19970119 Ver 1_Complete File_19970131

1b .- r
• A
. Sf TA1[ 0
9701 19
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARRETT JR.
GOWRNOR P.O. BOX 25201. RALEIGI 1. N.C. 27611-5201 SECRETARY
January 31, 1997
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
ReUlulatory Field Office
P. O. Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28-402-1890
ATTN: Mr. Cliff Winefordner
Chief. Southern Section
Dear Sir:
SUBJECT: Iredell County. Replacement of Bridge No. 178 over Morrison Creek on
SR 1907. TIP No. B-2989. State Project No. 8.2821801. Federal Aid
Project No. BRZ-1907(2).
Attached for your information is a copy of the project planning report for the subject
project. The project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Cate(-lorical 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 December 13, 1996.
by the Cotes of Engineers. The provisions of Section 330.4 and appendix A (C) of these
regulations will be followed in the construction project.
We anticipate that 401 General Water Quality Certification No. 274 (Categorical
Exclusion) will apply to this project, and are providing one copy oft e CE doc? lent to
the North Carolina Department of Environment. Health and Natural R ourci:rs. Division
of Water Quality. for their review.
0
F

2
If you have any questions or need any additional information, please contact Mr. Michael
Wood at [phone] extension 306.
Sincerely
F anklin Vick, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
HFV/plr
cc: w/ attachment
Mr. Steve Lund, COE, NCDOT Coordinator
Mr. John Dorney, Division of Water Quality
Mr. William J. Rogers, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachments
Mr. Tom Shearin, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Kelly Barger, P.E., Program Development
Mr. Don Morton, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. A. L. Hankins, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. R. W. Spangler, Division 12 Engineer
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, Planning & Environmental
Iredell County
SR 1907
Bridge No. 178 over Morrison Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1907(2)
State Project 8.2821801
T.I.P. No. B-2989
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
1112stq(, " Z L- -
DE' H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch, NCDOT
.1/Ax6/5% -
DATE 4;i-Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator, FHWA
Iredell County
SR 1907
Bridge No. 178 over Morrison Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1907(2)
State Project 8.2821801
T.I.P. No. B-2989
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
November 1996
Documentation Prepared by:
Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc. ••?•,,,,P,lit,%
,
kk CARO1'•.
••
••+•???0?ESSIpN,?6
,W, 1 Awt SEAL z
s
Willis S. Hood, P. . Date '••? 14509?•f +,+
Project Manager •. /y 4•.'CI NEE•• O
?. ? •••....•• O ++
111;10801116-1 IS Hp••+•
for the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Y'd- ied?
. A. Bissett, Jr., P.E., U ead
Consultant Engineering Unit
Stacy Y. al in
Project Manager
Consultant Engineering Unit
Iredell County
SR 1907
Bridge No. 178 over Morrison Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1907(2)
State Project 8.2821801
T.I.P. No. B-2989
I. SUMMARY OF ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS
All standard procedures and measures, including Best Management Practices, will be
implemented to avoid or minimize environmental impacts.
Iredell County
SR 1907
Bridge No. 178 over Morrison Creek
Federal Aid Project BRZ-1907(2)
State Project 8.2821801
T.I.P. No. B-2989
Bridge No. 178 is included in the Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The
location is shown in Figure 1. No substantial environmental impacts are anticipated. The
project is classified as a Federal "Categorical Exclusion".
1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 178 will be replaced on a new roadway alignment within the study corridor as
shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The recommended replacement structure consists of
a triple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to provide two 3.6-meter (12-foot)
lanes with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will be widened to a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width to provide
two 3.6-meter (12-foot) lanes and 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, 0.6 meter (2
feet) of which will be paved on each side, throughout the project limits.
The existing structure and approaches will be used as an on-site detour route during
construction.
Estimated cost, based on current prices, is $736,000. The estimated cost of the project, as
shown in the 1997-2003 Transportation Improvement Program, is $270,000 ($250,000 -
construction; $20,000 - right-of-way).
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the central portion of Iredell County, approximately 1.6
kilometers (one mile) northwest of Statesville, North Carolina (see Figure 1).
Development in the area is rural residential in nature.
SR 1907 is classified as a rural collector in the Statewide Functional Classification
System and is not a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 1907 has a 5.4-meter (18-foot) pavement width with 1.8-
meter (6-foot) shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is relatively flat
through the project area. The existing bridge is located on tangent with horizontal curves
at both approaches. The roadway is situated about 4.6 meters (15-feet) above the creek
bed.
The current traffic volume of 2,300 VPD is expected to increase to 5,500 VPD by the
year 2020. The projected volume includes 2% truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 5%
dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 56 kilometers per hour (35 miles per
hour).
Bridge No. 178 is a three-span structure that consists of a timber deck on steel I-beams on
concrete abutments. The substructure consists of mass concrete abutments and timber
cap on timber piles interior bents. The existing bridge was constructed in 1948 (see
Figure 3).
The overall length of the structure is 22.3 meters (73 feet). The clear roadway width is
5.2 meters (17 feet). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 11.8 metric tons (13 tons)
for single vehicles and 15.4 metric tons (17 tons) for TTST's.
Bridge No. 178 has a sufficiency rating of 33.3 compared to a rating of 100 for a new
structure. The existing bridge is considered structurally deficient.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Utility impacts are anticipated to
be low.
Three accidents resulting in no fatalities and one injury has been reported in the vicinity
of Bridge No. 178 during the period from April, 1992 to April, 1995. None of the
accidents occurred on the bridge.
Three school buses cross the bridge daily.
2
111. ALTERNATIVES
Two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 178 were studied. Each alternative consists of
a triple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. This structure will be of sufficient length to accommodate the approach roadway
which will consist of a 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width and 2.4-meter (8-foot)
shoulders on each side, 0.6 meters (2-feet) of which will be paved on each side. Typical
sections of the approach roadway are included as Figure 4.
The alternatives studied are shown on Figure 2 and are as follows:
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along a new roadway
alignment within the study corridor slightly west (upstream) of the existing structure.
Approach roadways will be required for a distance of about 180 meters (590 feet) in each
direction from the proposed structure. The existing structure and approaches will serve as
an on-site detour route during construction. The design speed for this alternative is 80
kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). While Alternative 1 is more costly to construct
than Alternative 2, it is the recommended design because it provides better horizontal and
vertical alignments from the standpoint of safety and rideability than Alternative 2.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new roadway alignment within the
study corridor slightly east (downstream) of the existing structure. Approach roadways
will be required for a distance of about 170 meters (560 feet) to the south and 140 meters
(460 feet) to the north of the proposed structure. The existing structure and approaches
will serve as an on-site detour route during construction. The design speed of this
alternative is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour). Alternative 2 is not
recommended because the horizontal alignment is not as good as that of Alternative 1.
Furthermore, compared to Alternative 1, it does not decrease impacts on the ecosystem in
the vicinity of the site and the effect on adjacent properties.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by SR 1907.
The NCDOT Division 12 Engineer concurs that traffic be maintained on-site instead of
closing the road during construction because of the traffic volumes using SR 1907.
The Iredell County School Transportation Director indicates that maintenance of traffic
on-site during the construction period is preferable.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Roadway Approaches
Detour Structure and Approaches
Structural Removal
Engineering and Contingencies
Right-of-Way/Construction Easements/Utilities
(Recommended)
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
$379,600.00 $334,600.00
NA NA
$11,000.00 $11,000.00
$90,000.00 $85,000.00
$36,000.00 $28,000.00
V. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS
Bridge No. 178 will be replaced on a new roadway alignment within the study corridor,
as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2, with a triple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-meter
(12-foot) high reinforced concrete box culvert. Improvements to the existing approaches
will be necessary for a distance of about 180 meters (590 feet) in each direction from the
bridge. The Division Engineer concurs with this recommended alternative.
A 7.2-meter (24-foot) pavement width with 2.4-meter (8-foot) shoulders on each side, 0.6
meters (2 feet) of which will be paved on each side, will be provided throughout the
length of the project in accordance with the current NCDOT Policy (see Figure 4). SR
1907 is classified as a rural collector; therefore, criteria for a rural collector was used for
the bridge replacement. The design speed is 80 kilometers per hour (50 miles per hour).
The existing structure and approaches will serve as an on-site detour route during
construction.
Based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis, the new structure is recommended to be a
triple 3.4-meter (11-foot) wide by 3.7-meter (12-foot) high reinforced concrete box
culvert. The elevation of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
structure. The final design of the culvert will be such that the backwater elevation will
not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits. The dimensions of the new
structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
VI. NATURAL RESOURCES
A biologist visited the project site on April 30, 1996 to verify documented information
and gather field data for a thorough assessment of potential impacts that could be incurred
by a proposed bridge replacement project.
The investigation examined the vegetation surrounding the highway bridge in order to
1) search for State and federally protected plants and animal species; 2) identify unique or
prime-quality communities; 3) describe the current vegetation and wildlife habitats;
4) identify wetlands; and 5) provide information to assess (and minimize adverse)
environmental effects of the proposed bridge replacement.
Biotic Communities
Plant Communities
Two distinct plant community types occur within the immediate area of the proposed
project. Specific communities exhibited slight variation dependent upon location and
physical characteristics of the site (soils, topography, human uses, etc.). Communities are
described below.
Successional Mixed Hardwood Forest:
This forested community occurs along the stream banks. There is no canopy, only a
subcanopy consisting of ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), box elder (Acer negundo),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), and black willow (Salix nigra). The shrub and
herbaceous layers include species such as blackberry (Rubus sp. ), giant cane (Arundinaria
gigantea), and poison ivy (Rhus radicans).
Man-Dominated:
This highly disturbed community includes the road shoulders, the fields, the pasture, and
residential yards in the project area. Many plant species are adapted to these disturbed.
and regularly maintained areas. Regularly maintained areas along the road shoulders, the
fields, and residential yards are dominated by fescue (Festuca sp.), ryegrass (Lolium sp.),
lowhop clover (Trifolium procumbens), dandelion (Taraxacum off cinale), wild onion
(Allium cernuum), plantain (Plantago rugelii), narrow-leaved vetch (Vicia angustifolia),
birdfoot violet (Viola pedata), buttercup (Ranunculus spp.), purple dead nettle (Lamium
purpureum), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), creeping yellow cress (Rorippa sylvestris),
poison ivy (Rhus radicans), blackberry (Rubus spp.), and cranesbill (Geranium
maculatum).
Wildlife (General)
Terrestrial:
The project area consists of primarily roadside man-dominated and forested areas. The
forested areas provide cover and protection for many indigenous wildlife species nearby
the project area. The forested areas adjacent to Morrison Creek and associated ecotones
serve as valuable habitat, providing all the necessary components (food, water, protective
cover) for mammals, birds, reptiles, and amphibians.
The animal species present in the man-dominated habitats are opportunistic and capable
of surviving on a variety of resources, ranging from vegetation (flowers, leaves, fruits,
and seeds) to both living and dead faunal components. Although not observed during the
site visit, Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana), several species of mice (Peromyscus
sp.), brown-headed cowbird (Molothrus ater), American crow (Corvus brachyrhynchos),
Northern black racer (Coluber constrictor constrictor), American toad (Bufo
americanus), Northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglottos), European starling (Sturnus
vulgaris), and the American robin (Turdus migratorius) are typical to these disturbed
habitats.
Although not observed during the site visit, animals previously listed may also be found
in the successional mixed hardwood forested community along with the raccoon
(Procyon lotor), the gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), fence lizard (Sceloporus
undulatus), copperhead (Agkistordon contortrix), the mourning dove (Zenaida macroura)
and the rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus).
Aquatic:
Morrison Creek supports aquatic invertebrates and several species of fish for recreational
fishing. The Southern leopard frog (Rana utricularia) was observed during the site visit,
and other animals such as the belted kingfisher (Megaceryle alcyon) are typical along
creek edges of these communities. Typically, macroinvertebrates such as the mayfly
(Ephemeroptera), stonefly (Plecoptera), and caddisfly (Trichoptera) larvae would be
found within snag habitats along the creek banks and within riffle areas. The
macroinvertebrate fauna within the channel may be dominated by midges (Chironomid
larvae) and segmented worms (Oligochaetes). During the site visit, no invertebrates were
observed. No fish data has been reported from Morrison Creek.
The creek and adjacent banks also provide suitable benthic and riparian habitat for
amphibians and aquatic reptiles such as the Northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon
sipedon), and bullfrog (Rana catesbeiana).
Physical Resources
Soil
The topography of the project area is characterized as rolling hills with steeper slopes
along the major streams. Project area elevation is approximately 249.9 meters (820.0
feet).
According to the Soil Survey of Iredell County, this portion of Iredell County contains
soils from the Lloyd association which are characterized as being deep, well-drained soils
with a subsoil of dark-red clay on broad ridges that have short side slopes, on mixed
acidic and basic rocks. This soil map unit was confirmed in the field. The soils in the
project area are mapped as Congaree soils, Lloyd loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, eroded,
and Cecil soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded. Congaree soils are well drained and are
nearly level. Lloyd loam, 10 to 15 percent slopes, eroded is generally on side slopes that
border drainage ways. Cecil soils, 15 to 25 percent slopes, eroded are generally on side
slopes that border deeply cut drainage ways.
Water
The proposed bridge replacement project crosses Morrison Creek and lies within the
Yadkin-Pee Dee River drainage basin.
Morrison Creek is a perennial tributary within the Yadkin-Pee Dee River basin. The
creek flows east through the proposed project area with a width of 4.3 meters (14.0 feet)
at Bridge No. 178. The depth of the creek was approximately 0.3 to 0.6 meter (1.0 to 2.0
feet) on the day of the investigation. Morrison Creek has a rating of Class C from the
North Carolina Division of Environmental Management (NCDEM), indicating the creek's
suitability for aquatic life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary
recreation, agriculture and other uses requiring waters of lower quality. The Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map for Iredell County
(1980) indicates the project area lies in Zone A7, which is within the 100-year flood
boundary where base flood elevations and flood hazard factors have been determined.
The NCDEM Classification Index number for Morrison Creek is 12-108-20-3.
The NCDEM has no macroinvertebrate sampling data from Morrison Creek. Benthic
macroinvertebrates, or benthos, are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of
rivers and streams. The use of benthos data has proven to be a reliable tool as benthic
macroinvertebrates are sensitive to subtle changes in water quality. Criteria have been
developed to assign bioclassifications ranging from "Poor" to "Excellent" to each benthic
sample based on the number of taxa present in the intolerant groups Ephemeroptera,
Plecoptera and Trichoptera (EPT). Different criteria have been developed for different
ecoregions (mountains, piedmont, coastal) within North Carolina.
The NCDEM also uses the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another
method to determine general water quality. The method was developed for assessing a
stream's biological integrity by examining the structure and health of its fish community.
The scores derived from the index are a measure of the ecological health of the waterbody
and may not necessarily directly correlate to water quality. The NCIBI is not applicable
to high elevation trout streams, lakes or estuaries. No NCIBI data was available for
Morrison Creek.
The Iredell County Watershed Protection Ordinance (1993) provides regulations to limit
the exposure of watersheds in Iredell County to pollution. The Critical Area is the area
adjacent to a water supply intake or reservoir where risk associated with pollution is
greater than in the remaining portions of the watershed. The Protected Area is the area
defined as extending five miles from the normal pool elevation of the reservoir in which
the intake is located, or ten miles upstream of and draining to a river intake. According to
the Watershed Protection Map of Iredell County, the project area is not within a Critical
Area or a Protected Area.
No waters classified by the NCDEM as High Quality Waters (HQW), Outstanding
Resource Waters (ORW), or waters designated as WS-1 or WS-II are located within the
project vicinity.
Table 1 describes the stream characteristics of Morrison Creek observed in the vicinity of
the proposed bridge replacement project.
TABLE 1
STREAM CHARACTERISTICS AND ECOLOGICAL
CLASSIFICATIONS
Characteristic Description
Substrate Coarse sand and silt
Current Flow Slow
Channel Width 4.3 meters (14.0 feet)
Water Depth 0.3 to 0.6 meters (1.0 to 2.0 feet)
Water Color Slightly turbid
Water Odor None
Aquatic Vegetation None
Adjacent Vegetation Mixed hardwood forest
Wetlands None
Jurisdictional Topics
Wetlands
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "Waters of the United
States" as defined in 33 CFR 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344) and are regulated by the United States Army Corps
of Engineers (USACOE).
No wetlands will be impacted by the subject project as Morrison Creek has well defined
banks within the bridge replacement corridor. Investigation into wetland occurrence in
the project impact area was conducted using methods of the 1987 Wetland Delineation
Manual. Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional
surface waters. Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the
USACOE. Approximately 0.01 hectare (0.02 acre) of jurisdictional surface water
impacts will occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 178.
Protected Species
Federally Protected Species:
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E) or Threatened (T) are
protected under provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of
1973, as amended. Candidate species do not receive protection under the Act, but are
mentioned due to potential vulnerability.
The U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) lists no federally protected species for
Iredell County as of August 23, 1996.
Federal Species of Concern:
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species
Act and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as Threatened of Endangered. Species designated as FSC are
defined as taxa which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were
formerly Candidate 2 (C2) species, or species under consideration for listing for which
there is insufficient information to support listing. Table 2 includes FSC species listed
for Iredell County and their state classifications.
TABLE 2
FEDERAL SPECIES OF CONCERN
IREDELL COUNTY
Scientific Name North Suitable
(Common Name) Carolina Habitat
Status
Neotoma magister
(Alleghany woodrat) SC No
Clemmys muhlenbergii
(bog turtle) T No
Lotus helleri
(Heller's trefoil) C Yes
Delphinium exaltatum *
(tall larkspur) E No
Indicates no specimens have been found in at least 20 years.
NC Status: SC, E, T, and C denote Special Concern, Endangered, Threatened, Candidate,
respectively.
State Protected Species:
Plant or animal species which are on the state list as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), or
Special Concern (SC) receive limited protection under the North Carolina Endangered
Species Act (G.S. 113-331 et seq.) and the North Carolina Plant Protection Act of 1979
(G.S. 106-202. 12 et seq.). North Carolina Natural Heritage Program records indicate no
known populations of the state listed species occurring within 1.6 kilometers (1 mile) or
the project site.
Impacts
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. However, impacts to terrestrial communities,
particularly in locations exhibiting gentle slopes, can result in the aquatic community
receiving heavy sediment loads as a consequence of erosion. It is important to
understand that construction impacts may not be restricted to the communities in which
the construction activity occurs.
Of the three community types in the project area, the man-dominated and successional
mixed hardwood forest communities will receive the greatest impact from construction,
resulting in the loss of existing habitats and displacement and mortality of faunal species
in residence. Table 3 details the anticipated impacts to terrestrial and aquatic
communities by habitat type.
10
TABLE 3
ANTICIPATED IMPACTS TO TERRESTRIAL AND
AQUATIC COMMUNITIES IN HECTARES (ACRES)
Bridge No. 178 Man- Mixed Aquatic Combined
Replacement Dominated Hardwood Community Total
Impacts Community Community
Alternative 1 0.50(l.23) 0.25 (0.62) 0.01 (0.02) 0.76(l.87)
Alternative 2 0.59(l.45) 0.17 (0.41) 0.01 (0.02) 0.76 (1.88)
NOTES: Impacts are based on 24.4-meter (80-foot) Right-of-Way limits.
The aquatic community in the study area exists within Morrison Creek. The proposed
bridge replacement will result in the disturbance of approximately 0.01 hectare (0.02
acre) of stream bottom. The new replacement structure construction and approach work
will likely increase sediment loads in the creek in the short term. Construction related
sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates which are an important
part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through the
use of best management practices and the utilization of erosion and sediment control
measures as specified in the State-approved Erosion and Sediment Control Program.
Permanent impacts to the water resources will result due to the placement of support
structures or a culvert in the Morrison Creek channel. Sedimentation and erosion control
measures (Best Management Practices and Sediment Control Guidelines) will be strictly
enforced during the construction stage of this project. Grass berms along construction
areas help decrease erosion and allow potentially toxic substances such as engine fluids
and particulate rubber to be absorbed into the soil before these substances reach
waterways.
Permits
In accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 U.S.C.O.E.
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".
Since the subject project is classified as a Categorical Exclusion, it is likely that this
project will be subject to the Nationwide Permit Provisions of CFR 330.5 (A) 23. This
permit authorizes any activities, work and discharges undertaken, assisted, authorized,
regulated, funded or financed, in whole or in part, by another federal agency and that the
activity is "categorically excluded" from environmental documentation because it is
included within a category of actions which neither individually or cumulatively have a
significant effect on the environment. However, final permit decisions are left to the
discretionary authority of the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
A 401 Water Quality Certification, administered through the N. C. Department of
Environment, Health and Natural Resources, will also be required. This certificate is
issued for any activity which may result in a discharge into waters for which a federal
permit is required.
Compensatory mitigation is not required under a Nationwide permit. However, a final
determination regarding mitigation requirements rests with the USACOE. Erosion and
sedimentation control measures will be strictly enforced during construction activities to
minimize unnecessary impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems. Best Management
Practices will also be implemented.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
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.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(0 of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 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 the National Register of Historic
Places, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation be given an opportunity to
comment. The project is also subject to compliance with Section 4(f) of the Department
of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended.
12
To comply with those requirements, the North Carolina Department of Transportation
provided documentation on the subject project for submittal to the North Carolina State
Historic Preservation Office. There are no structures over fifty years of age in the Area of
Potential Effect (APE), depicted in Figure 2. Correspondence with the State Historic
Preservation Officer (see Appendix) indicates that no National Register-listed or eligible
properties are located within the area of potential effect.
Since there are no properties either listed on or eligible for the National Register of
Historic Places within the APE, no further compliance with Section 106, with respect to
architectural resources, is required.
In response to a scoping letter from the North Carolina Department of Transportation, the
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer, in a memorandum dated June 19, 1996 (see
Appendix), recommended that "no archaeological investigation be conducted in
connection with this project." Therefore no archaeological work was conducted for the
project.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Soil Conservation Service. The
Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition and construction
projects. Prime and important farmlands within the study area were identified by the
Natural Resources Conservation service (MRCS). An area may be designated as prime or
important farmland based on soil type, potential crop yield, necessary energy expended,
and other factors. Undeveloped land not currently used for agriculture may qualify as
prime or important farmland.
The impact each alternative has on these farmlands is presented in the Appendix. CFR
658.4(c)(2) states, "...sites receiving a total score of less than 160 be given a minimal
level of consideration for protection and no additional sites be evaluated". As the
preferred Alternative 1 scores only 107.7, no additional consideration is necessary for the
minimal impacts anticipated.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is
disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws
and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality in
compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for highway traffic noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR),
Part 772 and for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
13
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment, Health and
Natural Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and
the North Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section
revealed no underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Iredell County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area is shown in Figure 5. The amount of
floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
There are no practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment
will result in a crossing of about the same magnitude. All reasonable measures will be
taken to minimize any possible harm.
The project will not increase the upstream limits of the 100-year floodplain.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
14
,
co
2
1959
11
h
5
1942
695
b ..S
N
K/ 1681
?O
1543 /
1907

Q
B-2959
0
1541
05 ?Q
?r N
Union
1 5 rove
ew ope 2 i
I IJ

1948 '
1950 1931
1 993 19 0 ' : '• '
3 1949
. 35 1932 /
40
,3
L iey
,I
io
9 aprin s 5 3 Elmwood
® Amity I
Tioutmen t H
7 o:wen LEGEND
` 5 Shea
P
Studied Detour Route
? \)
FIGURE 1
® North Caroline Department Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
IREDELL COUNTY
SR 1907
BRIDGE N0. 178 OVER MORRISON CREEK
B-2989
0 kilometer@ 0 8 kilometers 12
0 miles 0.5 mllu 5
Iredell County
SR 1907
Bridge No. 178 Over Morrison Creel
B-2989
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING EAST
SOUTH APPROACH
LOOKING NORTH
NORTH APPROACH
LOOKING SOUTH
FIGURE 3

W
a
a
W U d'
u a
8 x
0 W
a

0 a z

E _

? E

N 4

o b
a
""
W o

V o

03 O?
;, W CA
Vas A

.o

?

W co
c C
C) d.1
ha
x

a

z

W
cti
A
® R;
PO
E E n
o
M G 0

O O Z
3
N N n
p
W
=U a
Z U) 3
I F <
E I F 8C
-- p
ad
CL 0
CL oC
C
T
?v ?? W
11J

Jq J W
V
CL
1'? a-
r
?

oC M
N
4:
0

O
C4 1 ! G j
O
U o
V

oC
Z F-
I F I F F O
O o
O
G N Ln
E LL
p
II
c r4 0
U >W a C14
E Q r N

o

C,4
m
Z
LL

North Caroline Department Of
Transportation
Planning d Environmental Branch
IREDELL COUNTY
SR 1907
BRIDGE NO. 17B OVER MORRISON CREEK
B-2989
FIGURE 5

sr?rF o
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary
June 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook l? ?2' /?
Deputy State H1 oric Prese vation Officer
SUBJECT: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Bridge 178 on SR 1907 over Morrison Creek,
Iredell County, B-2989, ER 96-9092
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Q?G E 1 Vin
T JUN 2 1 1996
\Z ?; 151C'N OF OQ?
?HIGHWAYS N?jRON
Thank you for your letter of April 1, 1996, concerning the above project.
On June 5, 1996, Debbie Bevin of our staff met with representatives of the North
Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to view the project aerial
photograph. Based upon our review of the aerial, it appears that there are no
structures over fifty years of age within the project's area of potential effect. We,
therefore, recommend that no historic architectural survey be conducted for this
project.
There are no known archaeological sites within the proposed project area. Based
on our present knowledge of the area, it is unlikely that any archaeological
resources which may be eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic
Places will be affected by the project construction. We, therefore, recommend that
no archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Graf
B. Church
T. Padgett
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 ga
6

Federal Aid # GV-Z• 1'107 TIP # 1? • VIM County 1 9.rpst,t,
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Brief Project Description F-r t.Aot: e121DGE rJo . 1'79 o?J s>z 1°10-7 over ?_1oRizts.?J
Gter-V_ tr 0,919Cc -"Up VC)
On JuNR S , 11111(0, representatives of the
? North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal High%yay Administration (FHwA)
? North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Other
reviewed the subject project at
A seeping meeting
? Historic architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
? there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) Nyithin the project's area of potential effects,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as arc considered not eligible
for National Resister and no further evaluation of them is nccessar}'.
? there are no National Register-listed properties within the projects area of potential effects.
Siencd:
RcprescnML4x OT
/, : `i ( V
tvA„ f the Division
Representative, SI-PO
or otner reacrat Agency
Date
IL k-2 l i??
Date
?ilp.?
Staic Historic Preservation Officer
11'a survey report is prepared, a final copy oC this Conn and the attached list %% ll b_' included.
Tredell-Statesivi lie Schools . Z? 89
alts' 'ost Oft.--e F .. 91 ?, j4, N-) rr. 'ac;: tjet, ?tate,.iiie, N` 286 Phone 70?-572- 931, i ]):' 704-871-2834
April 17, 1996 OE III
'APR I c 1996
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager Q
Planning and Environmental Branch DIVISION OF
North Carolina Department of Transportation's HIGHW/eYS
Division of Highways17R?
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Ref: NCDOT;Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2342 over Creek (T.I.P. No.
NB:-_2 80)`-and Bridge on SR 1907 over Morrison Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2989), Iredell
County
Dear Mr. Vick-
In response to your letter of April 1, I would like to express our concerns to the
following questions:
1. How many school buses cross these structures during the course of the day?
We now have 3 buses crossing Bridge 2580 and 3 buses crossing
Bridge 2989 during the morning and afternoon bus routes.
2. Provided travel service is maintained during project construction, would there be
any other cause for concern regarding disruption to school bus service?
Because of the high cost of school bus transportation, it would help
if travel service is maintained during construction.
At present time we have no other concerns pertaining to this project; however, we
appreciate your allowing us to have input on these issues.
Sincerely,
17
Jesse B. Register, Ed.D.
Superintendent
dpc

W
1SLA4 ,-
G
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
JAMES B. HUNT JR. DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS GARLAND B. GARuTr JR.
GOVERNOR P.O. BOX 75201, RALEIGH, N.C 27611-5201 SECRETARY
April 1, 1996
Mr. Joel Mashburn
County Manager
Iredell County
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687
Ref: NCDOT Bridge Replacement Projects: Bridge on SR 2342 over Creek (T.I.P.
No. B-2580) and Bridge on SR 1907 over Morrison Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2989), Iredell
County.
Subject: Environmental Evaluation
Dear Mr. Mashburn:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation is proposing to replace
the SR 2342 bridge over Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2580) and the SR 1907 bridge over
Morrison Creek (T.I.P. No. B-2989) in Iredell County. Attached is a location map
for your information and reference.
These replacements will result in safer traffic operations. Rehabilitation of
the existing structures do not currently appear to be a feasible option due to
their age and deteriorating conditions. It is anticipated that the structures will
either be replaced at their existing locations or with facilities on new alignments
These projects will be constructed with Federal-Aid Funds.
We are currently in the process of evaluating the environmental impacts
associated with the bridge replacement projects. We would appreciate your
input giving us any information you have on the issues listed below, as well as
any additional information you might have relative to the project planning
process:
Is the project consistent with the County's long range planning goals?
2. Are you aware of any opposition, organized or otherwise, to this project?
3. Are there any sensitive issues associated with this project?
??cse? ricc,? C, GS-Ang
III 1 ?J?2 J JX7, n ly t i tiIC
.?.. Aftr '.1er>= 7",y rrc^cse,:! ccl:lmerz:ui i'r ?sICEI'.ilGl C 3VP.1 ?;I?len;, I'? I 1
the project area?
6. P.re tax mcrs ovailable for the area surrc'.InGing the propos ?d prcject?
Also, are County topographic maps available in the vicinity of the project?
7. Are regulatory floodway and 100-year floodplain maps available for the
project area?
8. Will the proposed project or its construction affect local emergency
routes such as fire, rescue, etc.?
9. Is there a Land Use Plan or Master Plan available for Iredell County?
10. What are the existing and future zoning classifications in the area
surrounding the proposed project?
11. Are you aware of any other issues that may be relative to the project
planning process?
Your comments will be used in the preparation of a document evaluating
environmental impacts of the project. It is requested that your agency respond
by April 25, 1996 so that your comments can be used in the preparation of this
document.
Your comments should be mailed to the following address:
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Should you have any questions or need additional informati on, please
contact the NCDOT Project Manager, Ms. Stacy Baldwin, at [phone] or Mr.
Bill Hood, P.E., Barbara H. Mulkey Engineering, Inc., at [phone].
Sincerely,

fi H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
Attachment
n twl
ti •
wv c0 ??
t?4 G.2,
a K
H
April 24, 1996
4.1
IREDELL COUNTY
Post Office Box 788
Statesville, North Carolina 28687-0788 [phone]
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning & Environment Branch
N C Dept. of Transportation
Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611
Dear Mr. Vick:
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the questions identified
in your 4/1/96 letter regarding bridge improvements in Iredell County. I trust this
information will be of some assistance to you and your staff.
If I may be of further assistance, please contact me at [phone].
Sin erely,
William Allison
Planning Director
WA:kh
Enclosure
C E /\
?O
APR 2 9 1996
ON Mt:,
0-

r
THE FOLLOWING ARE THE COUNTY'S RESPONSES
TO THE PROPOSED QUESTIONS
1. Yes
2. No, not at this time
3. No, not to our knowledge
4. No, not at either site
5. No, not at either site
6. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Mapping Department at
[phone]
7. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Planning Department at
[phone]
8. No, alternate routes are available
9. Yes, by contacting the Iredell County Planning Department at
[phone]
10. See enclosed maps
11. No, not at this time
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment,
Health and Natural Resources
Division of Environmental Management
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Jonathan B. Howes, Secretary
A. Preston Howard, Jr., P.E., Director
A 1 kv?_?WA
T?IWA
lt0o
dft
E) EHNF=1
April 19, 1996
MEMORANDUM
To: Stacy Baldwin
From: Eric Galamb f?
Subject: Water Quality Checklist for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
B-e-S-0. C)
8- zs9-D
?-zc?o9
Z170
z-g 89
g_3003
-30ZZ
5-30-}9
The Water Quality Section of the Division of Environmental Management requests that
DOT consider the following generic environmental commitments for bridge
replacements:
A. DEM requests that DOT strictly adhere to North Carolina regulations entitled,
"Design Standards in Sensitive Watersheds" (15A NCAC 04B .0024) throughout
design and construction for this project in the area that drains to streams having
WS (water supply), ORW (outstanding resource water), HQW (high quality
water), B (body contact), SA (shellfish water) or Tr (trout water) classifications
to protect existing uses.
B. DEM requests that bridges be replaced in existing location with road closure. If
an on-site detour or road realignment is necessary, the approach fills should be
removed to pre-construction contour and revegetated with native tree species at
320 stems per acre.
C. DEM requests that weep holes not be installed in the replacement bridges in
order to prevent sediment and other pollutants from entering the body of water.
If this is not completely possible, weep holes should not be installed directly
over water.
D. Wetland impacts should be avoided (including sediment and erosion control
structures/measures). If this is not possible, alternatives that minimize wetland
impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts may be required.
E. Borrow/waste areas should avoid wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
Please be aware that 401 Certification may be denied if wetland or water impacts
have not been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable.
cc: Monica Swihart
Melba McGee
bridges.sco
P.O. Box 29535, Raleigh, Norfh Carolina 27626-0535 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper >! alp
6. 1
16 ,r J'.C _(s D
1
.'ISH -AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Posi Office Box 33726
Raleigh. Norm Carolina 27636-3726
In Reply Refer Tc:
FWS/AES/RANG
April 10, 1996
P? - Z&0°t

?-3oc
,R) -'x

G3 2`) 4 z 'V, - 3(--1
24'70
Mr. H. Franklin Vick
Planning and Environmental Branch
N.C. Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201 -
Raleigh, NC 27611
Subject: Group X Bridge Replacement Projects
Various counties, North Carolina (TIP Nos. B-2580, 2590, 2609,
2859, 2868, 2942, 2970, 2989, 3003, 3022, 3044)
Dear Mr. Vick:
This responds to your letter of April 1, 1996 requesting information from the
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Service) for evaluating the potential
environmental impacts of the above-referenced projects. This report provides
scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the Fish and
wildlife coordination Act (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the Endangered
Species Act of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also serves
as initial acoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in
their permitting and/or certification processes for this project.
Preliminary planning by the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
calls for the replacement of eleven bridges in various Piedmont North Carolina
counties.
The Service's mission is to provide the leadership to conserve, protect, and
enhance fish and wildlife and their habitats for the continuing benefit of all
people. Due to staffing limitations, we are unable to provide you with site-
specific comments at this time. However, the following' recommendations should
help guide the planning process and facilitate our review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized
to the maximum extent practicable as outlined in the Clean Water Act Section
404(b)(1) Guidelines. Bridge replacements should maintain natural water flows
and circulation regimes without scouring or impeding fish and wildlife passage.
Habitat fragmentation should be minimized by using the existing disturbed
corridor instead of a new alignment. Impact areas should be stabilized by using
appropriate erosion control devices and/or techniques. Wherever appropriate,
construction in sensitive areas should occur outside of anadromous fish spawning
and migratory bird nesting seasons.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits at the time
of public notice issuance. Resource agency coordination should occur early in
the planning process to resolve land use conflicts and minimize delays.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental
documentation for this project include the following (the level of detail should
be commensurate with the degree of environmental impacts) :
i:ll
a
1, se and ?,e: _r _-e rr._:pcse? _rojEC: i c_?q z
discias3J_On of tht 7`O?e'-t'-,%/ ?ncie.pe ar.>> u i1 !.r_y;
2. An analysis of the alternatives to t.ae proposed project that were
considered, including a no action alternative;
3. A description of the fishery and wildlife resources within the action
area of the proposed project which may be affected directly or
indirectly;
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U.S., including wetlands, that
are to be impacted by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or
draining. Wetland impact acreages should be differentiated by habitat
type based on the wetland classification scheme of the National Wetlands
Inventory. Wetland boundaries should be determined by using the 1987
Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers;
5. The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent,
that would be likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed
project. Also, an assessment should be included regarding the extent to.
which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to natural
resources and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative
adverse effects;
6. Techniques which would be employed to design and construct wetland
crossings, relocate stream channels, and restore, enhance, or create
wetlands for compensatory mitigation;
7. Mitigation measures which would be employed to avoid, minimize, rectify,
reduce, or compensate for habitat value losses associated with the
project. These measures should include a detailed compensatory
mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
The attached page identifies the Federally-listed endangered, threatened, and
candidate species that are known to occur in Chatham, Forsyth, Hoke, Iredell,
Mecklenburg, Randolph, Richmond, Scotland, and Stokes counties. Habitat
requirements for the Federally-listed species in the project area should be
compared with the available habitat at the project site. If suitable habitat is
present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the species
should be performed, and survey methodologies and results included in the
environmental documentation for this project. In addition to this guidance, the
following information should be included in the environmental document regarding
protected species (the level of detail should be commensurate with the degree of
environmental'i.mpacts):
'l. A specific description of the proposed action.to•be considered;
2. A description and accompanying map of the specific area used in the
analysis of direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts;
3. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and of the
associated habitat that may be affected by the action, including the
results of an onsite inspection;
4. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and
associated habitat:
a. Direct and indirect impacts of the project on listed species.
Indirect effects are those that are caused by the proposed action
and are later in time but are still reasonably certain to occur;
b. A discussion of the environmental baseline which includes
interrelated, interdependent, past and present impacts of Federal,

tna _.ojec: and .- emu! '}five effects
u . :!a
Interrelated actions are those t:..-,L are Pail= or a larger act? on and
?=• larger action for their j• :3tification;
dEpena on the larg
of `uture State and private activities (not
d. Cumulat;,re impacts involvement, that will ba considered as
requiring Federal agency
part of future Section 7 consultation);
Summary of evaluation criteria used as a measurement of potential effects;
affect any lisle
5.
6. A description of the manner in which the action may proposals to
at including project
species or associated habit
reduce/eliminate adverse effects; the project is n of Based on evaluation criteria, a determiaffe?t threatened and endangered
7' not likely to adversely affect or may
species.
lant and animal species for which the service has
eats
Candidate species are those p Species Act ical
sufficient information on their o 1Othre tened staundertus Endangered to to der the ESA,
to propose them as endangered rotection
(ESA). Although candidate species receive no statutory p
Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions
Spec es ofeconcern linclude those species
likely to jeopardize the cthabitat existence of
or modify proposed critical resent time.
for which the Service doers whi have do nnot warrant llistingoatathenp butp time- proposal or specie rot
s under the ESA, could
Species of Concern receive no statutory P laces
become candidates in the area endang red or threatened. l listi gbPcome
available indicating they
the species under the full protection of the ESA, and necessitates a new sunt
ecies or their
if its status in the project corridor is unkn•to hcandidate1 spould be prude
for the project to avoid any adverse impact
habitat. The North Carolina Natural Program should be contacted for
information on species under State protection.
reciates the opportunity to comment on this project•inc lease
luding
The Service app planning process, e us of the progrs made in the
ycontinu
officialddetermination of the imp acts of this project.
r
your
sincerely yours,
roh n 1 1 fer
ld supervisor
Attachments
cc: NCDEHNR-DEM
NCWRC
USACE
FWS/R4/KDoak/KHD:4-8-96/919-856-4520 ext 19/wp:BAPR96.SCP

REVISED APRIL 19, 1995
Iredell County
There are species which, although not now listed or officially proposed for listing as endangered or
threatened, are under status review by the Service. These "Candidate"(C1 and C2) species are not legally
protected under the Act, and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are
formally proposed or listed as threatened or endangered. We are providing the below list of candidate
species which may occur within the project area for the purpose of giving you advance. notification. These
species may be listed in the future, at which time they will be protected under the Act. In the meantime,
we would appreciate anything you might do for them.
Mammals
Alleghany woodrat (Neotoma magister)
Reotiles
Bog turtle (Clemmys muhlenbergi) -C2
Plants
Heller's trefoil (Lotus ourshianus var. helleri) - C2"
Tall larkspur (Delphinium exaltatum) - C2"
"Indicates no specimen in at least 20 years from this county.
.?-zs8 p
p United States Department of the Interior 3-3003
A a'Z? b
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE ?' Z S (n g
MgAA a ,s"9 Asheville Field Office
160 Zillicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
April 15, 1996
0\- _-V E D
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
w
J
Nm''G & E,1'?FO
Subject: Proposed replacement of several bridges in Forsyth, Iredell, Mecklenburg, and
Stokes Counties, North Carolina
A copy of your letter of April 1, 1996, to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service's (Service)
Raleigh Field Office was forwarded to our office. We handle project reviews and requests
of this nature for the western part of the state, including the above-mentioned counties.
Our Raleigh Field Office will provide scoping comments for the projects in Chatham,
Randolph, Richmond, and Scotland Counties. The following comments are provided in
accordance with the provisions of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 661-667e), and Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended
(16 U.S.C. 1531-1543) (Act).
According to the information you provided, the following bridges will be replaced: Bridge
Number 79 on SR 2700 over South Fork Creek (Forsyth County); Bridge Number 178 on
SR 1967,overMorrison Cre ek and Bridge Number 27 on SR 2342 over an unnamed creek
(Ii edell County); Bridge Number 91 on SR 2417 over the West Branch of the Rocky River
and Bridge Number 108 on US 29/NC 49 over the Southern Railroad (Mecklenburg
County); and Bridge Number 127 on SR 1673 over Snow Creek (Stokes County).
The Service is particularly concerned about: (1) the potential impacts the proposed bridge
replacement projects could have on federally listed species and on Federal species of
concern and (2) the potential impacts to stream and wetland ecosystems within the project
areas.
s
.
We have reviewed our files and believe the environmental document should evaluate
possible impacts to the following federally listed species and/or Federal species of concern
(these include aquatic animal species known from a particular stream system for one of the
proposed bridge projects and plant species that may occur along the banks of
streams/rivers):
FORSYTH COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Bog turtle ( 1C emmys muhlenberg(Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
IREDELL COUNTY
Bog turtle em muhlenbergii) (Federal species of concern) - This species is generally
found in damp grassy fields; sphagnum bogs; swamps; marshes; and clear,
slow-moving streams.
Heller's trefoil , otus el e ' (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.
MECKLENBURG COUNTY
Schweinitz's sunflower e i u schweinitzii) (Endangered) - This plant species is
generally found in woodland borders, especially along roadsides or banks that are
mown or bush-hogged regularly. It also occurs in gladelike openings in .woods.
N ichaux's sumac us i ci' (Endangered) -This plant species grows in sandy or
rocky open woods associated with basic soils.
Georgia aster ( to georgianua) (Federal species of concern) -This plant species grows in
dry open woods along roadsides, woodland borders, old fields, and pastures.
Heller's trefoil otus a le ') (Federal species of concern) - This plant species grows in
sunny to partly shaded habitats along roadsides; woodland borders; and in gladelike
openings on dry, circumneutral to somewhat acidic soils.

STOKES COUNTY
Small-anthered bittercress (Cardamine micranthera) (Endangered) - This plant species is
found in seepage areas, wet rock crevices, sandbars, along stream banks, and in wet
woods near streams.
Orangefin madtom (NoturuS it ert') (Federal species of concern) This fish species
occurs in montane warm-water streams; juveniles and adults inhabit swift riffle
areas. Ideal habitat for this species consists of streams with low silt levels, relatively
high local gradient, and predominantly small cobble substrate.
Sweet pinesap (Monotropsis odorata) (Federal species of concern) - This species is
generally found in dry forests and on river bluffs.
The presence or absence of the above-mentioned species in the project impact areas should
be addressed in any environmental document prepared for these projects. Please note that
the legal responsibilities of a Federal agency or their designated non-Federal representative
with regard to federally listed endangered and threatened species under Section 7 of the
Act are on file with the Federal Highway Administration. Also, please note that Federal
species of concern are not legally protected under the Act and are not subject to any of its
provisions, including Section 7, unless they are formally proposed or listed as endangered
or threatened. We are including these species in our response in order to give you advance
notification and to request your assistance in protecting them.
Additionally, the Service believes the environmental document(s) for the proposed projects
should address the following issues: (1) an evaluation of the various bridge replacement
alternatives and structures (e.g., replacement at the existing location versus upstream or
downstream of the existing structure); (2) any special measures proposed to minimize
sedimentation during construction; and (3) any measures that will be implemented to
minimize impacts to fish and wildlife habitat (e.g., protecting riparian vegetation whenever
possible).
We appreciate the opportunity to provide these scoping comments and request that you
keep us informed of the progress of these projects. In any suture correspondence
concerning them, please reference our Log Number 4-2-96-061.
Sincerely,
`Brian P. Cole ,
Field Supervisor

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
WILMINGTON DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 1890 " L ?O v 50-
WILMINGTON, NORTH CAROLINA 28402-1890
REPLY TO tt - 2-9 -7 U
ATTENTION OF May 9, 1996 J
Special Studies and
Flood Plain Services Section
Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Division of Highways
Post Office Box 25201
Raleigh, North Carolina 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Vick:
cEIv\
O
MAY 1 6 1996
v
DIVISION OF
HIGHWAYS
Ll NtJIE?
This is in response to your letter of April 1, 1996 subject: "Request for Comments
for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects." The bridge replacement projects are
located in various Piedmont North Carolina counties.
Our comments are enclosed. We appreciate the opportunity to comment on these
projects. If we can be of further assistance, please contact us.
Sincerely,
E. Shuford, Jr., P.E..
Acting Chief, Engineering
and Planning Division
Enclosure
Copies Furnished (with enclosure
and incoming correspondence):
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-1442
Mr. David Cox
North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission
Post Office Box 118
Northside, North Carolina 27564-01 i 3

May 9, 1996
Page 1 of 3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
1. FLOOD PLAINS: POC - Bobby L. Willis, Special Studies and Flood Plain
Services Section, at [phone]
These bridges are located within counties or communities which participate in the
National Flood Insurance Program. From the various Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRMs), it appears that both approximate study and detail study streams are involved.
(Detail study streams are those with 100-year flood elevations determined and a
floodway defined.) A summary of flood plain information pertaining to these bridges is
contained in the following table. The FIRMs are from the county flood insurance study
unless otherwise noted.
Bridge Route Study Date Of
No. No. County Stream Type Firm
27 SR 2342 Iredell Trib-Third Ck Approx 5/80
91 SR 2417 Mecklenburg W.Br. Rocky R Detail 2/93
31 NC 73 Richmond Buffalo Ck Approx 9/89
359 SR 2911 Randolph Richland Ck. Approx 7/81
127 SR 1673 Stokes Snow Ck. Approx 9/88
147 SR 1953 Chatham Rocky River Approx 7/91
79 SR 2700 Forsyth S Fork Muddy Ck Detail 1/84
178 SR 1907 Iredell Morrison Ck. Detail 9/79
108 US 29 Mecklenburg None-No Fl Haz - 2/82
• 52 SR 1406 Randolph Uharrie R. Approx 7/81
34 ' SR 1404 Scotland Lumber R. Approx 12/88
34 SR 1104 Hoke Lumber R Approx 3/89
* within city of Statesville jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
** within city of Charlotte jurisdiction. Flood map is a city FIRM.
Enclosed, for your information on the detail study streams, is a copy of the Federal
Emergency Management Agency's "Procedures for 'No Rise' Certification for Proposed
Developments in Regulatory Floodways". In addition, we suggest coordination with the
respective counties or communities for compliance with their flood plain ordinances and
any changes, if required, to their flood insurance maps and reports.
May 9, 1996
Page 2 of 3
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: POC - Raleigh, Asheville, and Wilmington Field
Offices, Regulatory Branch (Individual POC's are listed following the comments.)
All work restricted to existing high ground will not require prior Federal permit
authorization. However, Department of the Army permit authorization pursuant to
Section 404 of the Clean Water Act of 1977, as amended, will be required for the
discharge of excavated or fill material in waters of the United States or any adjacent
and/or isolated wetlands in conjunction with your proposed bridge replacements,
including disposal of construction debris.
The replacement of these bridges may be eligible for nationwide permit
authorization [33 CFR 330.5(a)(23)] as a Categorical Exclusion, depending upon the
amount of jurisdictional wetlands to be impacted by a project and the construction
techniques utilized. Please be reminded that prior to utilization of nationwide permits
within any of the 25 designated mountain trout counties, you must obtain a letter with
recommendation(s) from the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission and a
letter of concurrence from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Wilmington District
Engineer. The mountain trout designation carries discretionary authority for the
utilization of nationwide permits. In addition, any jurisdictional impacts associated with
temporary access roads or detours, cofferdams, or other dewatering structures should
be addressed in the Categorical Exclusion documentation in order to be authorized by
Nationwide Permit No. 23 (NWP 23). If such information is not contained within the
Categorical Exclusion documentation, then other DA permits may be required prior to
construction activities.
Although these projects may qualify for NWP 23 as a categorical exclusion, the
project planning report should contain sufficient information to document that the
proposed activity does not have more than a minimal individual or cumulative impact on
the aquatic environment. Accordingly, we offer the following comments and
recommendations to be addressed in the planning report:
a. The report should contain the amount of permanent and temporary impacts to
waters and wetlands as well as a description of the type of habitat that will be affected.
b. Off-site detours are always preferable to on-site (temporary) detours in
wetlands. If an on-site detour is the recommended action, justification should be
provided.
c. Project commitments should include the removal of all temporary fills from
waters and wetlands. In addition, if undercutting is necessary for temporary detours,
the undercut material should be stockpiled to be used to restore the site.
May 9, 1996
Page 3of3
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS, WILMINGTON DISTRICT, COMMENTS ON:
"Request for Comments for Group X Bridge Replacement Projects" in various Piedmont
North Carolina counties
2. WATERS AND WETLANDS: (Continued)
d. The report should address impacts to recreational navigation (if any) if a bridge
span will be replaced with a box culvert.
e. The report should address potential impacts to anadromous fish passage if a
bridge span will be replaced with culverts.
At this point in time, construction plans were not available for review. When final
plans are complete, including the extent and location of any work within waters of the
United States and wetlands, our Regulatory Branch would appreciate the opportunity to
review those plans for a project-specific determination of DA permit requirements.
For additional information, please contact the following individuals:
Raleigh Field Office -
John Thomas at [phone], Extension 25, for Stokes County
Jean Manuele at [phone], Extension 24, for Randolph and Chatham
Counties
Eric Alsmeyer at [phone], Extension 23, for Forsyth.,County
Asheville Field Office -
Steve Lund at [phone] for Mecklenburg County
Steve Chapin at [phone] for Iredell County
Wilmington Field Office -
Scott McLendon at [phone] for Scotland/Hoke, (Regulatory Branch
Action ID # 199603287) and Richmond Counties (ID # 199603286)
U.S. Department of Agriculture
FARMLAND CONVERSION IMPACT RATING
PART I (To be completed by Federal Agency) I Date081/2 2 Z916at on aeo es,
Name OI Protect Federal A encv Involved
SR 1907. Iredell County, TIP B-2989 I FHW? _
Proposed Land Use County And State
HiCfhWay, Two Lanes Iredell County,TIP B-2989, NC
PART 11 (To be completed by SCS) Date Re uest Rece ved By SCS
U u ?11te cuntaln prime, unique, statewide or local important farmland? Yes No Acres Irrigated Average Farm Size
(If no, the FPPA does not apply - do not complete additional parts of this form). Q' O /16 N6I ?
S
_
Major Crop(s) Farmable Land In Govt. Jurisdiction Amount Of Farmland As Defined in FPPA
C O Y
A
\
cres: 33 o g2..4 % Acres:? q (p " 4 % -1'7 r 1 il! N
ame of Land Evaluation System Used Name Of LocalO IuAssessment System I Date Ind Taluafion Returned By SCS
?hc?? ? Co, 1.F_Ql ? GG
PART I I I (To be completed by Federal Agency) Alternative Site Rahn
Site A Site 8 Site C Site D
A. Total Acres To Be Converted Directly
0.9 1 .0
B. Total Acres To Be Converted Indirectly 0
0
C. Total Acres In Site 0.9 1.0
PART IV (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Information
A% Total A
r
P
i
c
es
r
me And Unique Farmland
B. Total Acres Statewide And Local Important Farmland Q
C
Percenta
of F
.
ge
armland In County Or Local Govt. Unit To Be Converted 0 , pp d
O
D. Percenta
e Of F
l .
g
arm
and in Govt. Jurisdiction With Same Or Higher Relative Value
PART V (To be completed by SCS) Land Evaluation Criterion
Relative Value Of Farmland To Be Converted (Scale of 0 to 100 Points) S Ac
PART V I (To be completed by Federal Agency)
Site Assessment Criteria (These criteria are explained in 7 CFR 658.5(b) MPointsm 1
1. Area In Nonurban Use
2. Perimeter In Nonurban Use /
3. Percent Of Site Being Farmed
4. Protection Provided By State And Local Government zz)
5. Distance From Urban Builtup Area -- -
6. Distance To Urban Support Services
7. Size Of Present Farm Unit Compared To Average I
-------------- S I I

I
8. Creation Of Nonfarmable Farmland
9. Availability Of Farm Su
pport Services ?j I -- --
j J -- -
10. On-Farm Investments
I Z o I ?-
/(I - - "--
I. Effects Of Conversion On Farm Support Services I 25
-
_
14 Compatibility With Existing Agricultural Use I /Q
TOTAL SITE ASSESSMENT POINTS
PART VII (To be completed by Federal Agency) I 160 I

I S/ I/ I I
Relative Value Of Farmland (From Part V)
oral Site Assessment (From Parr Vl above or a loci!
sire assessment) l 100

I 160
-
' -------- - _ - - --- -
I
_
TOTAL POINTS (Total of aoove ? lines) - - 260
--" --
Site Selected
Was A Local SCI -ass °t;?uni liseo?
Date Of Sele-:tlon tpj
yo ,
S No
Reason For

Ile 15 - 2q 'q9
.sun.,,.

9
f?
JAMES B. HUNT JR.
GOVERNOR
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
OFFICE OF BICYCLE & GARLAND B. GARRETr JR.
PEDESTRIAN TRANSPORTATION SECRETARY
P.O. BOX 25201, RALEIGH. N.C. 27611-5201
May 30,1996
MEMORANDUM
TO: Mr. H. Franklin Vick, P.E., Manager
P vand Environmental Branch
FROM: s Yates, Director
Office of Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation
SUBJECT: Scoping Review for Replacing Bridge No. 178 on SR 1907 over Morrison Creek,
Iredell County, TIP No. B-2989
This memorandum is in response to your request for comments on the above project.
There does not appear to be any special need for bicycle accommodations on this project. This
section of roadway does not correspond to a bicycle TIP request, nor is it a designated bicycle
route. At present we have no indication that there is an unusual number of bicyclists on this
roadway.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on this project. Please feel free to contact us
regarding this or any other bicycle related matter.
CBY/pp

C ?e/
'J'JN ' 4 1996
PHONE [phone] FAX [phone]