers
Richard Shillinglaw
John Taylor
Robin Stancil
Ray Moore
Ramesh Fofaria
Danny Rogers
Eric Galamb
David Cox
Betty C. Yancey
Michele James
Hydraulics Unit
Roadway Design
Roadway Design
Location and Surveys
SHPO
Structure Design
Structure Design
Program Development Unit
DEM
NCWRC
Right-of-Way
Planning & Environmental Branch
Attached are the revised scoping sheets which include additional
information provided at the scoping meeting.
Eric Galamb of DEM commented that Irish Buffalo Creek is classified as
Class C. Implementation of standard erosion control measures was suggested.
Robin Stancil of the SHPO commented that no architectural survey would
be necessary.
John Taylor of Location and Surveys reported that a line of wood poles
on the SE side carried a high voltage power line, a three-phase distribution
voltage power line and cable tv. There is a fire hydrant on the NE side of
RECEi EC
DEC 130 1994
E6YV#tioiy'WEMrAL SCIE y'` ES
Na
" December 7, 1994
P4ge 2
the stream 15m +/- NW of the road. A sanitary sewer line crosses the road 30
+/- SW of the SW end of the bridge.
The Hydraulics Unit recommends that the bridge be replaced immediately
north of its existing location with a bridge 43m (141 ft.) in length.
A list of alternatives to be studied are as follows:
Alternate 1 - Replace the bridge on existing location. Traffic would be
detoured along existing secondary roads during construction.
Alternate lA - Replace the bridge on existing location . Traffic would
be maintained with a temporary on-site detour.
Alternate 2 - Replace the bridge on new location located on the
northwest side of the existing bridge.
Based on available information, it appears that Alternate 2 is the
preferred alternate. A preliminary cost estimate for the recommended
replacement is $ 650,000.
MJ/plr
Attachment
s
s
BR ILf'.317
PROJECT SCO.PING SHEET
DATE _.-6-7.274
REVISION DATE PRO<?ECT DEVELOPMENT STAGE
PHCGRAMMING
FANNING
DESIGN ---
TIP PROJECT
STATE PROS -L?:,"=„, -----
,
Fil DiVISION 10
METHOD OF R11? 11 ,AC.EMILK l
_-
2 _ EXT ST NG i,C,..t?' }},lS.I E DETOUR ------
3- RE-1,0GAll"I"IDN'
W ! LC. THERE BE SPECIAL FUNDING PARTICIPATION BY WINICIPALITY,
DEVELOPERS, OR OTHERS? YES NO
IF YES, BY WHOM AND WHAT AMOUNT : () _ (%) ---_-^.
PROD E
TRAFFIC= CURRENT __1_faQO VI'D;
TYPICAL ROADWAY SEC`S' IOC! =
EXISTING
BRIDGE
C`t' SCOUING SI EI 'T
DESTGN YEAR -2_20 VPD
W1111'f1 6__1_ METERS
_T 11.-- -- FEET -.2Q- FEET
PROPOSED STR
BRTDGf? - I EN TrI METERS; WIDTH .--- ?-,--t- METERS
ET ' 0 . _.._.. FEET
OR.
'1, -
5 • f? (-.i. EDETOUR S`IRUCTUItE

BRI.DIC'E - LENGTH METERS; W11Y.171i METERS
_..._{30FEET FEET
OR - SIZE PIPE MI LLIKET E_
INCHES
CONSTRUCTION COST (:INCLUDING ENGINEERING AND
COQ:TINGENCIES)---------------------- $ 650,000
RIGHT OF WAY COST (INCLUDING RELOCATION, UTILITIES,
AND ACtiI=s:Sz':?IO )------------------- $ 30,000
FORCE ACCOUNT :C`I':VMS------ ..-------------------------- $
TOTAL COST --------------------------------------- $ 680,000
TIP CONSTRUCTION COST --------------------------------- $ 350,000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST-------------------------------- s 30,000
SUB TOTAL--------------------------------------- $ 380,000
PRIOR YEARS COST --------------------------------
TIP TOTAL COST ---------------------$ 380,000

BRI iJUE
PROJECT.` SCOPING SHEET
ADDITIONAL COMMENTS- USES QUAD SHEET: CONCORD SOUTHEAST, #983
SR 1132 IS CLASSIFIED AS A MiNL+R CO?,I;ECTOR_
PREPARED BY_ Michele James
DATE- 12-7-94