19960713 Ver 1_Complete File_19960729

?' SWE o
W >
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201
August 16, 1995
R. SAMUEL HUNT III
SECRETARY
MEMORANDUM TO: Mr. Eric Galamb
DEM - DEHNR - Water Quality Lab
FROM: nkli Hager
/'AP ng vir ??11 Branch
.?i' f Z
SUBJECT: Review of Scoping Sheets for Bridge No. 58 on SR 1743
over Withrow Creek, Rowan County, Federal Aid Project
No. BRZ-1743(3), State Project No. 8.2633101, TIP
Project No. B-2616
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 26, 1995 at 10:00 a.m. in the Planning
and Environmental Branch Conference Room (Room 470). 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 Bob Booker, Project Pl nning Engfin'e at 733-7842.
RJB/pl r
Attachment 1"J ??,(o
o-0,
Mfel:tl
BRIDGE PROJECT
SCOPI'_t:G SHEET
TIP PROJECT
STATE PR CJECT
F. A. PROJECT
B-?n1o
n? ?;.
SRZ-lid 3(3')

DATE:
DIVISION 9
CCUNT" Rowan
ROUTE SR 1-43

- '?T TapC`CF OF onr,TTf ?• or..PT ??F r(t?,1 T.F-!?pTT,,rJF
.-_-. _ .. .....J?.. 1. - ..L _.
DESCRiPI'IO'? OF t'RCJEC'I': Retplac Bride No,SS on SR 1743 over Vl i rov; Craek iii Roiti°zai Coum-
W' T L THERE BF SPECIAL. Ff ?iT`It J nap-TICIP?TTO`i B1" MUNICIPP.LITV. DE` ET TOPERS. R
01HiS, tr:z
r?irCTi1"LJ r ?, l TrTEn ",WIDTH Q
FEET t9.2
TI?;::C1iSi'^UC'TICN. CCS"i ...................................................................... 5 300.000
TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................................................... S ?j.uvu
TIP TOTAL CCST S 3215,-0,001

N
METERS
17. 'ET

B-2616
ROWAN COUNTY
ESTIMATED 1995/2020 ADTS AND.TRAFFIC FACTORS
BRIDGE #58 on SR1743
0.5 mi. SOUTH of SR1749
over-WITHROW CREEK
ADT - % g
ROUTE SECTION
1995
2020 DUAL TTST DHV DIR
SR1743 over
Withrow Creek 900 2000 7 3 12 55

M
.f?
9 6 07 3
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH, N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
July 26, 1996
401 ISSUED
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers`
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890 Z,,
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890 o
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Rowan County, Replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Withrow Cre
SR 1743. Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1743(3), State Project
No. 8.263 TIP No. B-2616.
Attached for your information are copies of the categorical exclusion action
classification form and the natural resources technical report for the subject project. The
project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a programmatic
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not
anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide
Permit in accordance with 33 CFR 330 Appendix A (B-23) issued November 22, 1991, by
the Corps of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and Appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction of the project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality 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 Water Quality, for their review.
N*10
f.
2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr.
Phillip Todd at [phone], Ext. 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/mlt
cc: w/ attachments
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, Asheville Field Office
Mr. John Dorney, NCDEHNR, DWQ
Mr. John Smith, P. E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Kelly Barger, P. E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Don Morton, P. E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P. E., State Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, P. E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Michele James, Project Planning Engineer
f
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION ACTION CLASSIFICATION FORM
TIP Project No. B-2616
State Project No. 8.2633101
Federal-Aid Project, No. BRZ-1743(3)
A. Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 58 on the existing location
on Bear Poplar Road (SR 1743) over Withrow Creek in Rowan County.
The new structure will be a bridge 30 meters (100 feet) long and 8.4 meters
(28 feet) wide. The width will include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.0-
meter (3 foot) offsets. The approaches will include two 3.3-meter (11 foot)
lanes and 1.8-meter (6 foot) grassed shoulders. Traffic willbe detoured along
secondary roads during construction.
B. . Purpose and Need:
Bridge No. 58 has a sufficiency rating of 38.7 out of 100. The bridge is
posted for 14 tons for single vehicles and 17 tons for truck tractor semi-
trailers, which is well below standards. For these reasons, Bridge No. 58
needs to be replaced.
C: Proposed Improvements:
Circle one or more of the following improvements which apply to the project:
Type 11 Improvements
Modernization of a highway by resurfacing, restoration, rehabilitation,
reconstruction, adding shoulders, or adding auxiliary lanes (e.g., parking
weaving, turning, climbing).
a. Restoring, Resurfacing, Rehabilitating, and Reconstructing pavement
(3R and 4R improvements)
b. Widening roadway and shoulders without adding through lanes
c. Modernizing gore treatments
d. Constructing lane improvements (merge, auxiliary, and turn lanes)
e. Adding shoulder drains
f. Replacing and rehabilitating culverts, inlets, and drainage pipes,
including safety treatments
g. Providing driveways pipes
h. Performing minor bridge widening ( less than one through lane)
2. Highway safety or traffic operations improvement projects including the
installation of ramp metering control devices and lighting.
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
a. Installing ramp metering devices
b. Installing lights
c. Adding or upgrading guardrail
d. Installing safety barriers including Jersey type barriers and pier
protection
e. Installing or replacing impact attenuators
f. Upgrading medians including adding or upgrading median barriers
g. Improving intersections including relocation and/ or realignment
It. Making minor roadway realignment
i. Channelizing traffic
j. Perforating clear zone safety improvements including removing hazards
and flattening slopes
k. Implementing traffic aid systems, signals, and motorist aid
1. Installing bridge safety hardware including bridge rail retrofit
3?. Bridge rehabilitation, reconstruction, or replacement or the construction of
grade separation replace existing at-grade railroad crossings.
a. Rehabilitating, reconstructing, or replacing bridge approach slabs
b. Rehabilitating or replacing bridge decks
c. Rehabilitating bridges including painting ( no red lead paint), scour
repair, fender systems, and minor structural improvements
Replacing a bridge (structure and/ or fill)
4. Transportation corridor fringe parking facilities.
5. Construction of new truck weigh stations or rest areas.
6. Approvals for disposal of excess right-of-way or for joint or limited use of
right-of-way, where the proposed use does not have significant adverse
impacts.
7. Approvals for changes in access control.
8. Construction of new bus storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and located on or near a
street with adequate capacity to handle anticipated bus and support vehicle
traffic.
9. Rehabilitation or reconstruction of existing rail and bus buildings and
ancillary facilities where only minor amounts of additional land are required
and there is not a substantial increase in the number of users.
10. Construction of bus transfer facilities (an open area consisting of passenger
shelters, boarding areas, kiosks and related street improvements ) when
2

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
located in a commercial area or other high activity center in which there is
adequate street capacity for projected bus traffic.
11. Construction of rail storage and maintenance facilities in areas used
predominantly for.industrial or transportation purposes where such
construction is not inconsistent with existing zoning and where there is no
significant noise impact on the surrounding community.
12. Acquisition of land for hardship or protective purposes, advance land
acquisition loans under section 3 (b) of the UMT Act. Hardship and
protective buying will be permitted only for a particular parcel or a limited
number of parcels. These types of land acquisition will not limit the
evaluation of alternatives, including shifts in alignment for planned
construction projects, which may be required in the NEPA process. No
project development on such land may proceed until the NEPA process has
been completed.
D. Special Project Information
Environmental Commitments:
All standard procedures and measures will be implemented to avoid or minimize
environmental impacts. All practical Best Management Practices (BMP's) will be
included and properly maintained during project construction.
In accordance with the provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.
1344), a permit will be required from the Corps of Engineers for the discharge of
dredged or fill material into "Waters of the United States." A Corps of Engineers
Nationwide Permit # 23 will likely be applicable.
Prior to issuance of the Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit # 23, a North
Carolina Division of Environmental Management (DEM) Section 401 Water Quality
General Certification must be obtained.
No High Quality Waters,Water Supplies (WS-1 or WS-I>) or Outstanding
Resource Waters occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi) of the project site.
Estimated Costs:
* Construction $ 300,000
Right of Way $ 29,000
Total $ 329,000
*Cost includes 15% for engineering and contingencies
3
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
Estimated Traffic:
Current Year: 1996 - 900 VPD
DUAL - 7%
DHV -12%
Design Year: 2020 - 2000 VPD
Design Speed: 70 km/h (45 mph)
Functional Classification: Minor Collector
Division Office Comments:
TTST - 3%
DIR - 55%
The Division Engineer concurs withthe proposed project. The division office
plans to widen and resurface the existing 4.8-meter (16-foot) roadway to 6.6-
meter (22 feet) by the summer of 1998. Two detour routes from the division
office were suggested: DETOUR A -- NC 801, SR 1547, SR 1749 and
DETOUR B -- NC 801, SR 1547, SR 1747, SR 1001 (See Figure 1).
School Buses:
Three school buses cross Bridge No. 58 twice a day. The Transportation-Director
for Rowan County does not object to road closure during construction.
Architectural / Historic Resources:
The State Historic Preservation Office recommended no architectural survey or
archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
Utilities:
A power line and underground fiber-optic telephone line run parallel to the road
on the west side. Relative to the roadway centerline, the powerline and the fiber-
optic line are located approximately 30 m (100 ft.) and 10.7 in (35 ft.),
respectively, to the west.
A dirt path leading to a soil storage area for a dredging operation is located
approximately 9 in (30 ft.) north of the bridge on the east side of the road. The
storage area is approximately 30 in (100 ft.) east of the road and 9 in (30 ft.) north
of the stream. A 1 in (3 ft.) high earth berm runs along the northeast bank of the
creek from the road for approximately 60 in (200 ft.), which protects the stream
from erosion of soil from the storage area.
4
4
1
t?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
E. Threshold Criteria
if any Type II actions are involved in the project, the following evaluation must be completed.
If the project consists on of Type I improvements, the following checklist does not need to
be completed.
ECOLOGICAL YES NO
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact on any
unique on any unique or important natural resource? I X
(2) Does the project involve any habitat where federally
listed endangered or threatened species may occur? 7X
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish? ?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the amount of
permanent and/or temporary wetland taking less than x
one-third (1/3) acre and have all practicable measures
wetland to avoid and minimize takings been evaluated?
(5) Will the project require use of U. S. Forest Service lands? ?
X
(6) Will the quality of adjacent water resources be adversely
impacted by proposed construction activities? X
(7) Does the project involve waters classified as Outstanding
Water Resources (OWR) and/or High Quality Waters X 17 -
(HQW)?
(8) Will the project require fill in waters of the United States
in any of the designated mountain trout counties? E X
(9) Does the project involve any known underground storage
tanks (UST's) or hazardous materials sites? 0 X
5
PERMITS AND COORDINATION
(10) If the project is located within a CAMA county, will the
project significantly affect the coastal zone and/or any
"Area of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier Resources Act
resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be required?
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
YES NO
7 X
G
X
X
X
X
(13) Will the project result in the modification of any existing ?
regulatory f loodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream relocations or channel a
changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
(15) Will the project induce substantial impacts to planned
growth or land use for the area?
(16) Will the project require the relocation of any family or
business?
(17) If the project involves the acquisition of right of way, is the
amount of right of way acquisition considered minor?
(18) Will the project involve any changes in access control?
YES NO
X
X
X

(19) Will the project substantially alter the usefulness and/ or land ?
use of any adjacent property?
(20) Will the project have an adverse effect on permanent local a
traffic patterns or community cohesiveness?
(21) Is the project included in an approved thoroughfare plan
and/ or Transportation Improvement Program (and is, X
therefore, in conformance with the Clean Air Act of 1990)?
(22) Is the project anticipated to cause an increase in traffic n
volumes?
X
X
X
F7
X

6
r
Date: 1193
Revised: 1/94
(23) Will traffic be maintained during construction using existing ?
roads, staged construction, or on-site detours? X
(24) Is there substantial controversy on social, economic, or
environmental grounds concerting the project? 1-1 X
(25) Is the project consistent with all Federal., State, and local
laws relating to the environmental aspects of the action? X l
CULTURAL RESOURCES YES NO
(26) Will the project have an "effect" on properties eligible for
or listed on the National Register of Historic Places? F-I X
(27) Will the project require the use of Section 4(f) resources
(public parks, recreation lands, wildlife and waterfowl X
Section 4(f) of the U. S. Department of Transportation
Act of 1966)?
(28) Will the project involve construction in, across, or adjacent
to a river designated as a component of or proposed for 17 X
inclusion in the natural Wild and Scenic Rivers?
F. Additional Documentation Required for Unfavorable Responses in Part E
Response to question no. 2:
As of April 1, 1996, the USFWS lists the Schweinitz's sunflower
(Helianthus schweinitzh) as the only federally -protected species for Rowan
County. The project area was surveyed for Schweinitz's sunflower on January 31,
1996 by two NCDOT biologists. Prior to surveying the site, a known population
was visited to determine if winter identification was possible from leaf and stem
remains. It was found that some leaves and flowers remained, allowing the plants
to be easily identified. The site was then surveyed plant-to-plant and no
Schweinitz's sunflowers were found. A search of the North Carolina Heritage
Program database revealed no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
project area.
7

Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
G. CE Approval
TIP Project No. B-2616
State Project No. 8.2633101
Federal-Aid Project No. BRZ-1743(3)
Project Description :
The purpose of this project is to replace Bridge No. 58 on the existing location
on Bear Poplar Road (SR 1743) over Withrow Creek in Rowan County. The
new structure will be a bridge 30 meters (100 feet) long and 8.4 meters (28
feet) wide. The width will include two 3.3-meter (11-foot) lanes with 1.0-
meter (3-foot) offsets. The approaches will include two 3.3-meter (11-foot)
lanes with 1.8-meter (6-foot) grassed shoulders. Traffic will be detoured
along secondary roads during construction.
Categorical Exclusion Action Classification: (Check one)
TYPE Il (A)
X TYPE H (B)
Arwroved:
Manager
Dat" e' Assistant
Planning & Environmental Branch
D +y
Project Planning Unit Head
4f
'J -
Jate 40it Plannui Onjineer
For Type II (B) projects only:
Division Adminis for
6a&
Federal Highway Administration
8

1444- STUDIED DETOUR ROUTE
NORf11 CAROLINA DEPAAIMISN 1 OF
TRAA'SPROTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PIANNTN0 AND PMMONMRNTAI. BRANCH
BRIDGE NO. 58 ON SR 1743
SOUTH OF SR 1749
OVER WITHROW CREEK
ROWAN COUNTY
B-2616
0 miles 2 FIGURE 1
xa SCpF°
?? awe
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
October 12, 1995 C E 1t
Nicholas L. Graf Q?
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Department of Transportation
310 New Bern Avenue OCT 3 0 1995
Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 2
ti Qivrsr??,j. ?;4
Re: Replace Bridge No. 58 on SR 1743 over 4 MGHW?;,?
Withrow Creek, Rowan County, B-2616, Federal 'go M
Aid Project BRZ-1743(3), State Project. N
8.2633101, ER 96-7297
Dear Mr. Graf:
On September 26, 1995, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) staff for a meeting of the minds concerning
the above project. We reported our available information on historic architectural
and archaeological surveys and resources along with our recommendations.
NCDOT provided project area photographs and aerial photographs at the meeting.
Based upon our review of the photographs and the information discussed at the
meeting, we offer our preliminary comments regarding this project.
In terms of historic architectural resources, we are aware of no historic structures
located within the area of potential effect. We recommend that no historic
architectural survey be conducted for this project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area, but it is
likely that such resources are present. An archaeological survey of the area of
potential effect should be undertaken unless the proposed replacement is to be at
the existing location with an off-site detour and minimal approach work.
Having provided this information, we look forward to receipt'of either a Categorical
Exclusion or Environmental Assessment which indicates how NCDOT addressed our
comments.
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.
109 East Jones Street - Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807
Nicholas L. Graf {
October 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 919/733-47.63.
Sincerely,

David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
DB:slw?
cc: "H. F. Vick
B. Church
T. Padgett

I.?Teo
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GovmNoR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C 27611-5201
23 February 1996
MEMORANDUM TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
ATTENTION:
Teresa Hart, Unit Head
Project Planning Unit
Mark Hartman, Environmental Biologist
Environmental Unit

Natural Resources Technical Report for Proposed
Replacement of Bridge No. 58 on SR-1743 over Withrow
Creek, Rowan County; TIP No. B-2616; State Project No.
8.2633101; Federal Aid No. BRZ-1743(3).
Michelle James, Project Planning Engineer
Project Planning Unit
The attached report addresses four issues pertinent to the development of a
Programmatic Categorical Exclusion (PCE) for the proposed project: water resources,
biotic resources, wetlands, and federally-protected species. A completed Ecological
Threshold Checklist for a type 11 PCE is also included. The proposed project calls for
the replacement of bridge number 58 on SR 1743 over Withrow Creek, Rowan County.
The project right-of-way (ROW) is 18.3 m (60 ft), and project length is approximateiy
434 m (1426 ft).
A field investigation was conducted on 19 December 1995 by NCDOT biologists
Mark Hartman and Jim Hauser to assess natural resources at the project site. Biotic
communities were investigated and faunal composition was predicted based on
habitats observed. Prior to field investigation, information concerning federally
protected species was obtained from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (March 28,
1995), and the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP).
WATER RESOURCES
One body of water, Withrow Creek, is within the project area. Withrow Creek is
in the Yadkin-Pee Dee drainage. It is a shallow stream 10 to 15 m (33 to 49 ft) wide
and up to 1 m (3 ft) deep. The substrate is predominately sand with small patches of
GARLAND B. GARRETT J R.
SECRETARY
JC%

gravel and cobble. Flow is mostly pool, with occasional runs. Due to the sandy
substrate and the lack of woody debris, the habitats present are relatively
homogeneous.
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the Division of
Environmental Management (DEM). Withrow Creek is a class C stream. Class C
refers to waters suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife,
secondary recreation and agriculture. No High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies
(WSI or WSII), or Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within 1.6 km (1.0 mi.) of
the project site.
The Benthic Macro invertebrate 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. Some
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the
species richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water
quality. No BMAN sites are located on Withrow Creek.
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. There are no NPDES permitted
dischargers in the project vicinity on Withrow Creek.
Aquatic communities are sensitive to any changes in the environment. Any
action which affects water quality can have an adverse impact on aquatic organisms.
Although these actions may be temporary during the construction phase of the project,
environmental impacts from these processes may be long term or irreversible.
Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure, the only
alternative presented, is almost always the preferred environmental approach.
Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters:
Increased silt loading and sedimentation from erosion of disturbed soils.
Changes in light incidence, water clarity and water temperature due to increased
sediment load and riparian vegetation removal.
Alteration of stream discharge due to silt loading and changes in surface or
ground water drainage patterns.
Increased potential for release of toxic compounds such as fuel and oil from
construction equipment and other vehicles.
Precautions must be taken to minimize these and other impacts to water resources in
the study area.
r
NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Surface
Waters should be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project.
Provisions to preclude unnecessary contamination by toxic substances should
also be strictly enforced.
BIOTIC RESOURCES
There are several terrestrial communities present at the study site including
early successional piedmont upland pine forest, piedmont/low mountain alluvial forest,
and disturbed/maintained areas. The two southern quadrants contain pasture habitat
separated from the roadside shoulder by a small hedgerow. The pasture areas are
separated from the stream by a small strip of piedmont alluvial forest. The northwest
quadrant has a shoulder area which grades into early successional piedmont upland
pine forest, with a strip of piedmont alluvial forest bordering the stream. The northeast
quadrant contains an agricultural field separated from the roadside shoulder by a small
hedgerow. Between the agricultural field and the stream is a small sand mining
operation and a 1-4 m (3-13 ft)disturbed scrub habitat.
Disturbed and Maintained
The roadside and pasture areas are dominated by plant species such as fescue
(Festuca sp.), crab grass (Digitaria sp.),and plantain (Plantago sp.). The hedgerow
separating the roadside from the pasture includes pokeweed (Phytolacca americana),
horse nettle (Solanum carolinense), Japanese grass (Microstegium vimineum), smooth
sumac (Rhus glabra), blackberry (Rubus argutus), rose (Rosa spp.), grape (Vitus spp.),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), beggar ticks (Bidens spp.), milkweed
(Asclepias syriaca), and in some areas, red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), privet
(Ligustrum sinense), and elderberry (Sambucus canadensis).
The disturbed area which separates the creek from the sand mining operation is
not regularly maintained as the pasture and shoulder are. Plant species occupying this
area include switch cane (Arundinaria gigantea), rose, Japanese grass, privet,
blackberry, sycamore (Pletanus occidentalis), pokeweed, horse nettle, silverberry
(Elaeagnus umbellata), and smooth sumac.
Wildlife found in this community type is limited. and consists primarily of wide-
ranging, adaptable species. Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel
between less disturbed habitats, or as a foraging area. Reptiles commonly found in
disturbed habitats include the eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), and black
racer (Coluber constrictor) Birds potentially found in disturbed habitats include
American robin (Turdus migratorius) Caro I ina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), common
crow* (Corvus brachyrynchos), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), rufous-sided
towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), European starling (Sturnus vulgaris) and American
kestrel (Falco sparverius). Mammalian species likely to frequent disturbed habitats
1
include woodchuck (Marmota monax), eastern cottontail (Sylvagus floridans), white-
footed mouse (Peromyscus leucopus), and hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon hispidus).
Piedmont Alluvial Forest
The piedmont alluvial forest bordering the creek on the south side grades
sharply into the pasture areas. In the northwest quadrant it grades gradually into the
early successional forest. The dominant overstory plants in this community include red
cedar, sweet gum (Liquidambar styraciflua), river birch (Betula nigra), sycamore, green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), persimmon (Diospyros virginiana)and black cherry
(Prunus serotina). The understory includes privet, switch cane, grape, greenbrier
(Smilax spp.), Japanese grass, and Japanese honeysuckle.
Piedmont Alluvial Forests harbor a diverse fauna which may include many
species which are semi-aquatic, in addition to exclusively terrestrial species.
Amphibians and reptiles likely to be found in this area include upland chorus frog*
(Pseudacris triseriata), three-lined salamander (Eurycea guttolineata), American toad
(Bufo americanus), green frog (Rana clamitans), eastern box turtle (Terrapene
carolina), black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta), rough green snake (Opheodrys aestivus),
and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon). Avian species which may frequent this
habitat type include tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor), downy woodpecker (Picoides
pubescens), barred owl (Strix varia), yellow-bellied sapsucker* (Sphyrapicus varius),
rufous-sided towhee, turkey vulture* (Cathartes aura), black vulture* (Coragyps
atratus), great blue heron (Ardea herodias), and belted kingfisher* (Mergaceryle
alcyon). Mammalian species likely to frequent this area include raccoon (Procyon
lotor), Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), white-tailed deer (Odocoileus
virginianus), eastern cottontail (Sylvagus floridans), hispid cotton rat (Sigmodon
hispidus), and muskrat (Ondatra zibethicus).
Early Successional Piedmont Upland Pine Forest
An early successional pine forest is present in the northwestern quadrant of the
project. The area in which this community occurs was probably an old field. Loblolly
pines (Pinus taeda) are the dominant overstory species; however, they are only present
in patches from natural regeneration. The balance of the area is covered by patches of
dense shrubs including blackberry, rose, smooth sumac, and elderberry, interspersed
with forbs and grasses including Japanese honeysuckle, fescue, goldenrod (Solidago
spp.), aster (Aster spp.), Queen Anne's lace (Daucus carota), rabbit tobacco
(Gnaphlium obtusifolium), and dog fennel (Eupatorium capillifolium).
Wildlife found in this community type is similar to what would be found in the
disturbed communities, and consists primarily of wide-ranging, adaptable species.
Other animals may use this area as a corridor for travel between less disturbed
habitats, or as a foraging area; however there may also be some recolonization by
species which were present prior to the disturbance. Birds potentially found in
t'
disturbed habitats include Carolina chickadee (Parus carolinensis), eastern bluebird
(Sialia sialis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), red-tailed hawk (Buteo
jamaicensis), and cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis). Mammalian species likely to frequent
this community include raccoon, eastern cottontail, Virginia opossum, and white-tailed
deer.
Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic
resources described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources
have the potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies
impacts to the natural resources in terms of area impacted and ecosystems affected.
Temporary and permanent impacts are considered here as well.
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. Estimated impacts are derived using the
entire proposed ROW width of 18.3 m (60 ft) and a project length of 434 m (1426 ft).
Often, project construction does not require the entire right of way; therefore, actual
impacts may be considerably less.
The most heavily impacted community will be the disturbed/maintained roadside
shoulder. Approximately 0.27 ha (0.65 ac) of this community will be affected.
Approximately 0.06 ha (0.15 ac) of piedmont alluvial forest, and less.than 0.04 ha (0.1
ac) of early successional piedmont upland pine forest will be disturbed by project
construction.
Terrestrial communities found in the study area serve as nesting, feeding, and
sheltering habitat for various species of wildlife. The habitat reduction associated with
bridge replacement concentrates wildlife into smaller refuge areas, thus changing
competition between species and causing increased starvation, predation and
susceptibility to disease. Although the current maintained roadside shoulder will most
likely be destroyed, a similar community will be present after completion of the project.
WETLANDS AND PERMITS
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 Register (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).
F,
Field surveys revealed that no wetlands are present in the project area.
Hydric soils and hydrophytic vegetation are not present in the project area, and
there was no evidence of surface or subsurface saturated conditions.
A Section 404 Nationwide Permit 33 CFR 330.5(a) (23) is likely to be applicable
for all impacts to Waters of the United States resulting 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 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:
(1) 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;
(2) that'the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency'
or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
A North Carolina 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 the issuance of a Section 404 permit.
PROTECTED SPECIES
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of
decline either due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities.
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 Service (FWS).
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. An endangered species is considered to be a species that is threatened
with extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range. As of March 28, 1995,
the FWS lists Schweintz's sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) as the only
federally-protected species for Rowan County. A brief description of the characteristics
and habitat of this species follows.
i
z
Y
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's sunflower) Endangered
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 (3-6 ft)
tall from a cluster of carrot-like tuberous 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. These
sunflowers grow best in full sunlight or light shade in clearings and along the edges of
open stands of oak-pine-hickory upland woods. Common soils that this species is
found in are moist to dryish clays, clay-foams, or sandy clay-loams, often with a high
gravel content and always moderately podzolized. Natural fires and large herbivores
are considered to be historically important in maintaining open habitat for these
sunflowers.
Biological Conclusion:
No Effect
The project area was surveyed for Schweinitz's sunflower on 31 January, 1996
by NCDOT biologists Mark Hartman and Tim Savidge. Prior to surveying the site, a
known population was visited to determine if winter identification was possible from leaf
and stem remains. It was found that some leaves and flowers remained allowing the
plants to be easily identified. The site was then surveyed plant-to-plant and no
Schweinitz's sunflowers were found. A search of the North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program database revealed no known populations of Schweinitz's sunflower in the
project area.
c: V. Charles Bruton, Ph.D.
Cyndi Bell, Acting Permits Supervisor
Hal Bain, Environmental Supervisor
File: B-2616
Jr
E. Threshold Criteria
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
If any Type--II actions are involved"w-ith'the project,
the following evaluation-must be completed'. If the project
consists only of Type I improvements, the following checklist
does not need to be completed.
ECOLOGICAL
(1) Will the project have a substantial impact
.. on any unique or important natural resource?
(2) Does the project involve habitat where
federally listed endangered or threatened
A.$pecies may occur?
(3) Will the project affect anadromous fish?
(4) If the project involves wetlands, is the
amount of permanent and/or temporary
wetland taking less than one-third
(1/3) of an acre AND have all practicable
measures to avoid and minimize wetland.
takings been evaluated?
(5) Will•the project require the use of
U. S. Forest Service lands?.
YES NO

? x
F-1

(6)
- Will the quality of adjacent water
resources be adversely impacted by..

F-1

_ _
proposed construction activities.; -
- (7) '.Does 'the pro ject`'involve waters 'classified
`:as.Outstanding Water"Resources (OWR) and/or
-
-
_

-
H W ?
High ual ity.Waters=(Q }
o
Q
- - -

.? ...
:(3)

' Will `the: project-'require :fill~=in--waters':of-"".:`
:in an-of the designated
y
the United' States _ Y - _ -

-- ' -
... .
:
?tT
-' - -"'mount ain.-?t-rio'ut

;(9) ._.Does-the_project._.involve any known
underground:storage.tanks:(UST's)•or
--
- hazardous materials: sites? : :::...:::... _..? :: ?..:...
A, - -
J,
Date: 1/93
Revised: 1/94
PERMITS AND-COORDINATION YES NO
(10) If the project is located within a LAMA
nificantly
i
t
'
?
g
s
the projec
county, will.
affect the coastal.zone and/or any Area
of Environmental Concern" (AEC)?
(11) Does the project involve Coastal Barrier ?
-??--
Resources Act resources?
(12) Will a U. S. Coast Guard permit be ?
required?
.
the modification
lt i a
(13) n
Will the project resu
of any existing regulatory floodway?
(14) Will the project require any stream ?
relocations or channel changes?
SOCIAL AND ECONOMIC
15) Will the project induce substantial impacts
( to planned growth or land use for the area?

(16) Will the project require the relocation of ? `
any family or business?
(17) If the project involves-the acquisition of
is-the amount of:right of ;way.
-of:•way
ht
ri
,.
.
-
g
acquisition considered: minor?
cha' nges in.
an
ol
c
'
"
-
(18) y.,
ve
t inv
profe
Wi1I the :
;access control?

(19) Will the.pxoject`substantially;alter the =Y -
e of adjacent
`
d *
r
u
s
lan
:usefulness _:and/o
?. Property ....,._,.

20)
„( .Wi I l `the- project 'have `7an"'adverse of f ect on -
_ permanent=local traffic'patterns,or i a
community cohesiveness "
f
•? auh ?.
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF 1PANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 25, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY

2
Subject: Rowan County, Replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Withrow Creek on SR
1743; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1743(3); State Project No. 8.2633101;
TIP No. B-2616; COE Action ID No. 199604314.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) for the subject project in a letter dated September 5, 1996. This
permit expired on January 21, 1997. The replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Withrow
Creek on SR 1743 is not scheduled to be let to construction until June 1998.
Consequently, the Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to renew authorization for
this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources
Technical Report in a letter dated July 26, 1996. The bridge will be replaced on existing
location. An off-site detour will be utilized during bridge replacement as traffic will be
maintained along secondary roads.
The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Rowan County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested.
M?•
.1

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,
I Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer

SwMaTe
W S
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TkANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
July 25, 1997
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, North Carolina 28402-1890
Attention: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief, Southern Section
Dear Sir:
GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
SECRETARY
Subject: Rowan County, Replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Withrow Creek on SR
1743; Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1743(3); State Project No. 8.2633101;
TIP No. B-2616; COE Action ID No. 199604314.
The Corps of Engineers (COE) issued a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23
(Categorical Exclusion) for the subject project in a letter dated September 5, 1996. This
permit expired on January 21, 1997. The replacement of Bridge No. 58 over Withrow
Creek on SR 1743 is not scheduled to be let to construction until June 1998.
Consequently, the Department of Transportation (DOT) needs to renew authorization for
this work.
Information regarding the project description has not changed since the
distribution of the programmatic Categorical Exclusion and the Natural Resources
Technical Report in a letter dated July 26, 1996. The bridge will be replaced on existing
location. An off-site detour will be utilized during bridge replacement as traffic will be
maintained along secondary roads.
The DOT requests that the COE reauthorize this bridge replacement project in
Rowan County under a Section 404 Nationwide Permit 23. Reissuance of 401 Water
Quality Certification by the Division of Water Quality is also requested.

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact
Mr. Phillip Todd at [phone] extension 314.
Sincerely,
H. Franklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/pct
cc: Mr. Steve Chapin, COE-Asheville
Mr. John Dorney, DWQ, Raleigh
Mr. William Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development Branch
Mr. Len Hill, P.E., Design Services
Mr. A. L. Hankins, Hydraulics Unit
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design Engineer
Mr. D. B. Waters, P.E., Division 9 Engineer