The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About20030158 Ver 1_Complete File_20030213B-3401 BRIDGE PROJECT SCOPING SHEET State Project No. 8.2472501 Right of Way 2-01 Federal Project No. BRZ-1921(3) Construction Let 2-02 Purpose of Project: REPLACE OBSOLETE BRIDGE Description of Project: Replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 over Quaker Creek in Alamance County, B-3401. Bridge No. 60 LENGTH 46 METERS; WIDTH 7.6 METERS 151 FEET 25 FEET TIP CONSTRUCTION COST ...................................... $ 500,000 TIP RIGHT OF WAY COST ...................................... + $ 50,000 TIP TOTAL COST .................................... $ 550,000 CLASSIFICATION: Rural Local Route /G N N CO Lt49 Ch. McCray 10 .4 191 DeeR'' ti 19 1756 a 1 1 11 u`? 1794 % t? 0 3 1995 54 1 i j._.... 1754 N 4 1912 1750 - - ;•.. l 1 1 90 i Mlles i/ ,.'-o Bridge No.60 Chapel 174 9 Chapel /', p D 1 77 35 f i N 1 16c' 1'?i 1912 1915 ; i / Y. i I Rer crepe N Res. 200 % . - ? // •? 19 1 1919 1 N .6 i \c• \? 1 1921 7• 1917 1917 ., '•? MEB? aw Rived, f/vi ? \?i 70 1'•? .J 4 1 L - 8- AV Ur ?. O / SHAW RIVER n - POP. - 2,057 - / urdl 5 / .9 F1 ?G- 16 North Carolina . Department of Transportation Division of Highways Planning & Environmental Branch Alamance County Replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek B-3401 FIGURE 1 % tj M. BM 681 II - ?p _ _ 50 -u. 650 III 1 ?? 11 ` 1 665 1754 1910 NI 02 6pp / a- 600 l7 0? ?, _ ??, ?- -?_??- ?" ? _ ????? '10 Jill (?31\IesChaj . q v 650 1.1912?? u ha el'?? 6 _ 1 ..a j• r 4 J? /\I ?d 1111 11? 0/ \? •?J• j? ?? \?I 1 I?1'?? 11I 600. o 11 ?C / r' 650 AVA • 1 _ 4??? '? -?po (( I 1619 f /q1 _. 8 655 y 650 66/ 64, se ?r ?? Ill J ?\ __, ?? = 655 ? ?,_/ /?h JI i -p 111,^? ,ter 17 e 550 boy u TO .S. 70 20/ 1651 (MEBANE) 653 ID AND 1969 MAGNETIC NORTH DECLINATION AT CENTER OF SHEET 5156 Ill SE 17 30 SCALE 1:24000 1 7 0 1 MILE 1000 0 1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 FEET 1 5 D 1 KILOMETER CONTOUR INTERVAL 10 FEET DATUM IS MEAN SEA LEVEL THIS MAP COMPLIES WITH NATIONAL MAP ACCURACY STANDARDS FOR SALE BY U. S. GEOLOGICAL SURVEY, WASHINGTON, D. C. 20242 A FOLDER DESCRIBING TOPOGRAPHIC MAPS AND SYMBOLS IS AVAILABLE ON REQUEST ` ? 0 0 p 3u1 o • v - ? Q ? ? • d e o • e 4 e O O v ' u 0 4 a a ? • 0 e p D a • • ' -a o e 17 o QP v• d .o ? 0 • ° 0 0 e e Y • s • ° i . Q l ? V e C L P ? o 0 ` . p • o o b ti b• 9 0 e C . e ° P 4 ? ° O D v 4 ??„ a e e p a ? e • e v o 0 0 0 e to ° Q • P QQ ? 0 4 e ° ° v d s • ' .p • Q N 4 v ` • • . e D a° 1p •D 0 1 • ? ? • e e n •0 Pun STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION MICHAEL F. EASLEY GOVERNOR February 14, 2003 US Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Field Office 6508 Falls of Neuse Road, Suite 120 Raleigh, NC 27615 ATTENTION: Mr. John Thomas NCDOT Coordinator 0301 58 LYNDO TIPPETT SECRETARY ,11WE I? i I . c OOt?. t..... GROUP I,1 !1,,* SECTION_ Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 60 over Quaker Creek on SR 1921, Alamance County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-1921(3), State Project No. 8.2472501, TIP Project No. B-3401. Dear Sir: Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project. The document states that Bridge No. 60 will be replaced with a new 240-foot [73 meters (m)] long bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet (ft) (15 m) north of the existing structure. The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12- foot (3.5 m) wide lanes with 3-foot (1 m) wide offsets (shoulders). Construction of the bridge will be with A-frame pile bents, therefore top-down construction will be implemented. Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. An existing roadside ditch is located in the northeast quadrant of the project. Existing fill from the roadbed on the east side of the bridge will be removed and the existing roadside ditch will be relocated there. There will be 400 ft (122 m) of new approach work to the east and 500 ft (152 m) of new approach work to the west. The pavement width on the approaches will be 24 ft (7.2 m) including two 12-foot (3.6 m) lanes. Additionally, there will be 8-foot (2.4 m) grass shoulders. There are no wetland impacts are associated with this project. The only surface water impacted by this project is Quaker Creek. Quaker Creek at this point is part of Quaker Creek Reservoir (see attached drawing sheets 1-4). Quaker Creek is classified by the Division of Water Quality as WS-II NSW in the Categorical Exclusion (CE) MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: 919-733-3141 LOCATION: NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: 919-733-9794 TRANSPORTATION BUILDING PROJECT DEVELOPMENTAND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET 1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC RALEIGH NC 27699-1548 document. Since then the classification has changed to WS-II HQW NSW CA. The change now designates this area of the stream as High Quality Waters (HQW). NCDOT's High Quality Waters Standards will be enforced throughout project construction. Quaker Creek will be impacted through 0.09 acres (ac) of fill. After the removal of the existing bridge, the current fill will be excavated to provide for storage of surface waters in the Quaker Creek Reservoir. This will result in an increase in surface water of 0.16 ac for this project (sheets 4, 5 and 6). This project is classified as Case 2 which allows no work in the water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning and larval recruitment into nursery areas. An in-water work moratorium from April 1 to June 15 will be required for this project due to the quality largemouth bass population that the lake supports. Also, all measures will be taken as outlined in the Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters. Demolition: Bridge No. 60 is composed entirely of timber and steel. The bridge railings and substructure will be removed without dropping components into Waters of the United States. All guidelines for bridge demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters. This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in accordance with the Federal Register of December 13, 1996, Part VII, Volume 61, Number 241. We anticipate a 401 General Certification number 3361 will apply to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records. If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Rachelle Beauregard at (919) 715-1383. Sincerely, V ' I ' pGregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D. Environmental Management Director, PDEA w/ attachment: Mr. John Dorney, NC Division of Water Quality (2 copies) Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design w/o attachment Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP Ms. Deborah Barbour, PE, Highway Design Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics Ms. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental Mr. J.M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer Mr. John Williams, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer VICINITY MAP SR 1 910 SR 1912 SR 19$0 ? SR 1754 ay> .` l \aR 1912 ?r ro _ I _ SR?2 / SR 1916?J7` dR 1915 SITE .. , Sit 1921 ? \ Quaker 'r SR 1917 - - 1 Cree ' Reservoif SR 1920 II dla Midd a Eastern '' at 1? f? 1 ance SP 192-1 igh E MEBAN 1 POP. /. „/Flaw RiJQr - SI; 6,377 19 x / N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ALAMANCE COUNTY PROJECT: 8.2472501 B-3401 SHEET 1 OF 7 9/ 17/ 02 z G4 0 o ? H O ? ? a1 rn C7 p ^? H O V `y ? w y ?; W r ?; H a A l ?., ..??:, n.? f ??'? =.r.? t ??:?'c. ?4 I ? .?^`r-? !'" ?j. .,Kw/ ' ?' .IJb.p?y.z., 31 ?t .,.+ ?y ` Pte. E g?;"?' wea' -" ' ? _ ? ? •? ? t 1. ? 'S?„ lt?-`"? u. LEGEND ---WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY XXXXX a LIVE STAKES - WETLAND ® DENOTES FILL IN WETLAND ® DENOTES FILL SURFACE WATER R ® DENOTES FILL SURFACE WATER R (POND) T T DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL IN WETLAND D DENOTES EXCAVATION ? E IN WETLAND TS T$ DENOTES TEMPORARY FILL IN SURFACE WATER • DENOTES MECHANIZED • • •• • • • CLEARING IE F- FLOW DIRECTION TB -'?- TOP OF BANK ---WE--- EDGE OF WATER - C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL -?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY - - NG- - NATURAL GROUND PROPERTY LINE -TOE- TEMP. DRAINAGE EASEMENT -PDE- PERMANENT DRAINAGE EASEMENT -EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED ANIMAL BOUNDARY -EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED PLANT BOUNDARY --- 0------- WATER SURFACE N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ALAMANCE COUNTY BOULDER COIR FIBER ROLLS O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER OR PARCEL NUMBER PROPOSED BRIDGE PROPOSED BOX CULVERT PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT (DASHED LINES DENOTE EXISTNG STRUCTURES) ,J SINGLE TREE WOODS LINE ¦ DRAINAGE INLET ROOTWAD VANE RIP RAP RIP RAP ENERGY DISSIPATOR BASIN 7Q BUFFER ZONE BUFFER ZONE PROJECT: 8.2472501 B-3401 z LLJ o+Rz 0 ``' :0 LL I I N L LJ ?L O 0 Z m w p z Z. O o ?I V ?x U \ \ C IZ I p 3 E" Gir O W U ?. l ; ° m E- 0 14 \ \ a O 12 > UA a W I 00+zz z r a O Q U I o I g? o I I OU ff F .< °sl o `. >? m zD? L Li I Q I F . ? w k o a 00+2 P- ? w I I cwj V7oC: IWm? wLAJ Q M N? co F < U I < ? V a_ ? CU A A N °w vi I Ln I w x L n n a' n ° a U I I co I d b V CQ C) C? V O ? o+az ? ' PC 83 NPR w U) II o 4 F7 i O? ca 0+61 I r- 0o r i-- a ?I 1 z O o 0 z 0. E. cA LLJ N° M (A zc? o X? ? N ?x U a W CD . ?. 1 ?. 2? a H w w CD . o \v\ =ff O U CO ?. am ??L? oz H o ?N 1 a° 0-4 w 1 \ w °o LLJ 1 a? o H r- ?c 1 UD a w °In U° ° x U N CV -i- 1 o ?n 1 I °° ° ° N v J 09 1 N V) No 1 ` Z < 0-) < OLli T a_ ±> N a- 11 I 1 ` 1 N ::>:: n N \ 0 `` 1 I Q U W5? W ?? 1 I ? M? F- W Y v1a? NVcn ---------- I L ---------- I I I I I I `\ ? ` I I I I 1 1 1 I I ----------- - I N I I I 11 I I I ? I I N .a U I I / / WD 1 I (-D LU 0o Ov Jln I I / / Nip Z U mw I Ln a H CD U O Z W I I N W X O W F- O 1.5'1 H J ?i 0 14 F- rn a i N O O ~ I Y UJ ?I ""? _J az LL o O O Q z ) L/) 0 o r- N oa , a_ CD CD z PROPERTY OWNER NAME AND ADDRESS OWNER'S NAME ADDRESS P.O. Drawer 357 201 South Main Street 6 CITY OF GRAHAM Graham, NC 27253 N. C. DEPT. OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS ALAMANCE COUNTY PROJECT: 8.2472501 B-3401 SHEET 6 OF 7 9/17/02 z 0 H H ''' ?U) O o M U) W Q F'~? ON N Wo o 5 A o `' C4 a a 1? N U z U a ca O fl W F- W U a fy cq Z C E a W U o Z LL W O Z ??m ?a??x o Z N ? A C ? ? a? o w U E a cq ? o a ? ? C U C p ? O . d =Z LL o 0 0 N C _' L N rr'+- ? O ? yU? f- U c ? ° c ,o F. x W c a N "? a ? ? o Z m ? g ?? W S N C ? C U LL J J N F- 2? W ? W D "" N CD CD J J J J O 01 M p E (? p rn r N N N v O O N O ? N r N fn J "? p ? N Z r N ? H Alamance County Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek Federal Project BRZ-1921(3) State Project 8.2472501 TIP No. B-3401 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION AND N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS APPROVED: g- i F-00 ?-fc„ v Date William D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch '8-z3-oo koc??`7 Date Nicholas Graf, P. E. Division Administrator, FHWA I I Alamance County Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek Federal Project BRZ-1921(3) State Project 8.2472501 TIP No. B-3401 CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION AUGUST 2000 -n - 00 Date Documentation Prepared in Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By: Jofin L. Williams, P. E. Project Planning Engineer ``1.111111111,/,/ `pdok CAR94" ?oFtiSS/0'*% SEAL _ = 022552 O 'FNGGINss- as 111 19-17-M W6? 7P In Q- 0_) r;--? Date Wayne lliott Bridge Project Planning Engineer, Unit Head Date Lubin V. Prevatt, P. E., Assistant Manager Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch I / 0 1 PROJECT COMMITMENTS: B-3401, Alamance County Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek Federal Project BRZ-1921(3) State Project 8.2472501 Resident Engineer Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented. Moratorium: A moratorium will be implemented from April l to June 15 of any construction period to protect largemouth bass spawning periods. Sensitive Watersheds: Best Management Practices for Protection of Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented during construction Roadside Environmental Unit Sensitive Watersheds: Best Management Practices for Protection of Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented during construction Structure Design Bridge Demolition: Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition & Removal will be implemented. Hydraulics Hazardous Spill Catch Basin: NCDOT Hydraulics Unit has reviewed this project to determine the necessity of a hazardous spill catch basin. A close review has determined that the project lies just outside the waters listed as WSII and therefore does not require the study of a hazardous spill catch basin. Sensitive Watersheds: Best Management Practices for Protection of Sensitive Watersheds will be implemented during construction Categorical Exclusion Green Sheet August 17, 2000 Page 1 of 1 Alamance County Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek Federal Project BRZ-1921(3) State Project 8.2472501 TIP No. B-3401 Bridge No. 60 is located in Alamance County over Quaker Creek. It is programmed in the Draft 2002-2008 Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) as a bridge replacement project due to deteriorating structural integrity and a deficient cross section. This project is part of the Federal Highway Bridge Replacement and Rehabilitation Program (HBRRP) and has been classified as a "Categorical Exclusion". No substantial environmental impacts are expected. 1. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS Bridge No. 60 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new 240- foot (73- meter) long bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15 meters) north of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes with 3-foot (1-meter) wide offsets (shoulders). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction There will be 400 feet (122 meters) of new approach work to the east and 500 feet (152 meters) of new approach work to the west. The pavement width on the approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 8-foot (2.4-meter) grass shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 55 mph (90 kph). The estimated cost of the project is $1,271,000 including $1,230,000 in construction costs and $41,000 in right of way costs. The estimated cost shown in the Draft 2002-2008 TIP is $650,000. II. ANTICIPATED DESIGN EXCEPTIONS NCDOT does not anticipate any design exceptions. III. EXISTING CONDITIONS SR 1921 is classified as an Urban Local Route in the Statewide Functional Classification System. It is located northeast of Burlington. Currently the traffic volume is 1800 vehicles per day (VPD) and projected at 3800 VPD for the year 2025. There is a posted speed limit of 55 mph in the vicinity of the bridge. The area is largely residential. The existing bridge was completed in 1960. It is composed of a four-span timber and steel structure. The deck is 151 feet long and 24 feet wide. There is vertical clearance of approximately 10 feet between the floorbeams of the bridge deck and streambed. The bridge carries two lanes of traffic. According to Bridge Maintenance Unit records, the sufficiency rating of the bridge is 20.4 out of a possible 100. Presently the bridge is posted with weight restrictions of 17 tons for single vehicles and 22 tons for truck-tractor semi-trailers. Both vertical and horizontal alignment are fair in the project vicinity. The pavement width on the approaches to the existing bridge is 20 feet. Shoulders on the approaches of the bridge are approximately 4 feet wide. In a recent three year period one accident was reported. The accident was attributed to driver error and there is no other indication of an accident history associated with the bridge. There are 14 daily school bus crossings over the studied bridge. According to the Transportation Director for Alamance County, closing the road would create a significant burden on their transportation system. Bell South Telephone has an underground cable along the north side of SR 1921. Time- Warner Cable Television has underground cables along the north side of SR 1921 west of the existing bridge. The cables are aerial across Quaker Creek and remain aerial east of the existing bridge. IV. PROPOSED ALTERNATIVES There are two "build" options considered in this document as follows: Alternate 1) Replace Bridge No. 60 on the existing location. Traffic would be maintained with a temporary onsite detour to the north during construction. Because of the existing causeway, this alternate would require a 160-foot (49-meter) long bridge. The design speed would be approximately 55 mph (90 kph). Alternate 2) (Recommended) Replace Bridge No. 60 on new location to the east. Traffic would be maintained on the existing bridge during construction. Because there is no existing causeway along this alignment, Alternate 2 would require a 240-foot (73-meter) long bridge. The design speed will be approximately 55 mph (90 kph). An offsite detour was considered but discarded due to disruption to Emergency Medical & Rescue Services, disruption of School Bus services, and high volumes of traffic. "Do-nothing" is not practical; requiring the eventual closing of the road as the existing bridge completely deteriorates. Rehabilitation of the existing deteriorating bridge is neither practical nor economical. 2 V. ESTIMATED COST (Table 1 COMPONENT ALTERNATE 1 Recommended ALTERNATE 2 New Bridge Temporary Detour Structure Bridge Removal Roadway & Approaches 360,000 144,000 23,000 469,000 540,000 N/A 23,000 273,000 Mobilization & Miscellaneous 354,000 244,000 Engineering & Contingencies 200,000 150,000 Total Construction $ 1,550,000 $1,230,000 Right of Way $ 31,000 41,000 Total Cost $ 1,58500 1,271,000 VI. RECOMMENDED IMPROVEMENTS Bridge No. 60 will be replaced as recommended in Alternate 2 with a new 240-foot (73- meter) long bridge on new alignment approximately 50 feet (15 meters) north of the existing structure (see Figure 2). The cross section of the new bridge will include two 12-foot (3.6-meter) wide lanes with 3-foot (1-meter) wide offsets (shoulders). Traffic will be maintained on the existing bridge during construction There will be 400 feet (122 meters) of new approach work to the east and 500 feet (152 meters) of new approach work to the west. The pavement width on the approaches will be 24 feet (7.2 meters) including two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. Additionally there will be 8-foot (2.4-meter) grass shoulders. Based on preliminary design, the design speed should be approximately 55 mph (90 kph). Both Alternates 1 and 2 were designed to prevent disruption to traffic. The environmental impacts are only marginally higher for Alternate 2. There are two outstanding environmental issues at this location. The bridge is at the confluence of Quaker Creek Reservoir. These waters are classified as a WSII and are a water supply to the City of Burlington. This location is also of significant concern to the Wildlife Resource Commission due to excellent aquatic life resources. So long as NCDOT adheres to the Project Commitments listed in the attached Greensheet, both alternates would equally address the environmental concerns. Taking these factors into account and considering the total cost of each alternate, Alternate 2 is recommended because of lower overall costs. The Division concurs in the recommendation. VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS A. GENERAL This project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate bridge will result in safer traffic operations. This project is considered to be a "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope and insignificant environmental consequences. This bridge replacement will not have a substantial adverse effect on the quality of the human or natural environment by implementing the environmental commitments of this document in addition to use of current NCDOT standards and specifications. Currently SR 1921 is not a designated Bicycle Route and there are no known bicycle concerns for this facility. The bridge cross section is being designed accordingly. The project is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No change in land use is expected to result from construction of this project. There are no hazardous waste impacts. No adverse effect on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-way acquisition will be limited. No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area. There are no publicly owned parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of national, state, or local significance in the vicinity of the project. This project will not impact any resource protected by Section 4(f) of the DOT act. The proposed bridge replacement project will not raise the existing flood levels or have any significant adverse effect on the existing floodplain. Utility impacts are considered to be low for the proposed project. B. AIR AND NOISE 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. The project will not increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have an impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during construction. C. LAND USE & FARMLAND EFFECTS This project will have no impact on soils considered to be prime or important farmland. D. HISTORICAL EFFECTS & ARCHAEOLOGICAL EFFECTS On December 28, 1998, the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) reviewed the subject project. Subsequently, the SHPO determined that this project is not likely to affect any resources of architectural or archaeological significance (see attachments). E. NATURAL RESOURCES PHYSICAL RESOURCES Soil and water resources that occur in the study area are discussed below. Soils and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora and fauna in any biotic community. The project study area lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province. The topography in this section of Alamance County is characterized by gently rolling hills that range from nearly level to steep. Topography in the project area is relatively flat since it is located within the flood plain of the Quaker Creek. Project elevation is approximately 164.6 meters (540.0 feet) above mean sea level (msl). Soils Five soil phases occur within project study area: Enon fine sandy loam eroded sloping phase, Lloyd loam eroded sloping phase, Lloyd loam moderately steep phase, mixed alluvial land poorly drained, and Worsham sandy loam. Enon fine sand loam, eroded sloping phase, with 6 to 10 percent slopes, is a well- drained soil on ridge tops and side slopes in the Piedmont. Permeability is slow and runoff is medium to rapid. Main limitations of this soil include slope, surface runoff, and erosion. Lloyd loam eroded sloping hase, with 6 to 10 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs on slopes. Permeability is moderate and medium to rapid surface runoff. Erosion is a limitation of this soil. Lloyd loam moderatel% steep hase, with 15 to 25 percent slopes, is a well-drained soil that occurs on slopes. Permeability is moderate and medium to rapid surface runoff. Erosion is a limitation of this soil. Mixed alluvial land oorl drained occurs on first bottoms that border meandering streams with shallow banks. it is somewhat poorly drained to poorly drained. Wetness is the main limitation. Worsham sand loam, with 2 to 6 percent slopes, occurs on foot slopes and saddles in ow, wet depression-s. This soil is poorly drained, runoff is slow and internal drainage is very slow. Permeability is slow to very slow. Wetness is the main limitation. Water Resources This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted by the project. Water resource information encompasses physical aspects of the resource, its relationship to major water systems, Best Usage Standards and water quality of the resources. Probable impacts to surface water resources and minimization methods are also discussed. Waters Impacted and Characteristics Quaker Creek will be the only surface water resource directly impacted by the proposed project (Figure 2). Quaker Creek is located in sub-basin 03-06-02 of the Cape Fear River Basin. The average baseflow width is approximately 39.6 meters (130.0 feet). The average depth is approximately 1.2 meters (4.0 feet). Quaker Creek's substrate is primarily silty sediment. Best Usage Classification Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. The classification of Quaker Creek (DEM Index No. 16-18-4(1)) is WS-II NSW. The WS-II classification identifies waters used as sources of water supply for drinking, culinary, or food processing purposes for those users desiring maximum protection for their water supply where a WS-1 classification is not feasible. WS-II waters are generally in predominantly undeveloped watersheds. The supplemental classification of NSW denotes Nutrient Sensitive Waters that require limitations on nutrient inputs. The WS-II classification for predominately undeveloped watersheds is designated at the project study area. Water Quality The DWQ has initiated a basin-wide approach to water quality management for each of the 17 river basins within the state. To accomplish this goal the DWQ collects biological, chemical, and physical data that can be used in basinwide assessment and planning. All basins are reassessed every five years. Prior to the implementation of the basinwide approach to water quality management, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN, managed by the DEM) assessed water quality by sampling for benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites throughout the state. There is not a BMAN station located on Quaker Creek within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area. Many benthic macroinvertebrates have stages in their life cycle that can last from six months to a year, therefore, the adverse effects of a toxic spill will not be overcome until the next generation. Different taxa of macroinvertebrates have different tolerances to pollution, thereby, long-term changes in water quality conditions can be identified by population shifts from pollution sensitive to pollution tolerant organisms (and vice versa). Overall, the species present, the population diversity and the biomass are reflections of long-term water quality conditions. 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 is not a point source discharger located on Quaker Creek within 1.6 kilometers (1.0 mile) of the project study area. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Replacing an existing structure in the same location with a road closure during construction is almost always preferred. It poses the least risk to aquatic organisms and other natural resources. Bridge replacement on a new location usually results in greater impacts. Utilizing the full ROW width of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet), anticipated impacts to Quaker Creek due to Alternate 1 will be 36.6m (120.0 feet). Alternate 1 impacts, both aquatic and terrestrial, total 1.10 hectares (2.71 acres). The area of aquatic and terrestrial environments impacted is 0.18 hectares (0.44 acres) and 0.92 ha (2.27 acres), respectively. Alternate 2, utilizing the same ROW width could likely cause approximately the same impacts as Alternate 1. Although the impact calculations show approximately the same areas, Alternate 1 is preferred from an environmental standpoint due to far fewer permanent impacts. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. This project area is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water supply reservoir. The North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (WRC) requests that no in-water work be performed from April 1 through June 15 due the quality largemouth bass population that the lake supports. (WRC 1998) Project construction may result in the following impacts to surface waters: Increased sedimentation and siltation from construction and/or erosion, 2. Changes in light incidence and water clarity due to increased sedimentation and vegetation removal, 3. Alteration of water levels and flows due to interruptions and/additions to surface and ground water flow from construction, 4. Changes in water temperature due to streamside vegetation removal, 5. Increased nutrient loading during construction via runoff from exposed areas, and/or 6. Increased concentration of toxic compounds from highway runoff, construction and toxic spills. Precautions must be taken to minimize impacts to water resources in the study area. The NCDOT's Best Management Practices (BMP) for the Protection of Sensitive Watersheds must be strictly enforced during the construction stage of the project. Guidelines for these BMPs include, but are not limited to minimizing built upon area and diverting stormwater away from surface water supply waters as much as possible. Provisions to preclude contamination by toxic substances during the construction interval must also be strictly enforced. BIOTIC RESOURCES Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This section describes those ecosystems encountered in the study area, as well as, the relationships between fauna and flora within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences and past and present land uses in the study area. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context of plant community classifications and follow descriptions presented by Schafale and Weakley (1990) where possible. Dominant flora and fauna observed, or likely to occur, in each community are described and discussed. Scientific nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and plant species described. Plant taxonomy generally follows Radford et al. (1968). Animal taxonomy follows Martof et al. (1980), Potter et al. (1980) and Webster et al. (1985). Subsequent references to the same organism will include the common name only. Fauna observed during the site visits are denoted with an asterisk (*). Published range distributions and habitat analysis are used in estimating fauna expected to be present within the project area. Terrestrial Communities Four distinct terrestrial communities are identified in the project study area: Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, maintained/disturbed community, yard and maintained/disturbed roadside. Community boundaries within the study area are well defined without a significant transition zone between them. Faunal species likely to occur within the study area will exploit both communities for shelter and foraging opportunities or as movement corridors. Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest The Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest is present along the entire project corridor. The transition from forest to maintained/disturbed roadside community is abrupt due to road shoulder maintenance activities. The canopy is composed of red bud (Cercis canadensis), ash (Fraxinus sp.), hickory (Carya sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), Virginia pine (Pinus virginiana), red maple (Acer rubrum), beech (Fagus grandifolia), hornbeam (Ostrya virginiana), white pine (Pinus strobus), yellow poplar (Liriodendron tuplipifera), dogwood (Corpus jlorida), southern red oak (Quercus falcata), white oak (Quercus alba), mulberry (Morus sp.), sugarberry (Celtis laevigata), viburnum (Viburnum sp.), sassafras (Sassafras albidum), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), American elm (Ulmus americana), black cherry (Prunus serotina), coral honeysuckle (Lonicera sempervirens), winged sumac (Rhus copallina), Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides), kudzu (Pueraria lobata), Eastern red cedar (Juniperus virginiana), wild rose (Rosa carolina) and willow oak (Quercus virginiana). Wildlife associated with the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest include: white-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus), eastern mole (Scalopus aquaticus), opossum (Didelphis marsupialis), deer mouse (Peromyscus maniculatus), gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis), beaver* (Castor canadensis), and raccoon (Procyon lotor). White-tailed deer will use this forest community for cover and will forage on twigs and leaves as well as mast. Avian species utilizing the alluvial forest include red-shouldered hawk (Buteo lineatus), blue jay (Cyanocitta cristata), northern cardinal (Cardinalis cardinalis), rufous-sided towhee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), summer tanager (Piranga rubra), tufted titmouse (Parus bicolor) and white-eyed vireo (Vireo griseus). Maintained/ Disturbed Community The maintained/disturbed community includes an area southwest of Bridge No. 60, adjacent to Quaker Creek. Flora within this periodically maintained community is primarily grass (Cynodon dactylon). The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. Maintained Yard This maintained yard community includes lawns along SR 1921, west of Bridge No. 60. This maintained community is comprised mostly of fescue grass (Festuca sp.). The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore. faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. Maintained/Disturbed Roadside Community The maintained/disturbed roadside includes road shoulders along SR 1921 that are present along the entire length of the project. Flora within this periodically maintained community includes fescue (Festuca sp. ), chickweed (Stellaria media), field garlic (Allium vineale), dock (Rumex crispus), Japanese honeysuckle, field pansy (Viola check sp rafinesguii), henbit (Lamium amplexicaule), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans), wild strawberry (Fragaria virginiana) and vetch (Vicia angustifolia). The width of the road shoulder is approximately 3.0 meters (10.0 feet). The maintained habitat within the project area is surrounded by extensive forested areas and represents only a minor constituent of a larger community structure within the project vicinity. Therefore, faunal species frequenting the maintained community will be largely those species inhabiting the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest. Aquatic Communities One aquatic community, Quaker Creek will be impacted by the proposed project. Physical characteristics of a water body and the condition of the water resource influence faunal composition of aquatic communities. Terrestrial communities adjacent to a water resource also greatly influence aquatic communities Fauna associated with these aquatic communities includes various invertebrate and vertebrate species. Fish species likely to occur in Quaker Creek include golden shiner (Notemigonus crysoleucas), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus), silver red-horse (Moxostoma anisurum) and channel catfish (ktalurus punctatus). Invertebrates that would be present include various species of caddisflies (Trichoptera), mayflies (Ephemeroptera), crayfish (Decapoda), dragonflies (Odonata) and damselflies (Odonata). The snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), pickerel frog (Rana palustris), and northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon) are common residents in this community. Summary of Anticipated Impacts 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 within the study area. Project construction will result in clearing and degradation of portions of these communities. Table 2 summarizes potential quantitative losses to these biotic communities, resulting from project construction. Estimated impacts are derived using the entire proposed right-of-way width of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet) along the project's 365.8 meters (1,200.0 feet) length, minus the area previously impacted by the existing road. Although the impact calculations show approximately the same areas, Alternate 1 is recommended due to far fewer permanent impacts. Usually, project construction does not require the entire right-of-way, therefore, actual impacts may be considerably less. 9 Table 2. Anticipated impacts from the proposed nroiect to biotic communities. Community Alternate 1 Alternate 2 Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest 0.51(l.25) 0.51(l.25) Maintained/Disturbed Community 0.01 (0.03) 0.01 (0.03) Yard 0.20 (0.48) 0.20 (0.48) Maintained/Disturbed Roadside 0.20 (0.51) 0.20 (0.51) Total 0.92 (2.27) 0.92 (2.27) Note: Values cited are in hectares (acres). Plant communities found within the proposed project area serve as nesting and sheltering habitat for various wildlife species. Replacing Bridge No. 60 and its associated improvements will reduce habitat for faunal species, thereby diminishing faunal numbers. However, due to the size and scope of this project, it is anticipated that impacts to fauna will be minimal. Areas modified by construction (but not paved) will become road shoulders and early successional habitat. Reduced habitat will displace some wildlife further from the roadway while attracting other wildlife by the creation of earlier successional habitat. Animals temporarily displaced by construction activities will repopulate areas suitable for the species. Aquatic communities are sensitive to even small changes in their environment. Stream channelization, scouring, siltation, sedimentation and erosion from construction- related work will affect water quality and biological constituents. Although direct impacts may be temporary, environmental impacts from these construction processes may result in long term or irreversible effects. Impacts often associated with in-stream construction include increased channelization and scouring of the streambed. In-stream construction alters the stream substrate and may remove streamside vegetation at the site. Disturbances to the substrate will produce siltation, which clogs the gills and/or feeding mechanisms of benthic organisms (sessile filter-feeders and deposit-feeders), fish and amphibian species. Benthic organisms can also be covered by excessive amounts of sediment. These organisms are slow to recover or repopulate a stream. The removal of streamside vegetation and placement of fill material at the construction site alters the terrain. Alterations of the streambank enhance the likelihood of erosion and sedimentation. Revegetation stabilizes and holds the soil thus mitigating these processes. Erosion and sedimentation carry soils, toxic compounds and other materials into aquatic communities at the construction site. These processes magnify turbidity and can cause the formation of sandbars at the site and downstream, thereby altering water flow and the growth of vegetation. Streamside alterations also lead to more direct sunlight penetration and to elevations of water temperatures that may impact many species. 10 JURISDICTIONAL TOPICS Waters of the United States 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 USC 1344). Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters Potential wetland communities were investigated pursuant to the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual. The three-parameter approach is used where hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation and prescribed hydrologic characteristics must all be present for an area to be considered a wetland. Wetlands are not present within the project area. Quaker Creek is a jurisdictional surface water under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (33 USC 1344). Discussion of the biological, physical and water quality aspects of all surface waters in the project area are presented in previous sections of this report. Summary of Anticipated Impacts Anticipated impacts to surface waters are determined by using the entire project ROW width of 24.4 meters (80.0 feet). Considering Alternate 1, impacts to Quaker Creek will consist of 36.6 meters (120.0 feet) wide and 39.6 meters (130 feet) long bridge crossing of Quaker Creek, for an area of 0.14 ha (0.36 acre). Alternative 2 impacts to Quaker Creek will be approximately the same as Alternate 1 impacts. Although the impact calculations show approximately the same areas, Alternate 1 is preferred from an environmental standpoint due to far fewer permanent impacts. Usually, project construction does not require the entire ROW, therefore, actual surface water impacts may be considerably less. Permits As described above, impacts to jurisdictional surface waters are anticipated from the proposed project. As a result, construction activities will require permits and certifications from various regulatory agencies charged with protecting the water quality of public water resources Nationwide Permit 23 (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 that pursuant to the Council on Environmental Quality regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act 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 that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency's or department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that determination. This project will also require a 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. 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 to "waters of the United States." Section 401 Certification allows surface waters to be temporarily impacted for the duration of the construction or other land manipulation. The issuance of a 401 permit from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit. Mitigation The COE has adopted, through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), a wetland mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands" and sequencing. The purpose of this policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of "waters of the United States," specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the CEQ to include: avoiding impacts (to wetlands), minimizing impacts, rectifying impacts, reducing impacts over time and compensating for impacts (40 CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially. Avoidance Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practicable possibilities of averting impacts to "waters of the United States." According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the COE, in determining "appropriate and practicable" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practicable in terms of cost, existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes. Minimization Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practicable steps to reduce the adverse impacts to "waters of the United States." Implementation of these steps will be required through project modifications and permit conditions. Minimization typically focuses on decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median widths, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths. Other practical mechanisms to minimize impacts to "waters of the United States" crossed by the proposed project include: strict enforcement of sedimentation control BMP's for the protection of surface waters during the entire life of the project; reduction of clearing and grubbing activity; reduction/elimination of direct discharge into streams; reduction of runoff velocity; re-establishment of vegetation on exposed areas; judicious pesticide and herbicide usage; minimization of "in-stream" activity; and litter/debris control. Compensatory Mitigation Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to "waters of the United States" have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent practicable. It is recognized that "no netToss of wetlands" functions and values may not be achieved in each and every permit action. Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been performed. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation and enhancement of "waters of the United States." Such actions 12 should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or contiguous to the discharge site whenever practicable. Compensatory mitigation is not usually necessary with a Nationwide Permit No. 23. Rare and 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 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS). Other species may receive additional protection under separate state laws. Federally-Protected Species Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE), and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under the provisions of Section 7 and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of 13 March 2000 the FWS listed no federally protected species for Alamance County. Federal Species of Concern and State Listed Species There are two Federal Species of Concern (FSC) listed for Alamance County. Federal Species of Concern are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Federal Species of Concern are defined as those species that may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formally candidate species, or species under consideration for listing for which there was insufficient information to support a listing of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed Endangered and Proposed Threatened. Organisms which are listed as Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Significantly Rare (SR) or Special Concern (SC) by the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list of rare plant and animal species are afforded state protection under the State Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. Table 3 lists Federal Species of Concern , the species' state status (if afforded state protection) and the existence of suitable habitat for each species in the study area. This species list is provided for information purposes as the status of these species may be upgraded in the future. Table 3 Federal Species of Concern for Alamance County Scientific Name Common Name State Status Habitat Lam sills cariosa Yellow Lam mussel T Yes Monotro sis odorata Sweet Pinesa C Yes "T"----- A Threatened species is one which is likely to become an endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of its range. "C"----- A Candidate species is one which is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1-20 populations in the state, generally substantially reduced in numbers by habitat destruction, direct exploitation or disease. The species is also either rare throughout its range or disjunct in North Carolina from a main range in a different part of the country or the world. 13 N CO Ch. N 49 10 4 191 McCray ..... . ?L • DeeA: • .2 19 1756 a 1 11 ?'1 1794 I i ? 1 3 1995 •J 54 w ` d' j-- •-..\ 1754 N 4 d ?,' 1912 ta 1750 -' " - / ..._. ' v Bridge No.60 1 90 i 4 i Miles i Chapel ' a 174 • 9 ; Chapel 1912 • i 1 77 !• 35 1 16;' N `, 1915 :' i ) f ker Creek 1 Y I •• Res. 200 5 19 1 1919 •, N .6 \ 1921 1 1917 \ - N 1917 •\ O I 1 MEB ?. aw Riw?•. f/v I 'i 70 J O -? - IHAW RIVER +•% POP.; 2,057 -' N7 urdl Fi _.._..! .. .5 / .9 ?. J . ray r North Carolina Department of Transportation Division of Highways Planning & Environmental Branch Alamance County Replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek W401 I FIGURE 1 Looking West Across Bridge No. 60 Looking East Across Bridge No. 60 ,4 'of NO?TN'\ North Carolina Department of T ti t h ranspor a on Division of Highways Project Development & 1.9 Environmental Analysis Branch Alamance County Replace Bridge No. 60 on SR 1921 Over Quaker Creek B-3401 Figure Three '? t North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Betty Ray McCain, Secretary December 28, 1998 Nicholas L. Graf Division Administrator Federal Highway Administration Department of Transportation 310 New Bern Avenue Raleigh, N.C. 27601-1442 Re: Bridge #60 on SR 1921 over Quaker Creek, Alamance County, B-3401, ER 99-7699 Dear Mr. Graf: Division of Archives and History Jeffrey J. Crow, Director r' tee. On December 15, 1998, 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. 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. 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. A 10 02 Nicholas L. Graf 12/28/98, Page 2 Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. Sincerely, David Brook Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer DB:slw ? cc: W. D. Gilmore B. Church T. Padgett /4 ® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission 312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391 Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director MEMORANDUM TO: John Williams, Project Planning Engineer Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C rdina r - Habitat Conservation Progr DATE: December 21, 1998 SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Alamance, Haywood, and Warren counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3400, B-3401, B-3186, and B-3532. Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended; 16 U.S.C. 661-667d). On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as follows: 1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realignment. The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters. 2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream. 3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the stream. 4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream. Bridge Replacement Memo 2 December 21, 1998 5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'. If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil. 6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of the steam underneath the bridge. 7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S. Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and we can recommend that the project require an individual '404' permit. 8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered Species Act as it relates to the project. 9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12, 1997)" should be followed. 10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be recommended. If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used: 1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other aquatic organisms. 2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage. 3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment deposition that will require future maintenance. 4. Riprap should not be placed on the stream bed. In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to Bridge Replacement Memo 3 December 21, 1998 avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other projects in the watershed. Project specific comments: 1. B-3400 - No specific concerns. 2. B-3401 - This project is in the upper headwaters of the Graham-Mebane water supply reservoir. This lake supports a diverse reservoir fishery with a quality largemouth bass population. We request that no in-water work be performed _frQm April 1 to June 15. _ _ 3. B-3186 - Richland Creek is a tributary to Lake Junaluska. This section of stream contains trout and is designated as Delayed Harvest Trout Waters. We recommend that the existing structure be replaced with a bridge that spans the entire stream. Although we do not request a seasonal exclusion for this bridge, we do request that NCDOT use sedimentation and erosion control measures for High Quality Waters. We also want to reiterate that NCDOT should impress upon its contractors and inspectors that they are working in streams which are public resources and extra care should be taken to insure that sedimentation and erosion control devices are installed and maintained properly. 4. B-3057 - No specific fishery concerns. However, there is the potential for federally listed mussels to occur in the project vicinity. We recommend that NCDOT biologists be contacted and a survey conducted. If mussels are found, a field meeting should be held to discuss special measures to minimize impacts to these animals. We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway crossings. If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge replacements, please contact me at (919) 528-9886. Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on these projects. I CL W d E M M QQQ cv) go 90 G k r j Id ? e a co k I ' r 00, T ,r I, .rJ h hg I? o ?- U i LL O V^ `? Ww aaal ? O o A a oy O V ?a 0 IN g3 Q ' h: ?gRa I I 1 1 I I g? D Z U Z Z a O a N M d r 00 O O G a N in r ?O a) in _ C x II II II II II II H O N Q ?"' 3f w O O N N ? G 04 / o ro / % tn °- V) In h N G v r's O ?- 04 ? -? ro??-s zoSz??z•s *1L9 Ly oa rc ? l ji-, I--I Cl?J f? rr'' 00, rf r , F-1 U/ nC z Z u.i W Q D N m W n W j N 00 oa ? V c O Or a ?' y 0 E om v Z; c 0 g n . O a s >a E E' o C O m A h m a c? c? v X CL u 3 L N J 0 m N J Q Z 0 Z W 1 Z 0 U ' ' I _I I I CD I-I 8 1 ' I a II I I& ? ? I I I I I `? r I ? o I I I I I I I I i I I II I a I I I I I A -? 1 O y O O ? O F? CD 4 O a d o °e O t CL a1 a 2 c U r- 3 .5 3CL 3 -0 o o E a c ° CD U a LL a o Im o ° c N H S x v u' a 03 m aS ,° u' ?' H 3: 3 O 5 V y, N N S d I r V ? r 4 ? N N 4 T I I i U i R !- i W 4 j W c y W LA! D o ' c N n U1 u U- W n U 0 0 n° 0°° U o a U n 0 a u; U U U •- 0 N y a a j in o sn o j c CL "j c -C 0 O :3 C ? ?7 3 a c e -" g m O- O F- a E- D O a D U. ,U c o •O1 t 0 .LM o .P T Lm o . LM o •OD o •7 M Y 1 o I I v I? Y 1 Y a I c I is c OC O H 0 nG N of 0 oe 0 oe in 0 aC 0 W II I I oQp®ooe I -0+ o El II I Jl ? I + 1 I I x !mmi N N ? Is I h 0 OAR p ' 0 o E c C a = E 3 C 0 ° to 0 ° ? m ? c c Q 3 c o o:3 c c C :3 _7 U :E J On E 0 Z m c ?p - 3 i u C 3 L IL CL 92- 9L CL. a- IL U- CL CL L o a I zoo®omaaOOB a® C ° . o x a 0 ? ° 3 c a a c s o 3 o co o u c °- o°. d° ° a r? s o s 0 o N s c v a o a 0 0 0 3 g=c ' 'a 3 o ao -c o 2 '? 0 0 ° ti o$ O O o. d o s CL c N> c -c W -o as o 0 0 o m o c$ ?° `° 0 0 c a e ?= w t°- w 2i ° a O U c c °' °- n E- i- , -°+ a a o t 3 IL) 0 `a u ?a m 3> La m t€ Si o ' 'i CL m Z a o Q Q CL -0 Q o o ?Q' o m o o 44 up m o° o ° ° m = n. u- d d L? a d 12 U U) LI7 CL ?- 3 o- a C7 I-- C.. W H 3 r~ ii r` 7 I I I I I I\ ? ' qI i 1 1 9 ICI U? V'? V I ? a IUQI V W W 11 0 E?g_? „ CL 0 o a o W L: o o y E WE O ? t o ' y Q U 3 .O a W O a O ` m s o 8 °0 3 0? _' o W W a a a a o ° a E 3 'Q V' c 3 oc 2 c 3 E _ m_ y E ° h E o f Jr u o L a o ? __r 3 O g a H H :3 tD -a ?t L Q Q o O o O a 0 m a L^ y W ~' a ro- n. CL u 4P C ,H 3 f? uc c 3u 0, °a a u u W a o CL d d ai CL d o o = a o. c ci a s cL E a co E O 0. CL ° u u m° ,$ ° ° 0 o 0 0 0 o N 'a 3 s v°° c c W U 4. d d d R. O. U O. O.. Q. A d n- yL 1? O N N N LL d cl- m co a? Q 1-I P I C ^ l I/I 9 I II ? z 1 o 1 1 u_ w ;x= 1 I p II t I I • tm II 00 N m M F O ¢ W O Y O H m W ¢ 3 W a W W CO < m F w z cc a 0 p w U IL a W O W m ` W ¢ 6 < = Z < W U < ?? > d O W d U Z W 31 H J co w F < a °d W J W a x w > M 0 W v a 3 W to - Q W m m Loo Q O w o -o o~ o 10 x n Q W ; d? m 3 W r- W to w a ra W as O W> -OW w>o N m ? to < O W r ] m w W Wx O p p ¢ = WOC W d W O¢ w O U m H °' W< =3 Ul W? m x w F- Q U ^ 6 HrQ O U H H d H d N W W W O a W 0 U) IL W U O W •'+ • _ x ¢ IL It O UL> W o z O>H 6 m LyJ Wm 7JF 0 0 U> O O O U> W < f- W) Q W cc W z H :3 m 0 6 O z m F a m an d WO co Om H N z w <m <W= W m r W H J co m NJ W W WW O W O WW_ W W W W z ¢a 1-Q. IU Q H O F-0. FO.< O Om U m Umx z m W O < U Q U<m z Q Q Um z m 0OW z m m J F O J O0 F. W O w Uw> O J U O J m U W J O <Y N F 1-?- J b << 0< F<Jx N F? V J Fr a < 0 yw JQ H <wzm _j t.) < _j < o < O 0. O Z > m x>H W SLL XtLZ << a< O W ILO ILO c W <WW e2 KX Z < W <w ¢x - < < N Q x<> R Q J ? N x < a m <``d ¢ < < a v J p R W W w W W W W X0 o< Omz «+ x - om O -Wz mm< x0 o< 00 <IIH QQ dW •¢ Qwc ¢ o 'L •o x s •of QQ aW •¢ ¢WO= a> « <>W ><U am 4 <GoF >? W M1> « <>W ><Ub ? H . W g W?'- < <S a< a< dW & m a WF_ I.- W cc C•<J a.<m aF RFOO d< fL<m!- V V O O W w A? 94- 14 !ff ? ftl ?fl > f?fl d ? O J 1 \ •3 n ? s 11? - 'o >11 R .I 0 ? ??ml J, N N o- ?s ?^ ti Y ' L)JL - - Z Y 1 - - - F 9 ' r s w 3 !o N W CD F- O O ? O x m m m W J m W Q 6 W IL 0 J m W g w {{I w 0 z Fm Z o 0 ? z M p or z 0 O W J F r - 2 i d? N sk zz 9L z m F L U N r -1 + Q W (A 7 ?f fll ffl ? Ilf fff >> N f r W ? a m z O 1) z W 3 LL. ? O z 3 N J W N h -- z O U. 0 LL ? a O 1 0 Z 0 3 c 1 . °I z N Z p U) z ? ? s r 1 ? W N 3 O O -_ OO 0 0 OZ n V 1 Z LL W +z+ o 0 r o a c ) 0 ? N ?? < a M ?0 C:3j- - - -- - H a Z Z 0 00 0 s o U 0 O 0 c G ° O SE s G h p O O + +0 + OW H + H .J NZ N H 5 Q ? G v 1"' y .J .,J ?1 D ? UI u{ Fm - u:,:u _. ,,,_ -4 1_ Z T Z? 4 0 {C W " a l r Yr ? I ? ? W ? g l °C N \ ? N s ? I W b = a o Liln g? bb_CC Q] W LAJ clz r ^ ? W?I lu Wd hll' 0 cS ? ' i3 l? J G.? O 6 p o 0 "?U-'alao~o?`? a Q 1=. QSE 8 ti ffA >> Q o? z x ' a j o r?W ? W ?x la 3 3 : 6 m W ? ti l.J I i n L, rr ry , ? t ? L. a fl 0 ?4 I' 1 E1 11 lJ_1 ?r t I ? I ? n II I, Ir' r? ? 'n n l tn`- t rr ? i I rri ?'? r .I ( ?J, I,, SHEET 5 8 MATCHLINE SE F- r 4 wwmn?s ? ? `?` .D 1?`'l ?Jr, r a 4 UWLLW g1 ? ,,ti~' I _w n iJ ua? ?! N p Wr-j unW O aR0 ? LL J V ui ?F a d? 121, LL N ?v W r U ? N 'UlN ? W? aL? _ ? Q „ , JFI r ? o?wLLW?? Oz RI d I u r S j NSt a z?gg ? f? 99?+ u F r4N yV 1W?NJ WN? 1 NNV WI?i WW ?'V O: 55?0[?] = L Iz ? o x I ? ? J U ? W V m ? u •a?? 0 W ., ? W N m 1y4?J 1lO1l???JJ 1 ? W1 Jl6N ? s ' J U 1J u I LL R ° 3 LL N / 1 Q 4 + m m 1 yn° ? m X F R ! ( X°', M ,1 1LLF W .f O ao?" I I i yg J r W68 ? J ,26 55• . r ? m ? ? I m: oG ti• y' w e? fl _J ?Dins K'T'O Ct N W fti J N u w LL w w l-X:.L:r' f:i W r I w I o 5/ • (?? mow, uI / O 4? o Ell f. r- ?7 r I 1/7 W w O cz I ua s A W w M.10.611.G25 u i? r O e v r p N-j r r 1rti? G W 1 lp Oi 1JNM O J M N „ YJ (???7 3 r ?. W m 1 V D I Law .0 6416m., /p/II F~4N l0 2o JGropmn WO E 9 c.._X,xg_%? i C W 0 i ti t x° 3 a? ` 1 l ?s L IAJ t O l x ILL 3 d lyr_ .. u Qs? Jr,K Wa 0 0 r Y? L ? V N Qo? pos J> O hdr WJ2 ? O {'?o T a 9 ? m i 'I.rY . a m J > _ . pW 2 l Vl F l J VWW 1u'm ?? ? w ? f} • r \\ _ I?r?' ti? 97.15' . N7 ND i )1055.Avy'??-W W * M IR W r ? + 1 w ?Q ar_ py V 0= + QaN St ?2 W x R2y,,, Oy:IW K r N V?= a p O ?y a N J W J O ?? ' wmN w4?x?= ..7 m 1 O UWIrWKW O r.?N 7JN 1NWA iK W 272.95 6jr76'2PN k' SIr•1,'SB•W ? \ ter, ?``^,' fu„w J _I > b c D w Y o 0 b .. J $ • J tl ? T a d ¦ 12 ,, Q l> R 4 O R yrj yrj ? ? ? ` ? , M Q' I i UJ -b tt7 r 10 W/ N c a W O J \ O/ irM.Jl' N10'2]'21'E sn ? ? //W u ? a1M1'E ? / I 190.92' N70.25'57'E 2 y 3 0 ?? ? r = 3.ys dr ? C a OO f? ?: Wnw U• a f:? O J $ m M.' ?.i )IJ! 191.59 22.661 191') m V Q o r LLJ + yl J o v m n? 1 ? ? o mss oa?? a JvWiu a? rc m? J m o m ?i 4 L LL i ? o 0 I o o S o u ?J,X n,?i3 s aW° 1.04i / l 5 u R l0 d f- J O N N z W.8 _J= 1\ Q W ° F-r` I VI _ w. ? 2 I W F2 a LL ? O 0} J O ?r T 00 ?ry ?a a. O¢ ° O O N ? by 7Vs 2b 1'MN I! ON ? m a s ?F? LL LL r o v m 2 H I I o O I all w 1n o? ?w uR I. 'x\: F d W 39S 3NI]N?1 b 1?3N5 wo ?? a I N ?? JW / N? O J / n d ? ? o ?er J / d6j OlM r .o I--,- M.?S.SL?2j ? ??02'If2 \ \ p r \ \ a \ \ Z ?5ygn? g i \ ua viii ti ab%? ' 1 ???P? IF 12 rLL 12 Ix I o v ° x ? m U ? O ¢ N a ° Ui - b4 JA F o - o4,i U q F N N J O 4 x J f J ? LL r ? N = s o v Y m a rv d pppp a_ ? N ~ ?A m o u ~ h ui I„ -? O a $ J N y ? o ? N OF i tl 3Nb'0 tl9 i 1,v511 your .` t / / Q p w 10°II oIII;C ?-?JO.I o z ¢ _.... _._ .. u , r a ? a p. I x co C j ry ? W b » & ?L w? = N N a a ocn Ln J Y N co Boa as 3 Q $ / w Ln F-P N O ? a W Z ?e Z - Q 3 CO N O w W cr Y LL] W U cr YW j a 2 4 2 3M" 3M 8 w Ct w Q 3 2 I N I ?I? 1 1 1 +w 1 11 11 1 1 ? 1 1 ??1 Y a w ° Q Q) 2 W U \ \ \ ? w c? \ \ \ \ Q ?Z ? \ 3 \ ?n w F- i V) \ O i \ ? O a ddo ,-l Qcyy cn a ? U-i oc° l9 Z ? J / O ° O N O ? w w cl- 2 w w O O W _ o g rl_ LL CIE ?1 `` Ors O?Q-° O 300 N & t ?oLO ia(r Lu L,18 N ?N a, LXJ OC) 1 ? xQ? m? ? w w Q. C) cn v? vi w a y Q i w a 3 W I er N w N LL? O1wdS ?rJ M.Lh,60.5? 3M w r 3M \\ Z1 r ?U J W \ a ll m j t4i a ` a \ v D W Z \1 W \ v C w ? $ 0 2 w8 m \k LI, LLJ s \ ; -. a ?o? ?Q- o a \ .u Q o 4 0 1 ; W (? ?\ W Ll- Q: ! 3M ? 9' I gwr - V, E 'I, ° LL. + o 2 w ?.' 7 1 M ?o II Al aa? - r. k \ o N O N x? w g 3c J m vi = O ? O?