20041291 Ver 1_Complete File_20040803

WETLANDS 1401 GROUP
AUG 0 3 1004
WATER QUAu 17 6;.:UTION
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNVIFNT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
July 29, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
151 Patton Ave.
Room 208
Asheville, NC 28801-5006
ATTENTION: Mr. Steve Lund
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Sir:
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
041291'
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Application for the Replacement of Bridge No. 233
over Buffalo Creek on SR 1906, Cleveland County, Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-
1906(2), State Project No. 8.2801601, TIP B-3828, Division 12.
Please find enclosed three copies of the project planning report for the above referenced project.
Replacement of Bridge No. 233 will be in the existing location using a 150' by 28' by 54"
prestressed steel girder bridge. The new bridge will have a 28-foot clear roadway width with two
11-foot travel lanes and two 3-foot grass shoulders. The new approaches and bridge will have a
design speed of 50 mph.
No jurisdictional wetlands or existing channel will be impacted by the construction of the bridge.
There will be a temporary 0.03-acre surface water impact due to a work pad.
During construction, traffic will be maintained by an off-site detour.
Bridge Demolition
Bridge No. 233 is composed of a timber deck with an asphalt wearing surface on steel girders
with timber joists and a steel floor beam system. The substructure consists of timber caps and
piles and timber bulkheads. The existing structure is 121 feet long with a 15.75-foot clear
roadway width. The crown of the bridge is 18 feet above the streambed. Due to the structural
components of the bridge, no temporary fill will be dropped into surface waters.
Temporary Workpad
There will be 0.03 acres temporary stream impacts from the construction of temporary rock
workpad in Buffalo Creek for the construction of Bridge No. 233. A workpad will be required
for the demolition of the existing bridge and in order to provide for construction access. The
workpad will consist of Class II riprap and Class B riprap and is detailed on permit drawing
sheets 4 & 5 of 7.
Restoration Plan: No permanent fill v. 11 result from the subject activity. The materials used as
temporary fill in the construction of the workpad will be removed. The temporary fill areas will
be graded back to the original contours. Elevations and contours in the vicinity of the proposed
workpad are available from the field survey notes.
Schedule for Construction of Workpad: It is assumed that the contractor will begin construction
of the proposed workpad shortly after the date of availability for the project. The Let date is May
17, 2005 with a date of availability of June 20, 2005.
Removal and DiVosal: The workpad will be removed within 90 days of the completion of the
deck slab for the bridge using excavating equipment. All materials placed in the stream by the
contractor will be removed. The Class II riprap that is removed may be used on end slopes where
Class H riprap is required at the discretion of the engineer. All other materials removed by the
contractor will be disposed of at a non jurisdictional off-site location.
Federally 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 co-exist with human activities. Federal law (under the
provisions of the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended) requires that any action
likely to adversely affect a species classified as federally protected be subject to review by the
United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws. Plants and animals with federal classifications of
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are
protected under provisions of ESA §§7 and 9, as amended.
As of January 29, 2003, the USFWS lists only dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) for
Cleveland County.
The project site was visited on April 21, 2004 by NCDOT biologists Chris Underwood and David
Bailey. A plant by plant survey was conducted totaling three man-hours within the project area
for Dwarf-flowered heartleaf and no specimens were found. However, some specimens were
found to the north of the project area approximately 75 yards from SR 1906. The sample area
was plotted using GPS and sent to the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) and
USFWS. Since suitable habitat exists within the project area and individuals were found to the
north of the project area, the biological conclusion is changed from the original NRTR conclusion
of "No Effect" to "May Affect, Not Likely To Adversely Affect".
Regulatory Approvals
Section 404 Permit: 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 and 33 as
authorized by a Nationwide Permit 23 and 33 (67 FR 2020; January 15, 2002).
NCDOT hereby requests a Nationwide 23 and a Nationwide 33 from the U. S. Army Corps of
Engineers.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply
to this project. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 2B .0200
we are providing two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of
Environmental and Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their review.
A copy of this permit application will be posted on the DOT website at:
http://www.ncdot.org/planning/pe/naturalunit/Permit.htn-d.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Chris Underwood at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
+T?` Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
cc: W/attachment
W/o attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, Division of Water Quality (7 copies)
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. M.L,. Holder, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Trish Simon, DEO
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington (Cover Letter only)
Elmo Vance, Planning Engineer
Office Use Only: Dorm Version May 2002
USACE Action ID No. DWQ No.
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter "Not Applicable" or "N/A".)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit F-1 Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
® 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: NWP 23 and NWP 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:?X
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation
Mailing Address: Protect Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Telephone Number: [phone] Fax Number: [phone]
E-mail Address:
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Page 5 of 12
111. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Replacement of Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 over Buffalo Creek
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3828
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN):
4. Location
County: Cleveland Nearest Town: Waco
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number):
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): From the intersection of I-85 and
US 74 Bypass in Kings Mountain, take US 74 to NC 180 and go north -5 miles to New
Prospect Road & turn right. Go --3 miles to a left on Costner Road then to Bridge No. 233.
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long): 35° 22'.46N/81° 28'.90"W
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): approximately 1.0 acres
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake): Buffalo Creek
8. River Basin: Broad River Basin, Hydrologic Unit 03040102,
DWO index # 12-108-16-005)
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/mAps/.)
Page 6 of 12
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: The northwest quadrant is mostly pasture and the remaining
quadrants are forested. The general land use in the area of the protect is mainly agricultural.
residential forested and fallow fields.
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: The
bridge removal involves the removal of the asphalt wearing surface prior to demolition
without dropping components into the water. The guardrails, timber deck, and all steel
components will also be removed without dropping any of the components into the water.
The replacement structure will consist of a 150-foot long bridge with a width of 28 feet. The
gp_proaches will also be 28 feet - two 22-foot travel lanes and two 3-foot grassed shoulders.
The equipment needed is standard paving equipment including Ravers and rollers and
grading equipment including backhoes and motor graders.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: The purpose of the proposed work is to replace
Bridge No 233 over Buffalo Creek which is considered to be structurally deficient and
functional obsolete The replacement of the bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
No permits or certifications have been issued for Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo_ Creek in
Cleveland County.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
No future permits are anticiRated for the replacement of Bridge No. 233.
Page 7 of 12
NI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: There will be 0.03 acre of
temporary impacts to the surface water due to a work pad associated with this project. The
wok pad is needed for bridge demolition and construction access.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
acres Located within
100-year Floodplain**
es/no Distance to
Nearest Stream
linear fee[
Type of Wetland***

* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts include, but are not limited to: mecnanizea clearing, gracing, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at http://www.fema.izov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: 0 acres
Total area of wetland impact proposed: 0 acres
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Length of Average Width Perennial or
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact Stream of Stream Intermittent?
(indicate on (linear feet) Name Before Impact (please specify)
map)
Temporary fill (work pads Buffalo
1 for equipment access for -50' by 25' Creek 30 feet Perennial
bridge construction)
* List each impact separately and identity temporary impacts. impacts mciuae, out are not nm[tea to: culverts ana associatea np-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
www.usgs.gov. Several intemet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.com,
www.mapguest.com, etc.).
Page 8 of 12
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site: 50 feet
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact Area of Name of Waterbody Type of Waterbody
Site Number Type of Impact* Impact (if applicable) (lake, pond, estuary, sound,
(indicate on ma) (acres) bay, ocean, etc.)

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: fill, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
The proposed bridge will span the entire creek and, therefore, there will be no impacts.
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
Page 9 of 12
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetiands/strmgide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wrp/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet):
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet):
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres):
Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres):
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
Page 10 of 12
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes© No
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone 1 extends out 30 feet perpendicular from near bank of channel; Zone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or.0260.
Buffer mitigation is not required within the Yadkin Pee-Dee River Basin.
Page 11 of 12
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
Existing impervious area for the project (895 feet of roadway) is approximately 0.32 acres
proposed impervious area is approximately 0.45 acres On the east side of the creek there will
be one drop inlet connected to a 15" CMP with elbows. On the west side of the creek there will
be two drop inlets connected by a 15" CMP with elbows and empty into the adjacent woodland
on either side of the road. There will also be a lateral base ditch on the north side of the road
Stormwater over the asphalt will mainly sheetflow into the drop inlets and then overland before
entering the stream.
XII. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
No wastewater will be generated from the implementation of the proposed project
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H .0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
' Applicant/Agent's Signature l ' / Date
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 12 of 12
NORTH CAROLINA

M i
V '
Pr jest B-3828
-1
?i
an ( ix\ I°,° Y S -ld it 4 Ywbm I
UWE
r.. V Rd. cB
ro. Dove / ??i = ` \ i
Will
Ion
- -1_ C \e 1l1? °' 75
- 1 \
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2801601 (B-3828)
MAPS REPLACE BRIDGE is 233 ON
SR 1906 (COSTNER ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO CREEP
SHEET I OF 7 7 / 13 / 04
CLEVELAND COUNTY
t 5 • 1 4/ / _ 15 , ?,\ o; 1 ? t . f .. I B3A r I : `\
,
,,3? ??r!• ??CH?~'? ? ??, ? ? _ _ ???5 ?i ...? I i ' li? '??la ? ?? tl ?.
.1 ?}-?• I / r \) 5 5... 15 ?' E? H?r;/ ? 1'IS . .A' '..'? ?.?? I?'f?? i ' ? J , ? ???
`w ?hl
,f ? ? 1 I it ?
`•\ y???o '.?#?? ,' /??/ 1 In I ?? 1 ?? ?f rtH-,'4,? ''?. ?t? !L 1 11I?' (4'??5 ?o; ??i ? , 1 /_
li 5
.. ? fTl tJ 1 i ? I 111 •
fit I'•lll , 5
1' l1 ij 111 + MJJ aqu ? ` `y"i ; , f ?I 1 I `-- " '?e i 1 . C?
ir
t
't' ? , `.'i't-'1? n I F? ?, I , ,• ` ?:: I ? /. .?C?'
-'IBM ULG fl.
r 5 - If
E f
ivo
41 :PI'S S ) I`1' ?? I , I I 1 ?,/ a E?1 1111
r1,j, l i . ,?/. 'I i? . I iii ? ? ' ? • / {' ?l ,I? ???111 i{ ?:
1
P ?' . }, ??????. -t j?i?#I?''''t i ? .r''i? 5_ ?' _ •-a. ?? I '1 ? rr ? J1?'i
C'1 $ r III
G I ti S 1 V ,? ' ?a
?. a • % t?.' , \•, '??%.. r is -- :' 9'
z .' ~? `? ? ? ]: ? ' ?7.?•a.. ^??I' ?i, .f:. ? .N.- i' ( ` , d{? _f i 1?'??li??i 15 v.?.
i ?y q a. 1 .
100 t.?l ii `'?•'
r" '? ' 1 J
?C g? C g ..i?ir , _, - - xh ? I • :I?h /a ????. ?? . ? . . ? \ .'I. l r r J ? ? ,
•.. ice"' - 1• it
95
.-ihia'
VIEW NCB®T
PLAN DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 82801601 (B-3829)
REPLACE BRIDGE 0233 ON
SR 1906 (COSTNER ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
SHEET a OF 7 7 / 12 / 04
WETLAND LEGEND ?
-WLB WETLAND BOUNDARY PROPOSED BRIDGE
WETLAND PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
L
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
® DENOTES FILL IN
-? FLOW DIRECTION
SURFACE WATER
® DENOTES FILL IN
SURFACE WATER
(POND)
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN WETLAND
® DENOTES EXCAVATION
IN WETLAND
® DENOTES TEMPORARY
FILL IN SURFACE
WATER
• DENOTES MECHANIZED
¦ • •• • • • CLEARING
TB
-?- TOP OF BANK
- WE EDGE OF WATER
- S- - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
- - -F - PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
-?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
- - NG- - NATURAL GROUND
- -PL - PROPERTY LINE
- TDE - TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE - PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- EAB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
- EPB - EXIST.
D
NT BOUNDARY
L
- -S - - - - WATER SURFACE
x x x x x LIVE STAKES
x x x
C) BOULDER
--- CORE FIBER ROLLS
i2'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
225 SINGLE TREE
WOODS LINE

DRAINAGE INLET
ROOTWAD

RIP RAP
O ADJACENT PROPERTY OWNER
OR PARCEL NUMBER
IF AVAILABLE
PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE

LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
CLEVELAND COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.2801601 (B-3828)
REPLACE BRIDGE R 233 ON
SR 1906 (COSTNER ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
EET 3 OF 7 12/20/02

- /
WOODS J
/

O
O \
00
+
M
O I
I
4 \ Ln
-
\

WOODS

\ O
\

1 F
F
- 1 _ _ L B RIPRAP
.15 0000 151 n-CMiD - -
00000 00,
\ -
00 00 W/2 . Elbows

182 BST
- 0 -?- 00 SR-1906 COSTNER ROAD
?
------ 6
--000_00,5 -per
0
F / 1 00 0-
k ? F o--
MTL GATE
O q
k ' / BMa2
WORK PAD
l
PLAN VIEW
/
WOODS
WOODS
G
0
SCALE: I" = 50'

NCDOT

( DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS

I CLEVELAND COUNTY
i PROJECT:8.2801601 (B-3828)
i'• REPLACE BRIDGE 233 ON
J SR 1906 (COSTNER ROAD)
OVER BUFFALO CREEK
(SOME FEATURES REMOVEDI FOR 'IC ARITY) SHEET OF "7 7/19/04
c? o 0 0
N O rn
00
V)
Ct
w
0
0
w
N
In
W
x
I--
V)
W
1 v a
1 000 d
Lr) II
t+D Z O
v O O0
u Q el W
Q W o N
I-- -J
1.
N W o
C-,j Cj I OQ'?
O
N
00
\
.
00
'l u
x
oW
0
x
+
Q0
00 0
r- p C> O
n
N oo O
-m 0 +
CT -,
v;Q? 0'

O
1 I ? Z

1 1 1 I

1 1
/ I
--
1 I ""1111
IIMM?? Q
' O
1 1 +

-ice ' a
N
1'
1 vj
I a dz
¢ o&o
0
t og 1
r r? a a - ?-
a
a
1»
O? Z Y V I m
1 "c? am OJN
~
U1X I
I?-w 3V?
Vl
xLn?
OO J W
3U
I O
I
I +
I
I
I
I

O
O
+
I 00
?
Q?

is-T?•
1?

N E C

`) !C O
z U)
rn aN
in N N O

U wU E
Q
n.

W w LL
C,
cn

Q CL C/
E c v O
o O

w ~
U
Q
LL
a
j v
o m
U) C: C)
LL
c

N ?.
Z

Q N
.
O U
m
L N rs. ' O

H
to °
c
IL
. ~
U -
U

H

a >
mm
x?v O

w c
?

w
a o
Z
='0
g
F- ii a
Z E a) m CD
g ? )3:
F-
w r

N
c 'o
C -6
m
= O
i- am -
m d Q
wH a
v ? Y
2 v
L4 0
U
p + +
O tz J J
- O i COD
C? LL f t

? O J
Q
to Z ~
F-
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
ESTHER C. GREENE
2
3
ROBERT S. & MOLLIE A. BROWN
DEAN V. & SHEILA GARDNER
3809 WILDCHERRY ROAD
SHELBY, NC 28150-2831
932 PAUL REVERE LANE
GASTONIA, NC 28056
2548 OAK GROVE ROAD
SHELBY, NC 28150
x.
4
JUNIOR & MARIE MARTIN
104 RENA DRIVE
SHELBY, NC 28150
O
O
n.
m?
0 cLni
W
s0
:3"-
12 y O
g G
O
N W oC
W LL.
Z O
O?
to oz
yoRi
F-:to
V W
Z a, W
om
O
LL.
UNR
oG?
o?z
N°u?
W
G 006
a ='0
ZZ
y ui 92
iE iE u°
&z?£ ? ?.IL?? ?Ucs iZd ??U?811?L1?7?
t '
?m
W ? ? (1
t1 u
kr9? ? ; ' ?
C I ;
' a
,
0
C '
co?
o
c
,
a ° a °
C
a O O
t0 n 0 O U h a°. ° o m v E
co UoN
u
v
l
Cr
l
0
a
z
0
z
W
0
v
0
O
44
O
h
0
0
a-
.E
E
N
i
I
I
1
I
I
1
I
;
O
N
o ?
't .g C
O
N N O
a °1
c
S = V U

0
I I 1
, I I
I I
I I I
? I I
I I
I I
I II
;

I 0
a
o
I , ) d I?
t u
A
0 a
?. O ; S
3 O j O O +- U
.F• a' ' Z w q 0
° '? n a U v u°. _
® u o
t3 a :3 X
w
i? L7 a m ca ti u LL F=
O ? -J
h i0
44
O 2 4
4 h C
c O o -g o °
ED m o L
N iin = 3 0 5
0
a
a
0 0
w n
O C
D _Q+ s
o N U
N ad to
' I I I I I x l I I I
I + I
I
??? ? ? Y I I 1 I I I I? I I I I I I I I Iml ? ? ? i t
I I I I I I I I CD I? ''ww I I ^II I?,a, M Xv_ m s e i m a a
v? ?i ? y h r. ?- ? u I I I Io ? _J I I I I L? Ob I? N lD .e • i o p t w
I I I I I I T I ? ? ? ? r r ? ? I I ? I= ? S? I ?
III IIII I I I ??ww?I?II!? ? ?IIIIIII
LL!
' N
U; Cc:
v _ N O C i N O
-cc ?1 _ p
`o U. u l W ° tJ U o o .o o g, ° a -0
-Q :3 C
0 o c
o ° H V o U o s 'O U V U ° c m° 3 E
c •a ° m o
a 3 N o U O a L4 V
c c i° o 0 5 r o o r- o. w a -q • 0 o ?--0 c _+ '- 4 c o s o vi o .3 0. O Uc j .n° c m o ° 00 -4 v
:7 a ?- ° L O ?"' Q O Q y o ; ! E ; O
9 A, u°-. t, ° c N a -, •n c 3 o m w
3 o N v c O® a- 0 12 ® o F o u' o= n€ ryOry?? o 0 oa a Q. V? Z E p >° o U 3 -? vco
r O O N O O 0 4 -u tl C C '?1 c ?j fx ° O j> > W W
c° n c c c '•° c c° c •° c 5i F ° 4- 3 :c c a t O 2 Z• w C?>E ° w w
° ? CJ
0 0 0? 0 •w w o a? «: c 0 °€ :3 o ca a a a p a c o c c
u " `c $ M u u H $'N Sf? ?-? $q'N ., w -o C3 n.a nnn` Ns?o y
o°c v? o°C ooC O us O caG
83 GG O GC p oOC 0?w ufUF-UaCO`.o`.?n`.a`.o`_a°Li°i n`.
= • . + ©00004 ®0o © o I ®oo'o,8 a o0s ®
OC
.44 r
'O 00
o = U o o
m Or-
O C o O Q= K ° C .-
a• O O O 4 O C= ~ O Cr. L O° m F U
s a 5
o 0 0 °' a ai 0 U_ ° o; o ' s c c =o
«+ d o o -O 02 o a p c€ ::E U o c
cg _' U
C),
3 C7 0 0 c c a a
•° c -o 0 0 0 L o y I o o a
W C © .? a s -cc 7© C 'CC o U`o 12 c L m 0 L a~ m *2 a° c c" o° d
w a "' 0 3; o c c° Z ;- c ° c L. N o N o. q 0
a •d 7 -0 w 0 0 0 0 a q 0 0 O O O U O ?- O :? O ° 1- 0 d
U C o a r, O. 12 1o - -? L 12 4. c_ a. L O a_ d. •? s v q L. v O
O -8 a .o c o a c ai n`d m :n L3 0? 3 ;0 0 ?° c ?L n 3 c€ ? E° `e? 'o
ca o
a..?n?v°io-F?V 3 ?11 nbIL OOFO-oO-NC`nF2 3F=tai, Fein
2 n. ti O n`
I I I ,1, ? ? I I ' i '
<> DQ
W lJl ?I ?? ? ® A a IUQI 11 0 yll?? ? V u
W
CL C ;
7 i
~
; O ° C
O
V c C
CC
a' , CL a ? •? i ; v?'
O ° V S O a ; W Q E O i ©>
c °
Q 2:
e O O ; >. C :3 c A a N L- i ' 0 O
C U0 C cx O a C •3 O W O O 1 O U O
(? U ii ti a tL EE o p tz C4 3 E _ m =
a <L O V a C C C O ° -
LO ?? ?Qa:0 - c _° _ moo=
YJ y E ; Q i; qC U. = = ° '?1 O O V 0 Q i N L
N ° N N c .q v •? L q 0 p p O a' O p O 0 E CL O. m 0 CO)
to t to -O
• O °n > o .°? a 'E o o ?.' V a c o c .; E E o 0 c 0 v Q c c c
o 0 o L> c a co w w q o o u v° .? 0 a° H 3 "'
's V7U3u?$V? > ?gaa?a UV WF1 En?Qwno? W©
°° o 0 0 0-E a a a a„ M aL ci c„ aL d ci ci a? ° c E O w
> 0 o a 3 0 •c o 0 o :o v o
t?i U a a a. a_ o. a. U ? Lo a. t > g m a° a` o `0 0
a V a a a 0 a N ti O v ° ; i (n tL a to m`
bb/BZ/9
Sl?bl b00Z-lllf -FI
r,
lz
` w Op

m GC 0
00

J
_
0

T
?
2
o
_
W
LLI
V
J
N
oW
_
W:3

H
a 'l
l W'
co

m
W
<
W
1
O i 0 m
] O

W
LL W H 1=
m d Q
G
? W W
O F

W U W
<<
}e W
W 2 W ~ ?O
W
z
0 W
o
7 t
.t C a
0
dL

0. cc
W 0 C;
L< GWOy OY
a
1
W
?
_ ? and
W o
pO
() OfD W mOH

W Q a
?-
W W

N
w
VC Y. W

CL
w
0 W n
11
Q Z.;
cc
;
?•' Y,; (?fG .
VJ •J Om!-
2 H
J ^ V
W •~j to t o f.. V a0o
Y W
C6 90
W co <O M- W
7 ?O e F tWZ t

<
'Om 1`-
m CJ
O

IL hH
m
w
XO W
6
wwys

Q J
.?.?
K

O
`
Om DO F-

m 6
W
m q

W
C
( d> g>MO s 3
?.a
<L « < W
W OM 0

a<

ii?

a?cWie
J =
0
m 0
_
s ? a
d< IL
a«n w
CL .
r r N
W W cr F-
:?o
Zn Z
V
00
Q
6
3
0
J
0
W
F-
Cdo,
0
Z
0
U
W
N
J
U
CL.
W
N
D
-I
Q
C,
V
Z
in
o
mo ? o
o U-
N W
m Q
s o

W
o o

?
+ _
_7
W
m M H

O Z N
n @ (7
a$
LU N-
W ^ G
ac
0 0
00
o LLJ
? O W -C
1
o tc) 0

a
F
-
N o
=
J J N
I 1 W
cn

T

s
Q9W
[1C

C3+
J
s
r
1

W
D
I--
u
1e
N
(/z
V
z
o
_ V
W^
V I
J
_V
F

0
G
mot'
v J
a
0
0
0
?
/M
,-
N
J
I
N
N? N
a
off. Fa- rid
Al.
QJ Q
DO 0
1? ~ to
+N +
^_
V
?a
Nw in
J [1- J
i!k i
ce w
00
M D
0 0
N N
LLI
1
66/Z/9 d,PRZ8E9\

H
C 8
C
n ?
a ' H
a gg -'
OHS u {
?. IQ
N
O
O F
y
f
Z
O
W
a
H
F
d
J
N
0
l
H

?
Lx
V
Z
M

.MI5 s
? ate.

5-
1 tCj
I
I
Q$
rrrr
?rrrrr r r
W T• pe??
?b
V \
w
¢H W y1 SWW?af p O
O 6?, O a?n O ? V N
Ins aWa W ?2Qu^'cN_?? ?????2SU^'?
W
W > W W W a? V [,
W ? ? [{ 1...? vt tC?)
Q W??W C?.1Utimp?? ywl a[ ?
2 ? ? ?i p? 2 q ? 6 ? ? ? U
8p ul?piO m ? ? SY d ?•
Q U ti i R 8? 1U?15 Z O? N j>
? ww
H
2
SI

9
j Sd. N
I
\ m
w

? Q
M
0 0;
N M Q
+ 2
Q1
~ O
d to
N
J J C4
m
1
6
io ? BI?d
h
I
1
`?8 W 2 0;
?W h
U ?l
?w
ti
W?
W

I
V
Q.
IR
v)
01
I
J
W
o
r .W
,?q
?d ¢? WI i
i I $?€
W v

a i
?
m
W
r
F
J
W
!
~ N? W ?

W W
? W
?
?
?
? II
h
5
m 11 2tM ,
Q
t;
J
?s

`y}'?

it y
}
1
3i4 [N
0.Im
itu33?+ ? O W V

?g
a g?
/}6?T
X
W ?
z
j ?
P N
lD O
P N
Q? «1
N
U 0
z +
0
M
J O
m +-
N
?V
1
11
cr,
m M
m ?
M ?
+ N
r- r
m f%j

a + p
? 2
N ?
co
N +
V)
m
1")
m
J
1 ?
J ti
m P
M
O
P N
? P
N
V +
V
Z p
CL }
P N
J J
m

a GC

I[
F kh q
G1

,4a??
Q :
W ?

??W
?
a
3Cy
I?gLgwr'
?CN Q? ?I
U .]
? C
j
t W?
~
if0
A 1 0
tl ?N

of ?1K O
?K
W
x
a
I
2
S
r?
V U
oNip ?
? N
n?
a<
J =1
U S
F
?J K
L1 P ?
1-<p
ip n
W
P?J
W
as Q
"I-
N N
J J (/?
I
a
T
i
W
N
W vi
N
W a
? W
j
W
m
W
Z
\W
lks
N
W
a
?O
a
q?5.tbt
SZ6-o)
W
W
Q
a
O
?N
Q
s
U
k
L4Q
bb/LI/B
5o?ri rooz-? it-r
/L6/8 ubpl id*nei\Dsx\horpcoy \:
1o:vl boo%-Iflf -
?/EL/8 u6ptdz°?tii\7?X\fioi,po??
60:N t00Z-IM
b/EL/8 - uop•?a.na?\Dsxx^o.•Pao?
Ol:m rOOZ-Irn

,......-- - -
. ........................

. .. . ..................... .

+T4+ -EH ih ?Hff #4
+RT 444T

4
1

---------- ------------ -- .......- -

x
Mv
.
#
-Al

it
l
+ .
- + ' ' . + t Y air i ':: }t:
' iII2 27
j
'4 , +I-
t u n i m"I m
Jill !
f i i
I N A

l
I fil l M

?i
,
J
+
t 1
14
4 14 . , 11
i HM
b/6L/8 - u6F LR810dJ? Fca_II ??ar Fc?pcca
urri rccz--?
II'71 "o -TIF
Cleveland County
Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1906(2)
State Project No. 8.2801601
T.I.P. No. B-3828
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
12-12-03 OQ
DATE Gregory J.
Project De
1Z?1/z/o3
DATE

Ph.D., Environmental Management Director
nt and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
4^-:John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Cleveland County
Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRZ-1906(2)
State Project No. 8.2801601
T.I.P. No. B-3828
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide Permit
Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency Conditions,
NCDOT's Guidelines for Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters, Design
Standards for Sensitive Wetlands, Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal,
General Certification Conditions, and Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following specib)
commitments have been agreed to by NCDOT:
The existing bridge will be removed by sawing and/or non-shattering methods such that debris will
not fall in the water. The contractor will submit the plan for the bridge demolition to the NCDOT
for review and approval.
Categorical Exclusion - Green Sheet
December 2003
Cleveland County
Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BR7-1946(2,
State Project No. 8.2801601
T.I.P. No. B-3828
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
December 2003
Documentation Prepared by:
TGS Engineers
2 9 Q .?
J. Kenneth Burleson , PIJ ` Date
Project Manager
For the North Carolina Department of Transportation
Elmo E. Vance
Project Manager
Cleveland County
Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
Federal Aid ProjcctNo. BP.Z-1906(2)
State Project No. 8.2801601
T.I.P. No. B-3828
INTRODUCTION: Cleveland County Bridge No. 233 is included in the 2004-2010 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program (TIP) and 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. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
NCDOT Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 21.5
out of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered functionally obsolete.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer and more efficient traffic
operations.
H. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located in the eastern part of Cleveland County (see Figure 1). The land use
surrounding the existing crossing is primarily residential. This area is zoned as Rural
Agriculture (RA).
SR 1906 (Costner Road) is classified as a local route in the Statewide Functional
Classification System. This route is not a designated bicycle route nor is it listed in the TIP
as needing incidental bicycle accommodations.
SR 1906 has a 18-foot (5.5- meter) pavement width with 5-foot (1.5 meter) grass shoulders
(see Figures 3 and 4). The roadway grade is a sag vertical curve through the project area.
The existing bridge is on a tangent with a curve to the east of the bridge (see Figure 2). The
roadway is situated approximately 18 feet (5.5 meters) above the creek bed.
The 2004 traffic volume of 900 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to 1900 VPD
by the year 2030. The projected volume includes 1 percent truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST)
and 2 percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit on this section of SR 1906 is
45 miles (72 kilometers) per hour.
Bridge No. 233 is a three-span two-lane structure consisting of a timber deck with an asphalt
wearing surface on steel girders with timber joists and a steel floor beam system. The
substructure consists of timber caps and piles and timber bulkheads. The existing bridge (see
Figure 3) is approximately 121 feet (36.9 meters) long. The clear roadway width is 15.75
feet (4.8 meters). The posted weight limit on this bridge is 12 tons for single vehicles and
15 tons for truck tractor semi-trailers.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. The utility impacts are anticipated
to be low with this project.
No accidents were reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 233 during the period from January
1999 through December 2002.
Four school buses cross the bridge daily on their morning and afternoon routes.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure will consist of a new bridge approximately
150 feet (45.7 meters) in length with a 28-foot (8.5 meter) clear roadway width. This
structure will provide two, 11-foot (3.3 meter) lanes with 3-foot (0.9 meter) shoulders
on each side (see Figure 5).
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The
final design of the bridge will be such that the backwater elevation of Buffalo Creek
will not encroach beyond the current 100-year floodplain limits. The length of the
new structure may be increased or decreased to accommodate peak flows as
determined by further hydrologic studies.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately 2 feet (0.6 meters)
higher than the existing grade. The existing roadway will be widened to a 22-foot
(6.7 meter) pavement width, to provide two 11-foot (3.3 meter) lanes and 6-foot (1.8
meter) grass shoulders on each side. Typical sections of the proposed approach
roadway are included as Figure 4.
B. Build Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 233 that were evaluated are described
as follows:
Alternative 1 involves replacing the bridge on a new alignment to the south of the
existing bridge. The new alignment would be approximately 1400 feet (427 meters)
long including the new bridge and have a design speed of 50 miles (80 kilometers)
per hour. The existing structure and approaches would serve to maintain traffic on-
site during construction (see Figure 2).
This alternative provides a better roadway alignment because it would decrease the
severity of the curve located to the east of the existing structure. This alternative was
not selected because it is more costly than Alternative 2 due to the new alignment.
2
Alternative 2 (Preferred) involves replacing the bridge along the existing alignment.
This alignment is approximately 600 feet (183 meters) long including the new bridge.
The proposed design speed for the alignment is 50 miles (80 kilometers) per hour.
An off-site detour will be used to maintain traffic during construction. The proposed
detour includes NC 18 (Fallston Road), SR 1923 (Sanders Road), and SR 1908 (New
Prospect Church Road).
C. Alternatives Eliminated from Further Study
The "Do-Nothing" or No-Build alternative is not considered desirable. Without
improvements, this structure will continue to deteriorate to the point where the route
would have to be closed which is not acceptable due to the traffic service provided
by the route..
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated
condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 2, replacing the bridge at its existing location, was selected as the
preferred alternative (Figure 2). This alternative is preferred because it is the least
costly, has a minimal impact on adjacent properties, and is less disruptive to the
natural environment in the vicinity of the project. An off-site detour using NC 18
(Fallston Road), SR 1923 (Sanders Road), and SR 1908 (New Prospect Church
Road) is recommended during construction.
The Division Construction Engineer concurs with the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTI]N ATED COSTS
fhe estimated costs .fordie two alternatives, leased on current prices, are as fbllows:
The estimated cost of the project, shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program (TIP), is $870,000, including $700,000 for construction and
$170,000 prior years expense.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
Materials and research data in support of this investigation have been derived from a number
of sources including applicable U.S. Geological Survey (USES) topographic mapping
(Waco, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) National
Wetlands Inventory (NWI) mapping (Waco, NC 7.5 minute quadrangle), and general
alternative locations on site aerial photography (scale = 1:1200).
The study corridor is located approximately 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometer) east of the intersection
of NC 18 and SR 1906 near Shelby, NC (Figure 1). Bridge No. 233 is located along SR 1906
at Buffalo Creek in Cleveland County. At SR 1906, Buffalo Creek is a perennial stream
averaging 40 feet (12.2 meters) in width and flowing in a southerly direction. Buffalo Creek
drains into Ding's Mountain Reservoir approximately 3.6 miles (5.8 kilometers) downstream
of the study corridor. The study corridor includes the channel, floodplain, and side slopes
adjacent to Buffalo Creek. Land use within and adjacent to the study corridor includes
residential lawn, agricultural lazed, timbered land, forested slope, floodplain, riparian zone,
and maintained right-of-way (Figure 2).
4
A. Methodology
A natural resources field investigation for Bridge No. 233 was conducted on June 20,
2001. The study corridor was walked and visually investigated for significant
features. For purposes of the field investigation and to assure proper area coverage
of both alternatives (Figure 2), the study corridor was assumed to be approximately
1400 feet (427.0 meters) in length and approximately 300 feet (91.0 meters) in width
(200 feet [61.0 meters] south and 100 feet [30.5 meters] north of the SR 1906
centerline. Final impacts will be limited to cut-and-fill boundaries of the constructed
alternative. Special concerns evaluated in the field include 1) potential habitat for
protected species and 2) wetlands and water quality protection in Buffalo Creek.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by North
Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NHP) (Schafale and Weakley 1990). When
appropriate, community classifications were modified to better reflect field
observations. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature found in Radford et al.
(1968), with adjustments made to reflect more current nomenclature (Kartesz 1998).
Jurisdictional areas were evaluated using the three-parameter approach following
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (COE) delineation guidelines (DOA 1987). Wetland
jurisdictional areas were characterized according to a classification scheme
established by Cowardin et al. (1979). Habitat used by terrestrial wildlife and aquatic
organisms, as well as expected population distributions, were determined through
field observations, evaluation of available habitat, and supportive documentation
(Webster et al. 1985, Potter et al. 1980, Martof et al. 1980, Rohde et al. 1994,
Menhinick 1991, Palmer and Braswell 1995). Fish and wildlife nomenclature follow
current standards. Water quality information for area streams and tributaries was
derived from available sources (DWQ 1998, 2000). Quantitative sampling was not
undertaken to support existing data.
The most current U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) listing of federally protected
species with ranges which extend into Cleveland County was obtained prior to
initiation of the field investigation. In addition, NHP records documenting presence
of federally or state listed species were consulted before commencing the field
investigation.
B. Physiography and Soils
The study corridor is located in the Biotite Gneiss and Schist geologic formation of
the Charlotte and Milton Belts within the Southern Outer Piedmont physiographic
province ofNorth Carolina. This formation is characterized by broad, gently sloping
uplands, moderately to steeply sloping areas with narrow convex ridges, and steep
valley slopes. Soil systems in the Piedmont are determined by the local bedrock type
and form in saprolite weathered from bedrock of various composition (Daniels et al.
1999). The study corridor is located within the floodpWn and adjacent side slopes
of Buffalo Creek. Within the study corridor, Buffalo Creek is deeply entrenched, and
5
a relict floodplain (terrace) exist on both sides of the stream. To the west, the terrace
is wide and gradually sloping; to the east, the terrace narrow and flat. Elevations
rise from approximately 795 feet (242 meters) Nat anal Geodetic Vertical Datum
(NGVD) at streamside to 840 feet (256 meters) NGVD at the western and eastern
extremes of the study corridor (USGS Waco, NC quadrangle).
The Natural Resource Conservation Service (unpublished data) indicates the
following three soil map units within the study corridor: Pacolet sandy clay loam
(Typic Kanhapludults), Pacolet-Saw (Typic Kanhapludults) complex, and Toccoa
sandy loam (Typic UdiJluvents ). These series are considered to be non-hydric in
Cleveland County (MRCS 1996).
Pacolet sandy clay loam soils occur on sloping uplands and are formed in residium
from falsic rocks. Within the study corridor, this series occurs along the terrace bluff
on the east side of Buffalo Creek. Pacolet soils are well drained and have moderate
permeability (MRCS unpublished data).
The Pacolet-Saw complex occurs on gently sloping, eroded uplands. Within the
study corridor, this series occurs on portions of the terrace bluff on the east side of
Buffalo Creek north of SR 1906. Soils of the Pacolet-Saw complex are well-drained
and have moderate permeability (MRCS unpublished data).
Toccoa sandy loam soils occur on nearly flat floodplains. Within the study corridor,
this series occurs on the relict floodplain terrace on both sides of Buffalo Creek.
Toccoa soils are well-drained and have moderate permeability (MRCS unpublished
data).
C. Water Resources
1. Waters Impacted
The study corridor is located within subbasin 03-08-05 (Buffalo Creek
subbasin) of the Broad River Basin (DWQ 1998). This area is part of USGS
accounting unit 03050105 of the South Atlantic-Gulf Coast Region. The
section of Buffalo Creek crossed by the subject bridge has been assigned
Stream Index Number 9-53-(1) by the N.C. Division of Water Quality (DWQ
2000). The drainage area for this project is 40.5 square miles (105 square
kilometers).
2. Stream Characteristics
Within the study corridor, Buffalo Creek is 30 to 50 feet (9.2 to 15.3 meters)
wide and deeply entrenched. A well-defined riffle and pool structure is
present, and exposed sand/gravel bars occur within the channel. The channel
substrate is composed of gravel and sand with some finer sediments present
6
in pools. Stream width at Bridge No. 233 is approximately 40 feet (12.2
meters). Bank height varies from 8 feet (2.4 meters) at point bars to 15 feet
(4.6 meters) opposite point bars. A narrow levee approximately 10 feet (3.1
meters) wide and flat terrace approximately 50 feet (15.3 meters) wide are
prominent on the east side of the stream. During the field visit, flow velocity
was moderate and water clarity was excellent; bridge height above the water
surface was approximately 18 feet (5.5 meters).
Classifications are assigned to waters of the State of North Carolina based on
the existing or contemplated best usage of various streams or segments of
streams in the basin. A best usage classification of WS-III has been assigned
to Buffalo Creek (DWQ 2000). The designation WS-111 denotes waters
protected as water supplies. These waters generally occur in low to
moderately developed watersheds with permitted, point source discharges of
treated wastewater. Local programs are required to control non-point source
and stormwater discharge of pollution. WS-III waters are also suitable for
Class C uses. Class C denotes waters that are suitable for aquatic life
propagation and protection, agriculture, and secondary recreation. Secondary
recreation refers to wading, boating, and other uses not involving human
body contact with waters on an organized or frequent basis (DWQ 2000). No
designated Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW), High Quality Waters
(HQW), Water Supply I (WS-1), or Water Supply 11 (WS-11) waters occur
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor. No watershed Critical
Area (CA) occurs within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study area (DWQ
1998).
The Division of Water Quality (DWQ) has initiated a whole-basin approach
to water quality management for the 17 river basins within the state. Water
quality for the proposed study corridor is summarized in the Broad River
basin management plan. Buffalo Creek has been assigned a bioclassification
of Good, based on macroinvertebrate samples approximately 2.0 miles (3.2
kilometers) downstream of the study corridor. No fish community or tissue
sampling has recently been performed on Buffalo Creek (DWQ 2000).
The Broad River subbasin 03-08-05 has been biologically and chemically
monitored and has a use support rating of supporting in 67 percent of its
reaches. Twenty-nine percent are rated as support threatened, 3 percent as
partially supporting, and 1 percent of its stream miles were not evaluated.
The entire length of Buffalo Creek has been classified as Supporting.
Subbasin 03-08-05, containing the entire Buffalo Creek catchment from its
headwaters to the South Carolina border, supports one major point-source
discharger with a permitted discharge of 6 million gallons per day (MGD)
(22.7 million liters per day [MLD]) permitted flow. The subbasin includes
10 minor dischargers, with a total permitted flow of 1.8 MGD (6.8 MLD).
Sedimentation and erosion are the most widespread sources of non-point
7
stream pollution in Cleveland County (DWQ 1998).
3. Anticipated Impacts
Both project alternatives include complete bridging of Buffalo Creek to
maintain the current water quality, aquatic habitat, and flow regime.
Temporary construction impacts due to erosion and sedimentation will be
minimized through implementation of a stringent erosion control schedule
and the use of best management practices. The contractor will follow
contract specifications pertaining to erosion control measures as outlined in
23 CFR 650 Subpart B and Article 107-13 entitled "Control of Erosion,
Siltation, and Pollution" (NCDOT, Specifications for Roads and Structures).
These measures include the use of dikes, berms, silt basins, and other
containment measures to control runoff; elimination of construction staging
areas in floodplains and adjacent to waterways; re-seeding of herbaceous
cover on disturbed sites; management of chemicals (herbicides, pesticides,
de-icing compounds) with potential negative impacts on water quality; and
avoidance of direct discharges into streams by catch basins and roadside
vegetation.
For each of the proposed alternatives, no fill will be placed in the creek and
the bridge replacement will allow for continuation of pre-project stream flows
in Buffalo Creek, thereby protecting the integrity of this waterway. Long-
term impacts resulting from construction are expected to be negligible. In
order to minimize impacts to water resources, NCDOT Best Management
Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters will be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project.
During removal of the existing bridge, bridge components will be removed
without being dropped into waters of the United States. The project is
classified as Case 3, where there are no special restrictions beyond those
outlined in Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal
(BMP-BDR) will be applied for the removal of this bridge
D. Biotic Resources
1. Plant Communities
Four distinct plant communities were identified within the study corridor:
maintained/disturbed land, riparian hardwood forest, mixed deciduous
hardwood forest, and timbered land. These plant communities are described
below.
8
Maintained/Disturbed Land - Maintained/disturbed land is defined as
maintained roadside, residential land, agricultural fields, and fallow pasture
land occurrinv within the -,t,idy corridor. This plant community represents
approximately 75 percent of the study corridor area. Dominant species
include red clover (Trifolium pratense), wingstem (Verbesina alternifolia),
Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), trumpet creeper (Campsis
radicans), Virginia creeper (Parthenocissus quinquefolia), common
greenbriar (Smilax rotundifolia), English plantain (Plantago lanceolata), wild
grape (Vitis rotundifolia), blackberry (Rubus sp.), common blue violet (Viola
papilionaceae), Nepal microstegium (Microstegium vimineum), and crab
grass (Digitaria sanguinalis).
Riparian Hardwood Forest - Riparian hardwood forest occurs along the
banks, sand bars, levee, and terrace of Buffalo Creek. This plant community
represents approximately 5 percent of the study corridor area. Canopy
species include American sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), river birch
(Betula nigra), boxelder (Ater negundo), and ironwood (Carpinus
caroliniana). Shrub and understory species include ironwood, Chinese privet
(Ligustrum sinense), tag alder (Alnus serrulata), and green ash (Fraxinus
pennsylvanica). Herbaceous vegetation and vines present are giant cane
(Arundinaria gigantea), common greenbriar, yellowroot (Xanthorhiza
simplicissima), jewelweed (Impatiens capensis), Japanese honeysuckle,
rattlesnake fern (Botrychium virginianum), Christmas fern (Polystichum
acrostichoides), and southern lady fern (Athyrium frlix femina).
Mixed Deciduous Hardwood Forest - Mixed deciduous hardwood forest
occurs along the terrace slope east of Buffalo Creek. The plant community
represents approximately 10 percent of the study corridor area. Canopy tree
species are white oak (Quercus alba), tulip poplar (Liriodendron tulipifera),
sweetgum (Liquidambar styracijlua), red maple (Ater rubrum), mockernut
hickory (Carya tomentosa), river birch, and red mulberry (Morus rubra). The
sub-canopy contains ironwood, sweetgum, American dogwood (Cornus
Florida), allspice (Calycanthus Jloridus), red maple, and red mulberry.
Herbaceous vegetation present includes sedges (Carex sp.), Virginia creeper,
crossvine (Bignonia capreolata), common blue violet, bloodroot
(Sanguinaria canadensis), false Soloman's seal (Smilacena racemosa), and
poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans).
Timbered Land - Timbered land occurs east of Bridge No. 233 and north of
SR 1906. The stand age is approximately 15 years in age and represents
approximately 10 percent of the study corridor area. Dominant species
include short-leaf pine (Pinus echinata), eastern red cedar (Juniperus
virginiana), sweetgum, persimmon (Diospyros virginiana), blackberry,
common greenbriar, and Japanese honeysuckle.
9
2. Plant Community Impacts
3.
Plant community impacts are estimated based on the amount of each plant
community present within the alternative corridor (Described in Section
V.A). The following table provides the area of each plant community
impacted by the proposed alternatives.
No new fragmentation of plant communities will be created for either
alternative, as the project will only result in relocation of community
boundaries.
Roadside edges typically serve as vectors for invasive species into local
natural communities. The establishment of a hardy groundcover on road
shoulders as soon as practicable will limit the availability of construction
areas to invasive and undesirable plants.
Area in acres (hectares) of Plant Communities
impacted by the proposed alternatives.
Alternative 1 Alternative 2
(Preferred)
Plant Community Total Total
Maintained/Disturbed Land 1.62 0.30
(0.66) (0.12)
Riparian Hardwood Forest* - 0.02
-- (0.01)
Mixed Deciduous 0.14 0.07
Hardwood Forest* (0.06) (0.03)
Timbered Land 0.04 -
(0.02) --
Total 1.80 0.39
(0.74) (0.16)
*Natural plant community
Wildlife
No mammals were observed during the field visit. Tracks of raccoon
(Procyon lotor) were noted within the study corridor. Other mammals
expected to frequent similar habitats in the Piedmont include gray fox
(Urocyon cinereoargenteus), red fox (Vulpes vulpes), bobcat (Fells rufus),
long-tailed weasel (Mustela frenata), eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus
10
floridanus), eastern bray squirrel (Sciurus curolinensis), evening bat
(Nycliceius humeralis), eastern mole (Scalopus aquancus), and least shrew
(C'ryptolis parva).
Bird species identified during the field visit are northern cardinal (Cardinalis
cardinalis), northern mockingbird (Mimus polyglotlos), white-eyed vireo
(Vireo griseus), American robin (Turdus migratorius), Carolina chickadee
(Poecile carolinensis), tufted titmouse (Baeolophus bicolor), common
yellowthroat (Geothlypis trichas), eastern phoebe (Sayornis phoebe), indigo
bunting (Passerina cyanea), Yellow-billed cuckoo (Coccyzus americanus),
red-eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus), Carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus),
and field sparrow (Spizella pusilla). Other avian species expected to occur
in the study corridor are chimney swift (Chaetura pelagica), belted kingfisher
(Megaceryle alcyon), common grackle (Quiscalus quiscula), blue jay
(Cyanocitta cristata), gray catbird (Dumetella carolinensis), American crow
(Corvus brachyrhynchos) red-bellied woodpecker (Melanerpes carolinus),
blue-gray gnatcatcher (Polioptila caerulea), white throated sparrow
(Zonotrichia albicollis), American goldfinch (Carduelis tristis), eastern
towee (Pipilo erythrophthalmus), mourning dove (Zenaida macroura), and
yellow-tamped warbler (Dendroica coronata).
One terrestrial reptile, eastern box turtle (Terrapene caroliniana), and one
terrestrial amphibian, American toad (Bufo americanus), were observed
within the study corridor. Other terrestrial herptile species that might be
expected in these habitats are five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus), brown
snake (Storeria dekayi), eastern garter snake (Thamnophis sirtalis), rough
green snake (Opheidrys aestivus), American toad (Bufo americanus),
Fowler's toad (Bufo woodhousei), gray treefrog (Hyla versicolor), and slimy
salamander (Plethodon glutinosis).
Aquatic larval amphibians (tadpoles), but no aquatic reptiles, were observed
during the field visit. Buffalo Creek provides suitable habitat for many
aquatic and semi-aquatic reptiles and amphibians including eastern ribbon
snake (Thamnophis sauritus), northern water snake (Nerodia sipedon),
snapping turtle (Chelydra serpentina), stinkpot (Sternotherus odoratus),
eastern painted turtle (Chrysemys pitta), and two-lined salamander (Eurycea
bislineala). Shell remains of Asian clam (Corbicula flumenea) were found
inside the stream channel.
No sampling was undertaken in Buffalo Creek to determine fishery potential.
Small minnows were seen during visual investigations, but no larger fish
were noted. Species which maybe present in Buffalo Creek include rosyside
dace (Clinostomus funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leplocephalus),
eastern mosquitofish (Gambusia holbrooki), redbreast sunfish (Lepomis
auritus), pumpkinseed (Lepomis gibbosus), bl uegill (Lepomis macrochirus),
tessellated darter (Etheostoma olmstedi), and fantail darter (Etheostoma
clbellare).
4. Wildlife Impacts
Due to the limited extent of infringement on natural communities, the
proposed bridge replacement will not result in substantial loss or
displacement of known terrestrial animal populations. No substantial habitat
fragmentation is expected since most permanent improvements will be
restricted to or adjoining existing roadside margins. Construction noise and
associated disturbances will have short-term impacts on avifauna and
migratory wildlife movement patterns. Long-term impacts are expected to
be minimal for both alternatives. After removal of temporary bridge
structures and associated fill, the area will be replanted. For both
alternatives, potential impacts to down-stream aquatic habitats will be
avoided by bridging the systems to maintain regular flow and stream
integrity. Short-term impacts associated with turbidity and suspended
sediments will affect benthic populations. Temporary impacts to downstream
habitats from increased sediment during construction will be minimized by
the implementation of stringent erosion control measures.
E. Special Topics
1. Waters of the United States
Surface waters within the embankments of Buffalo Creek are subject to
jurisdictional consideration under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act as
"waters of the United States" (33 CFR section 328.3). NWI mapping depicts
Buffalo Creek as a riverine, lower perennial stream with an excavated,
unconsolidated bottom (R2UBHx; Cowardin et al. 1979). The field
investigation verified this characterization, finding Buffalo Creek to be a
perennial stream system with an unconsolidated sand/gravel bottom.
Jurisdictional impacts to open waters are avoided by both considered
alternatives.
During removal of the existing bridge and project construction, no
components of the bridge will be dropped into waters of the United States.
In consideration of surface water impacts, this project can be classified as
Case 3, where there are no special restrictions beyond those outlined in Best
Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters.
12
2. Jurisdictional Wetlands
Vegetated wetlands are defined by the presence of three primary criteria:
hydric soils, hydrophytic vegetation, and evidence of hydrology at or near the
surface for a portion {12.5 percent) of the growing season (DO : 1991 I No
vegetated wetlands subject to jurisdictional consideration under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act as "waters of the United States" (CFR 328.3) occur
within either alternative corridor.
3. Permits Required
This project is being processed as a Categorical Exclusion (CE) under Federal
Highway Administration (FHWA) guidelines. The COE has made available
Nationwide Permit (NWP) #23 (61 FR 65874, 65916; December 13, 1996)
for CEs due to expected minimal impact. DWQ has made available a
General 401 Water Quality Certification for NWP #23.
4. Mitigation
Fill or alteration of streams may require compensatory mitigation in
accordance with 15 NCAC 2H .0506(h). Compensatory mitigation is not
expected to be offered for this project due to the lack of jurisdictional
impacts. Utilization of BMPs is recommended in an effort to minimize
indirect impacts to Buffalo Creek. A final determination regarding mitigation
rests with the COE and DWQ.
F. Protected Species
1. Federal Species
Species with the federal classification of Endangered, Threatened, or
officially Proposed for such listing, are protected under the Endangered
Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531 et seq.). The term
"Endangered species" is defined as "any species which is in danger of
extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range", and the term
"Threatened species" is defined as "any species which is likely to become an
Endangered species within the foreseeable future throughout all or a
significant portion of its range" (16 U.S.C. 1532). Only one federally
protected species is listed for Cleveland County (February 5, 2003 FWS list).
The dwarf flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniJlora) is considered to be
Threatened by FWS.
Dwarf-flowered Heartleaf- The dwarf-flowered heartleaf is a small, spicy-
smelling, rhizomatous perennial herb with long-stalked leaves and flowers.
13
Leaves are heart-shaped, evergreen, leathery, and dark green above and paler
below; the upper leaf surface is often patterned with pale green reticulate
mottles. The leaves grow to about 6 cm (2.4 in) long and form a dense,
spreading rosette. This species differs from related species by having smaller
flowers with calyx tubes that narrow distally rather than broaden (Kral 1983).
Flower and fruits appear in April and early May, usually under leaf litter
(Cooper et al. 1977). Dwarf-flowering heartleaf is found in acidic sandy
loam on north-facing wooded slopes of ravines in the Piedmont of North and
South Carolina. This species typically occurs in oak-hickory-pine forest
where hydrologic conditions range from moist to relatively dry, but also may
be present in adjacent pastured woodland. This species typically is found in
moist duff at the bases of trees or mountain laurel (Kalmia latifolia) (Kral
1983). In North Carolina, dwarf-flowered heartleaf is known from a few
southwestern Piedmont counties (Amoroso and Weakley 1995).
Forested areas along the terrace bluff east of Buffalo Creek provide suitable
habitat for drawf-flowered heartleaf. These areas are characterized as being
mesic to dry forested slopes, face northwest, and occur on Pactolus sandy
loam soils. NHP records document a population of this species adjacent to
Buffalo Creek approximately 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) south of the study
corridor. Furthermore, several individuals of heartleaf (Hezastylis sp.) were
observed adjacent to the study corridor and one individual plant was observed
within the Alternative 1 corridor. Although the plants have not been
positively identified, NHP records and photographs, flower parts, and flower
dimensions collected from several plants suggest that these plants are most
likely dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION -The study corridor contains suitable
habitat for dwarf-flowered heartleaf, and NHP records document a
population of this species 1.5 miles (2.4 kilometers) from the study corridor.
However, no forms of heartleaf were observed within the proposed corridor
for Alternative 2. This Alternative will not affect dwarf-flowered heartleaf.
NO EFFECT
Federal Species of Concern - The February 5, 2003 FWS list also includes
a category of species. designated as "Federal species of concern" (FSC) in
Cleveland County. A species with this designation is one that may or may
not be listed in the future (formerly C2 candidate species or species under
consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to support
listing). A list of FSC species occurring in Cleveland County is given in the
following table.
The FSC designation provides no federal protection under the ESA for
14
species listed. NHP files do not document any occurrences of FSC species
within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the study corridor.
2.
Federal Species of Concern and state status for species federally
desiLynated as FSC within Cleveland County.
Potential State
Common Name Scientific Name Habitat Status*
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata Yes C
Torrey's mountain-
mint
Pycnanthemum torrei
Yes SR-T
No C
Carolina saxifrage
Saxifraga caroliniana
s C = Candidate for listing as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern SR-
T=Significantly Rare -Threatened (Amoroso 2001; LeGrand and Hall 2001).
State Species
Plant and animal species which are on the North Carolina state list as
Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Special Concern (SC), Candidate (C),
Significantly Rare (SR), or Proposed (P) (Amoroso 1999, LeGrand and Hall
1999) 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 et seq.). No species with these designations are
documented within 1.0 mile (1.6 kilometers) of the'study corridor.
VI. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A.
B.
Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, and implemented by the Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at
36 CFR Part 800. Section 106 requires Federal agencies to take into account the
effect of their undertakings (federally-funded, licensed, or permitted) on properties
included in or eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places and
to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on March 1,
2000. All structures within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by
NCDOT architectural historians and the State Historic Preservation Office (HPO).
None of the properties were considered eligible, and in a concurrence form dated
15
June 1, 2000, the State I lstoric Preservation Officer (SHPO) concurred that there are
no historic architectural resources either listed in or eligible for listing in the National
Register of Historic Places within the APE. A copy of the concurrence form is
included in the Appendix.
C. Archaeology
The preferred alternative for this project is to replace the bridge at its existing
location. In a memorandum dated February 1, 2001, the SHPO stated, "There are no
recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries." Therefore, no further
archeological investigation is required. A copy of the SHPO's memorandum is
included in the Appendix.
VII. ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of the 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.
In compliance with executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to
determine whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately
high and adverse human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The
investigation determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low
income populations.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is anticipated. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The project does not involve any known Section 4(f) properties. There are no publicly-owned
parks, recreational facilities, or wildlife and waterfowl refuges of National, State, or local
16
significance in the vicinity of the project.
The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their representatives to
consider the potential impacts to prime, unique or important farmland soils for all lard
acquisition and construction projects. Prime and important farmland soils are defined by the
Natural Resources Conservation Service (MRCS). The proposed project has been
coordinated with the US Department of Agriculture and no prime, unique or important
farmland will be converted as a result of this bridge replacement project. This project is in
conformance with the Farmland Protection Policy Act (FPPA).
The project is located in Cleveland County which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Parts 51 and 93 are not applicable
because the proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated
to create any adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The 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 traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project; therefore, the
project's impact on noise and air quality will not be substantial.
The noise levels will increase during the construction period, but will only 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 SIP for air quality in compliance with 15
NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 772 and for air quality (1990
Clean Air Act Amendments and the National Environmental Policy Act) and no additional
reports are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Waste Management revealed no leaking underground storage tanks
or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Cleveland County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. This area is not
in a FEMA Flood Study, but is in a FEMA Special Flood Hazard Zone A. No base flood
elevations have been determined. The approximate 100-year floodplain in the project area
is shown in Figure 6. The amount of floodplain area to be affected is not substantial.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of this project.
17
VIII. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contatit local officials to involve
them in the planning development with scoping letters. Seeping letters were also sent to
various agencies on November 15, 2000.
IX. AGENCY COMAWNTS
United States Department of the Interior - Fish and Wildlife Service
Comments: Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known location of the
federally threatened dwarf flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniora) near the
project area. If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation
will be required.
Response: During field investigations by qualified biologists on June 20,200 1, no forms
of heartleaf were observed within the preferred Alternative 2 corridor.
18

1881 1906 I
1968 1908
808 J
1974
??s

t°Q I
1963
' Ra? Bridge #233
1964
1
1907
1 25 1913

!Z I
1962
1961 "6
i
i

19448 I

i 1914
C`U
1922
o - - -
?
1916
1823
l'
itil 1
L 1
i 1908
18
. 1915
1 /
i i

1 1917 118
? I

l188

0 Meters 800
N
0.5
0

r.l.e.
1 Cow
Cow
1 Miles
o ,
APPROXIMATE SCALE
B elision
>?nll .1
LEGEND
101m ION j i
N
O O
''""
.f 1 PROPOSED DETOUR ROUTE
n. ? A

North Carolina
Department of Transportation
Ulpru Project Development
& Environmental Analysis Branch
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Bridge No. 233
on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
TIP No. B-3828
Figure I
s.:F
o d

w

fi ? g=
al is a
?- s

f t
? W
? h?
4
i *f • i .?.t

m

a? lJ

: Y f t. i s t i t a j i = ar: 4W?r,
t s ? ? s 4 d?
Y
w ? •,
7? q
lz,? YAM j 1._: r6. c a = 1. 4 t. $ 3+*1.. s '+ ?,s..
?'.?S ? r f?? , ? s? ?#??' "? ,?•;s'°?`#? ,,yf?," +r e-?„ ; , : ?!.? 1 t?l;,!"? -:??? 1„} * • .As;'?. r-? ? Rio- ?. ,»;
;?<rn ;'+ ?r ;, a:.-? ? ?? r! ? ' '? s,? i S,q:uaa Y ;? ?.`• ,t i s , }' . i si %t+? ¢+%1
3,? * ` t 3 }a ts ?+a, F ??, , ,>`? a r 4 t; m,1?'i? C';?{`y? >k??? ? ? ', +g , ?,1•?„
?: ?A.S,a. ?*?- ? r? ?? ?,}st rr ?,? .. ,, t ? $,??t R?nt?, ?.a ?, ?.?.?? ?,i it d? is-«?„?a -t• .,fi '?.uty; r, 3 '.7`^,? i t?
.,y,' r? ?iai,r <€ rt an • Y r ??2 ? ? '. ? ? ,'y ty '^j, ? t~? ???? 9 t+
' Y w 'Y s
4
g.
k
#r n
.z• ; ?? ?? S al. ? ?. ? ? _ 'fib ...
t
a
, ? j ? x? t s7M ? a+
Y €yw
p
et
CS
r?(yly? . ?'
r'
r4 ?? ? aye€? ? ?k?a+
'h,
CLEVELAND COUNTY
FRIDGE NO. 233 ON SR 1906 OVER
BUFFALO CREEK
&-3828
i
SIDE VIEW
LOOKING NORT14
WEST APPROACH
LOOKING WEST
EAST APPROACH
LOOKING EAST
FIGURE 3
I
ON °ao
a ? ay?z
?-
m o m F
°' p c O
?H
v
?Q
V?
U
o
?o
O
Ca3?

n
o
N O

? 0
o
N
b

^i O
?

F

? W
ti
A
C
m
O
H
U
?w
AO
U
0C4 o gco
"Z
o e c
a a
UA C N s CL.
?co cp F
J
U

O
O
h
z
0
w
p p
F. $ Cc,
0
? NN
I3'
ti
Q
iC
FEMA - Floodplain Map of Project Area

1 500
l FEET I
APPROXIMATE SCALE
emN North Carolina
Department of Transportation
uw? Project Development
6c Environmental Analysis Branch
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Bridge No. 133
on SR 1906 (Costner Road)
over Buffalo Creek
TIP No. B-38n
Figure 6
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND AUDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 ZilIicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 25, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements: B-3677, Mecklenburg County; B-3822, Catawba County;
B-3840, Gaston County; B-3700, Stanly County; B-3828, Cleveland County; B-3839,
B-3454, Forsyth County; B-3421, Cabarrus County; B-3637, Davie County; B-3835,
Davie-Forsyth Counties; B-3404, Anson County; DOT contractor TGS Engineers
We have reviewed these projects and provide comments in accordance with 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).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether or not habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are primarily limited to the known
locations of listed species and species of federal concern. When the Categorical Exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects we can offer more
substantive comments.
Enclosed are species lists from the nine counties included in this package. These lists provide
the names of species that are on the Federal 1,ist of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants, as well as species of federal concern. Species of federal 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 to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any
are found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
1. B-3822 Catawba County: B- 3840, Gaston County: B-3839 B-3454 Forsyth County:
B-3421. Cabarrus Cou_=e B-3637. Davie .o =. There are no known locations of species of
concern near these projects. However, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts
occur.
2. B-3677 Mecklenburg County- B-3700, Stanly o n : B-3404. Anson County. Our records
for these counties indicate known locations for the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzit) in the vicinity of these projects. If this species occurs in
the project areas, additional consultation will be required.
3. B-3828 Cleveland County. Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near the
project, If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
4. B-38-15 Davie-Forsyth Counties. Our records indicate there is a'mown location of the
federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michawdi) near the project. If this species
occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-01-252.
Sincerely,
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure 11
cc:
John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transportation, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1548
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kemersville, North Carolina 27284-9180
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1621

Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostmeod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered**
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
CATAWBA COUNTY
Invertebrates
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere isabelae FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
DAVIE COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
FORS 111 COUNTY
r
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides'bbrealis Endangered****
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources CommissionKN
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188,919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-3504 B-
3694, and B-3700.
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.
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
Bridge Memo
2 January 2, 2001
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.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry. work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of introducing other
pollutants into streams. ,
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, 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
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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 could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow sufficient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
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. Ripmp 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 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 nat n-& 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-3404 -Anson County -Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421- Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway.. No
continent.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV.. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity..
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 - Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over I-40. No comment
6. B-3 835 - Davie-Forsyth counties - Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 - Forsyth County - Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 -Forsyth County -Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 - Gaston County - Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851- Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County -Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 - Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
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.
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these pro; -cts.

Federul.4id =BRZ-1906(3) TIP =B-3323 Cuunt.: Cie eland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Proiec? De.ccrinrinn. Replace Bridee No.'-33 on SR 1406 over Buffalo Creek
On June 1. 2000. representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
Q/ photograph review session/consultation
[] other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there am no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G. within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on historic information available an, 3?e photographs of each property. properties
identified as ( r, L3l?2onsidered not eligible for the National
Register and no er evaluation of them is ecessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
Representative,
FHWA. for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Date
C? • C)o
l¢

Presen•ation
., It

11 _3 >UTNC\ %rim i5 prepared. a final ropy of this form and the attached lia %,,ill be included.
?? ,.., ?v v I I
?d ?
ti
Ni.
north Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
February 1, 2001 Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook ?Qp K-
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re:. Replace Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 over Buffalo Creek,
TIP No. R-3828. Cleveland County, ER 01-8181
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, transmitting additional information concerning
the above project
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project
Bridge No. 233 was built in 1936.
We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the above property to
determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and report the
findings to us.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
archaeological resources.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone].715-4801
Survey do Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 461 8 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 [phone].715-4801
United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Asheville Field Office
160 ullicoa Street
Asheville, North Carolina 28801
January 25, 2001
Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Subject: Bridge Replacements: B-3677, Mecklenburg County; B-3822, Catawba County;
B-3840, Gaston County; B-3700, Stanly County; B-3828, Cleveland County; B-3839,
B-3454, Forsyth County; B-3421, Cabartus County; B-3637, Davie County; B-3835,
Davie-Forsyth Counties; B-3404, Anson County; DOT contractor TGS Engineers
We have reviewed these projects and provide comments in accordance with 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).
The information we received for these 11 projects does not include descriptions of the structures
that will replace the existing bridges, nor does it include any environmental information
regarding the streams or whether or not habitat assessments or surveys for rare species have been
conducted for any of these projects. Therefore, our comments are primarily limited to the known
locations of listed species and species of federal concern. When the Categorical Exclusions are
prepared and more information is available regarding environmental effects we can offer more
substantive comments. _
Enclosed are species lists from the nine counties included in this package. These lists provide
the names of species that are on the Federal List of Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and
Plants; as well as species of federal concern Species of federal 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 to give you advance notification and to request your assistance in protecting them if any
are found in the vicinity of your projects. Our records indicate the following:
1. B-3822 Catawba County B- 3840, Gaston County B-3839 B-3454, Eor County:
B-3421. abarrus County: B-3637. Davie County. There are no known locations of species of
concern near these projects. However, we recommend surveying each of the project areas for
species prior to any further planning or on-the-ground activities to ensure no adverse impacts
occur.
2. B-3677. Mecklenburg Goan : B-3700. Stanl County: B-3404. Anson Co ,n1v. Our records
for these counties indicate known locations for the federally endangered Schweinitz's
sunflower (Helianthus schweinitzii) in the vicinity of these projects. If this species occurs in
the project areas, additional consultation will be required.
3. B-3828. Cleveland County. Our records for Cleveland County indicate there is a known
location of the federally threatened dwarf-flowered heartleaf (Hexastylis naniflora) near the
project. If this species occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
4. B 3835. Davie-Forsyth Counties. Our records indicate there is a lmown locaticn of the
federally endangered Michaux's sumac (Rhus michauxi:) near the project. If this species
occurs in the project area, additional consultation will be required.
We are interested in the types of structures that will replace these existing bridges and would
recommend spanning structures, preferably bridges, in all cases. We look forward to reviewing
the completed categorical exclusion documents.
If you have questions about these comments, please contact Ms. Marella Buncick of our staff at
828/258-3939, Ext. 237. In any future correspondence concerning these projects, please
reference our Log Number 4-2-01-252.
Sincerely,
L. ??&
.
Brian P. Cole
State Supervisor
Enclosure
cc:
John Conforti, Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, North Carolina
Department of Transports ion, 1548 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina
27699-1548
Mr. Ron Linville, Western Piedmont Region Coordinator, North Carolina Wildlife Resources
Commission, 3855 Idlewild Road, Kemersville, North Carolina 27284-9180
Ms. Cynthia Van Der Wiele, North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources,
Division of Water Quality, Wetlands Section, 1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North
Carolina 27699-1621
Invertebrates
Pee Dee crayfish ostracod Dactylocythere peedeensis FSC*
Carolina heelsplitter Lasmigona decorata Endangered**
Vascular Plants
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinitzii Endangered
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC
CATAWBA COUNTY
Invertebrates
Catawba crayfish ostracod Dactyloctythere isabelae FSC
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Dwarf-flowered heartleaf Hexastylis naniflora Threatened
Sweet pinesap Monotropsis odorata FSC
Carolina saxifrage Saxifraga caroliniana FSC
DAME COUNTY
Vascular Plants
Heller's trefoil Lotus helleri FSC*
Michaux's sumac Rhus michauxii Endangered
FORS H COUNTY
r
Vertebrates
Bog turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)'
Red-cockaded woodpecker Picoides'borealis Endangered****
Vascular Plants
Small-anthered bittercress Cardamine micranthera Endangered
® North Carolina Wildlife Resources Cornmission2mm
512 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
TO: John Conforti
Project Engineer, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project Co for
Habitat Conservation Program
DATE: January 2, 2001
SUBJECT: NCDOT Bridge Replacements in Anson, Cabarrus, Catawba, Cleveland, Davie,
Forsythe, Gaston, Guilford, Mecklenburg, Randolph, Rockingham, and Stanly
counties of North Carolina. TIP Nos. B-3404, B-3421, B-3822, B-3828, B-3637,
B-3835, B-3454, B-3839, B-3840, B-3337, B-3652, B-3851, B-3677, B-3504 13-
3694, and B-3700.
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.
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
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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.
11. Sedimentation and erosion control measures sufficient to protect aquatic resources
must be implemented prior to any ground disturbing activities. Structures should be
maintained regularly, especially following rainfall events.
12. Temporary or permanent herbaceous vegetation should be planted on all bare soil
within 15 days of ground disturbing activities to provide long-term erosion control.
13. All work in or adjacent to stream waters should be conducted in a dry. work area.
Sandbags, rock berms, cofferdams, or other diversion structures should be used
where possible to prevent excavation in flowing water.
14. Heavy equipment should be operated from the bank rather than in stream channels in
order to minimize sedimentation and reduce the likelihood of 'introducing other
pollutants into streams.
15. Only clean, sediment-free rock should be used as temporary fill (causeways), and
should be removed without excessive disturbance of the natural stream bottom when
construction is completed.
16. During subsurface investigations, equipment should be inspected daily and
maintained to prevent contamination of surface waters from leaking fuels, lubricants,
hydraulic fluids, or other toxic materials.
If corrugated metal pipe arches, reinforced concrete pipes, 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
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
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 could be
accomplished by constructing a low sill on the upstream end of the other cells that
will divert low flows to another cell. This will allow suf£cient water depth in the
culvert or pipe during normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are
long, notched baffles should be placed in reinforced concrete box culverts at 15 foot
intervals to allow for the collection of sediments in the culvert, to reduce flow
velocities, and to provide resting places for fish and other aquatic organisms moving
through the structure.
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 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-3404 - Anson County - Bridge No. 314 over South Fork Jones Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
2. B-3421 - Cabarrus County - Bridge No. 266 over Norfolk and Southern Railway., No
comment.
3. B-3822 - Catawba County - Bridge No. 8 over unnamed tributary to the Catawba River. We
request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the
DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV.. We are not aware of any threatened of
endangered species in the project vicinity..
4. B-3828 - Cleveland County - Bridge No. 233 over Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
5. B-3637 - Davie County - Bridge No. 37 over 1-40. No comment.
6. B-3835 -Davie-Forsyth counties - Bridge No. 35 over the Yadkin River. We request that
High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water
quality classification of WS-IV. We request that the new bridge span the adjacent wetlands
Bridge Memo
4 January 2, 2001
entirely. The old fill causeways should then be removed and graded to natural ground level.
We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
7. B-3454 -Forsyth County -Bridge No. 260 over Muddy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware Of p_n?, threatened of CitdaDgercd species in the project vicinity.
8. B-3839 -Forsyth County -Bridge No.139 over Fishers Branch. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
9. B-3840 -Gaston County -Bridge No. 52 over South Crowders Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
10. B-3337 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 527 over North Buffalo Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
11. B-3652 - Guilford County - Bridge No. 20 over the Deep River. SR 4121 crosses the Deep
River just below the dam of High Point City Lake. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
12. B-3851- Guilford County - Bridge No. 21 over US 29/70. No comment.
13. B-3677 - Mecklenburg County - Bridge No. 36 over Greasy Creek. We have no specific
comments. We are not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
14. B-3506 - Randolph County - Bridge No. 226 over Richland Creek. Richland Creek is a
medium sized stream that supports good populations of sunfish. Therefore, we request that
no in-water work be preformed from April 1 to May 31. We are not aware of any threatened
of endangered species in the project vicinity.
15. B-3694 -Rockingham County -Bridge No. 55 over the Belews Lake Spillway. This bridge
appears to be just downstream of the Belews Lake dam. This area supports good numbers of
sunfish and may support a tailrace fishery. Therefore, we request that no in-water work be
preformed from April 1 to May 31. We request that High Quality Sedimentation and Erosion
Control Measures be used due to the DWQ water quality classification of WS-IV. We are
not aware of any threatened of endangered species in the project vicinity.
16. B-3700 -- Stanly County - Bridge No. 187 over Long Creek. This segment of Long Creek
may support the state listed Carolina darter. Therefore, we request that High Quality
Sedimentation and Erosion Control Measures be used to minimize project impacts to this
species.
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.
Bridge Memo
January 2, 2001
If you need further assistance or infonnation on NCWRC concerns regarding bridge
replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity to review and
comment on these projects.

F«1vrul.40 =6RZ-1906(3) TIP =B-3323 Cuunn : Cleveland
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE `ATIOINAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Proiecr DP.grrinrrnn: Replace Bridge No. ?,3 on. SR I906 over Buf olo Crcck
On June 1. 2000. representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
a/ Federal Hiehway Administration (FHWA)
Fl/ North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
L] a scoping meeting
D/ photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
a/- there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on historic information available an t e photographs of each propem, properties
identified as f fi onsidered not eligible for the National
Register and no fiAer evaluation of them is ecessarv.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Signed:
CG C'o
Representative, l? DO Date
(7 , /1) t;
FHWvA. for the Division Administrator. or other Federal Agency Date
C¢
r A
Preservation Officer /
If n surNeN -.pun iS rrepared. a final copy of this form and the attached li<t %N ill Ise included.

ww
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Archives and History
February 1, 2001 Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
MEMORANDUM
To: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
From: David Brook (? 1 ?SLk?p
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Re:. Replace Bridge No. 233 on SR 1906 over Buffalo Creek,
TIP No. R-3828, Cleveland County, ER 01-8181
Thank you for your letter of November 15, 2000, transmitting additional information concerning
the above project
We have conducted a search of our traps and files and have located the following structures of
historical or architectural importance within the general area of the project
Bridge No. 233 was built in 1936.
We recommend that an architectural historian with NCDOT evaluate the above property to
determine their eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places and report the
findings to us.
There are no known recorded archaeological sites within the project boundaries. However, the
project area has never been systematically surveyed to determine the location or significance of
archaeological resources.
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, contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, Environmental Review Coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:kgc
cc: Mary Pope Furr, NCDOT
Tom Padgett, NCDOT
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
Administration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994617 [phone].715-8653
Restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994613 [phone].715-4801
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh 4619 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 276994618 (919) 7334763 97154801