20040932 Ver 1_Complete File_20040608

d STAn'o
Y
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 31, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Raleigh Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, North Carolina 27615
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
?P 4
JAN ?? ,' ??I
wp?ER
Subject: Nationwide 23 application, for the replacement of Bridge No. 140 on
Southbound US 29/70,1-85 Business over Rich Fork Creek, Davidson
County. Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20), State Project No. 81602101,
NCDOT Division 9, TIP Project No. B-4096, WBS Element 33454.1.1.1.
Please find enclosed three copies of the CE, permit drawings and '/2 size plans for the
above referenced project. The document states that the existing two lane bridge on
Southbound US 29/70,1-85 Business will be replaced with a new two lane 230-foot long
bridge on the existing alignment. Traffic will use an onsite one lane detour structure
located northwest of the existing structure during construction. No additional impacts will
occur as a result of the detour. The proposed temporary cross over detour will remain in
place after the southbound bridge has been built to be used for the future north bound
bridge replacement project. There are permanent impacts to Waters of the U.S.
associated with this project. There are no impacts to Rich Fork Creek. Impacts to
wetlands are permanent and consist of 0.03 acres of fill. Rich Fork Creek is classified by
the Division of Water Quality as Class C.
Impacts to Waters of the U.S.
Demolition: Bridge No. 140 is composed of reinforced concrete with an asphalt wearing
surface. The bridge asphalt wearing surface can be removed without dropping
components into Waters of the United States. There is potential for components of the
bridge to be dropped into waters of the U.S. The resulting temporary fill associated with
the concrete bridge is approximately 150 cubic yards. All guidelines for bridge
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS 1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG RALEIGH NC
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
040932
?10s ? At`1 ?????'
demolition and removal will be followed in addition to Best Management Practices for
the Protection of Surface Waters and BMP's for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
Avoidance, Minimization, and Mitigation
The NCDOT is commited to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features
to avoid and minimize wetland impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of
all remaining wetland impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and
NEPA phases; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design and
include:
• In order to minimize impacts to Rich Fork Creek, no bents will be placed in
the water.
No mitigation is proposed because wetland impacts do not exceed the 0.10-acre
threshold.
Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. As of January 29, 2003,
the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) lists three federally protected species for Davidson
County, Schweinitz's sunflower, bald eagle and the bog turtle.
The bog turtle is listed as threatened due to similarity of appearance and therefore does
not require a biological conclusion. A biological conclusion of "No Effect" was reached
for the Bald Eagle and the Schweinitz's sunflower as reflected in the attached CE dated
January 2002. No habitat is in the project area for the bald eagle, however there is habitat
for the Schweinitz's sunflower. Updated surveys for the Schweinitz's sunflower were
conducted by NCDOT biologists on August 14, 2003 to ensure that no individuals were
present
Regulatory Approvals
This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a "Categorical
Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). Therefore, we do not anticipate
requesting an individual permit but propose to proceed under a Nationwide 23 in
accordance with 67 FR 2020, 2082, Jan 15, 2002. We anticipate a 401 General
Certification number 3361 will apply to this project and will adhere to the general
conditions of WQC 3361. In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0501(a) we are providing
two copies of this application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources, Division of Water Quality, for their records.
If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
/1 Grego . Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc:
w/ attachment:
Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality (2 copies)
Mr. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
w/o attachment
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmington
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Ms. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. John F. Sullivan, III, FHWA
Mr. S.P. Ivey, P.E., Division 9 Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, DEO
Mr. Joel Johnson, Project Planning Engineer

T9M-A-LEX 797 L ne
981
LAXE
Z9Z6 _
ROJ
3033
- \ 296 196
PROJ T I 1797 073 zo23 2123 2 6 6
3. us 9 19
1796 ? 9
- 00 2b4
123 2704
i 2
70 1
T 9 ??`\, ? , - 2123 O , - - . - as
^I Davidson Coun I2-74g
1B-"? e _
mr7iunity C
J .
1 ?
,? '?? ??
? 2123 2810 ? p 7 20 4
1 2123 2024 707 2763
I 2005 \ / '?? 2752 2020
2020
27 1 n d // / y \ O
2753 2711
- /
218 77-
???? 2020 2026
H2O _ 2019
1 -_ - 2017 \?..
NCDOT
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY DAVIDSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1602101 (B-40%)
MAPS REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE a140 OVER
?v? RICH FORK CREEK ON US 29/70,I-85
BUSINESS BETWEEN LEXINGTON, N.C.
AND THOMASVILLE, N.C.
SHEET 1 OF 10/21/03
NORTH CAROUNA
WETLAND LEGEND
S
-WLB- WETLAND BOUNDARY
C-L> WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
WETLAND
® DENOTES FILL IN
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
o FLOW DIRECTION
T(`- TOP OF BANK
WE EDGE OF WATER
-- C - PROP. LIMIT OF CUT
---?- PROP. LIMIT OF FILL
?- PROP. RIGHT OF WAY
--NG-- NATURAL GROUND
--2---- PROPERTY LINE
-TDE- TEMP. DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
- PDE PERMANENT DRAINAGE
EASEMENT
-EAB-- EXIST. ENDANGERED
ANIMAL BOUNDARY
-EPB- EXIST. ENDANGERED
PLANT BOUNDARY
-----U -• WATER SURFACE
x X x X x LIVE STAKES
X x x
C2D BOULDER
CORE FIBER ROLLS

PROPOSED BRIDGE
PROPOSED BOX CULVERT
PROPOSED PIPE CULVERT
12'-48'
(DASHED LINES DENOTE PIPES
EXISTNG STRUCTURES) 54' PIPES
& ABOVE
W SINGLE TREE
. . WOODS LINE
DRAINAGE-INLET
-?- ROOTWAD
mn, RIP RAP
5 ADJACENT PROPERTY
OWNER OR PARCEL
NUMBER (IF AVAILABLE)
El PREFORMED SCOUR HOLE
LEVEL SPREADER (LS)
/ 31- DITCH /
GRASS SWALE
NCD®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
DAVIDSON COUNTY
PROJECT: 8.1602101 (6-4096)
REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE "140 OVER
RICH FORK CREEK ON US 29/70,1-85
BUSINESS BETWEEN LEXINGTON, N.C.
AND THOMASVILLE, N.C.
SHEET I OF -7 10 / 21 / 03
h
1524
\f34©96_drn.dgn

92 9 0.
J2. y
b
Y
m
°qr
c

N
u
+
N
y
N
m
O
-1
N CA
m m
m m
N N
W
T
A 4?
A
0 m
?a
0
0
A
11
K, g
ai

z
n ?
a T
r
X
b
O
0
n
m
m
7
N
W

"$ n
4 2
G?

N =D0
arm
+
o 2 ti? 1
pmD
nor
J O
N r P ?z?
s?

?
m
O f7
?,
=
z
w
r
xz
a
o?
m==
m ?" o
OZb
o m v<_i
°sn
n z
0
WS
N
h
M
N !?
XA O
r^?Y, gym-- ?i$
rri
O 4
?a
z
0
--1
m
n
0
m
z
O
m
V1
O
?I
m
v
O
z
n
--1
r
rn
m
8/17
?? I I j?j ? I ?Il?r
47
II? III Q?I? 611
_ % III ??? I? III
'a?? ?I l= III I n II ?
I, III j'? I? II ?
ilk ICI ?d
III I I II I
jl ji I II
I• II III q II
jl jj_V II
jl IIIOI II
II j£ I II
II III V II
h
II II uV ? ?I
I II III q ?
I' w
II Rz
" II ?g
I i Ir
III
I I-
I I
? II ? II.
Ibl
I ICI ?
I I?1
I ; 'I I
I 11
a
k k '
x- \\ \,
It
k /? \
I M µ ?
0
n
0
N
z
92
m ?
m C
0
r
m
I=
I r '.7 a ??? e\
J9.\ \
I g? ? ? sey y ? ?
t
?O
r! ?2:
Ir
Igo
?= r
?v I
a

"JR- -
I
, vl? II ? I1 II ?,
II
II I ? II ???
I I F? II i? ¢
II ? i II I"?a
1
II I I rll
II I II II
II i ? II
II I II I I
II I 1211 I
II I I III , \
N
II I I ?II ?
I I ?" I I? I I ? ??
II.€I? II
I?? I 6 II
? n
III I I II c
?jl? I II =
?II? I I II
jl? I I II
N
III-
_a II I ?? I II ?
?f
?N RIB NII
I i ?II?
II i I II
+ Y O \\ \\
• WOOD PO," M/? 'Cp
57[0. CABLE
939-•?,?. _ m m 0
m
utiZ
?? p N
---------- - -
~ a
n
? y L
z2
' mo
oz
mN
n S n
•tQ
V
0•/ ? NNE
\99
bs Ji! m
1
\?J
09t
Cq NI7.78'57•W
F
4 fr 67.71' NJ
,? 3y? 9F
M \ 1
!t
K- I!
Nvh tj JJ aJ.
•ss. r
Ch
ro
\ ? m
o.
h ?
"
ACm t
z?
ozoz
?• n
oy?pZ
??qmK
b N?rc?
o,.oo>

6 $
r rim Z m
O

O•
A O. O. o.
to O. V o. ON
co 10
O O O O O O
•
f
rm
v' z
, n Y
O• A
f

E m
'040-
N
ON
ON
T_
th
D.

V 'o
°
t oo
'wo

N o

co

z!n rn
UH rR
10 n

m
m?a
{' o
c?O,n
?
Tg
1»
4,00
4C)
T mS
VN
ca`af7 m
Imp'mfHaO
';wcO
,.?nnoy
061
A• r0
O
- - ?-,- +
P H
14 r
• I m Zal +Q
o Oi
? V V
. U,
M m -L--- ?-? o ° I
14 Z -- L ?e
N'}
pU m
N "? H
N n ' I
S
cl
O
?lo
?I .
fNJ m m
r m
Z
O.
N w I
p• 0 ? I I
n
S
O '
m -v 7c! n v
N I I ! a; A:
N Ol A
UI ? +r f7t , Q W,O,
CK)
0 Ml m
rrrr?
N nU C
Ol m m S II
r Z G1
N ?. o o V-4 o
O. r w+ m
m a -I
0+ C:) C3
i)%c
y w n 0
• N _ s2 z2? a
Igo
•n ' v? b w 980
o. 0
• O a r,
T +m
03
Z
. o

11CONTRACT:
TYP PROYECT: B-4096

--1
N
N
D
n
O
o
F-
m
n
m
N
N
A
O
`m
Q
n
m
N
N
m
m
z
r
v
Z0
m
.n
D
Z
0
m
N
b
?r
?z
?a
?r
a
z
I ?
c2
2
i
2 0
x
c
k
r
S'
r
I

I
r
I
n
0
ti
J
m
k

H
w
Qo
Gf
n
H

N
i
l +
U

I Mp.
?j
V
I
2 I
y
1 O

?: n
H
2 Jy,
1
N,qo
9,g

R ?>
C)
t-=1
N
00
W
L?
o
b ?
C-3
?MyNH
•1J

R:\Pro,J\84096_19d _t .dgn 6/2/99
z
0
i
m
G
m
i
m
0
0 m m
m >
m
v
w m..-= GS
m
1
1 z
r
I
1 w r+z a z ne
1 N
x
0 -1 w xmm mrn mm z m m ?
1
1
Z.
1
I m
1 •r`.
M. Zia ?9 OCa o- x xm N
1 m
1
I
1
1
7vaI
I
1 n
I ?3
1 I? N
I
I
C
1
1 "CA bN r
6 C
m w mWo
Q '? W m
e?
"O 1 C
D ?v
??
r 6 N
m I
n 8
..? H
0 4
' z
1
Z
1 ?•
t
Z t v
t
1
t
1
I
t m
I Z
r
1
az o
1 NO
I?? 8 "M N -?+•
U1
z v 1 ?
m
v O
? e ? o N
Z =
I z
.
ca
C C.)
o v
1 JO cn Q N
m
i1 Q a, _ v
g 3 1
? Z a•
f
+ + D z I Z
o o r 8 z 1.
0 0
OO myna
N ??+
O
Co z
a Z <?r 4?
O Qz ??N?
z
0

m p O p C7 C7 C7
.
.. W N i W N ?
•G -CA miA )iA >iA
>iA
< v Am<A
mvTO A
vo
y To
my o < o
•O < o
°
m>v
az• >-rrnv
ix m ni ai
A +< +Y +Y o>< ?» WYf
•
<v -40> ov ov m<) <v <T
my
aA io- a
x o• v
oa v
oA oma
?• mo

o
a my

>o
z
= ? = ? K ? O H

oi<
m•
v
m
x
•
zoo
m
o x
rn•
o
x
•

a+ ?vv
ar -?i >
-4 ? >
•i a
?a ?
i

am
a
t•N?+•

ms 2m z) 2Y i> pm> m )
m?
? ?
' W OT O'O O>
O
T O
>
a » Y a
GS zT2 TS T9
Y
om vzrn>
i Ar m>
r m)
Ar o >
-4=r
i >
+r
wi
+x
J?>
09
o> 2r>-1
>
rn >-?
m >-1
m ON W o or
rr <
o
m o o
0 o
o O
ro ro r
mi aaz Az z mmz m z m0
m
O m>°
iA >o
iA
is 1CW0
N. A Wo
A Wo
• z
O
' zmm mm mm
-/ m m
m y -1 m
9 i °
•a a
L
V
m° O _M,
iom -/
om om omm mm mm
am T T T a a am
mi m +z N m
m
Y m
We m
om m+i a i a i ?
A oA om
• m W? A O A O A a• T ; 9

m >WO mo my v' ° ° m
io N•v? v>i v1 v'mc zc° zo
c xmm
9 m
T m m
A iaa ?1 a
m o
)m a
n
° .
° O Tm i1
>I 1A
?
om o W o m o o- om
? Z
°

?
'?
o<
m

<?

<m

vv

?v

T?

?
-

v
mv•
o-
o- im
m
9
?
p
m xv o om o ?

a
o?
ow
a m
o

a
o
n m m
m
z
? C --I L N
?
X
N
n

? > o Y ? m
i
p
T y = °v ?m>
v C
r z r
m ? o

° o v m
A
O A)
v 9 G fil 000
s -4
e
r
m
a..19v
a?m>

Z ? m zmo?
T
v i ? o
m
>
m vz?,ri
mi = b m°
. r
z
z z m W• a
> m
m
v m
m ?9
m
j ?^ zm>
-r1 to
mum

O 9
z
m v ovw
m m m
-1
O x+?
0 9
O = 9 m
V O

a -
N x -
O O
rn r
x
:M,.' Jf?-Z49'
IY-nis AT F
8 8

z z

8 x 0 u

Z
r
z m zz/\
\ vz\)
\
w
n
T
mFn
m
00
in m
L7
m
0
N
Z

4== IN
. rA
N?
N
N
P
0
a
w
8
n
z
N
v
W '
I 0 g
g
6
z
1
I
1
I
1

1
I
1
1
i
I

S

g

I
'I
N
0
g
? c
1 6 0
1 A
I

/
/
/

/
N
m

/ N. CO -n
/ + +

V O

O
?O M
+ p
+ A Z
? IJ
w
Z
O
W
V
P
C7 ?
r
C
m
O
Z
O

S S

Z z
c? v
(A <

x c c
8
m Z v
N p
Z `
1 \
O , J
ZM
H C (\
°' o
HINGE POINT
w FOR GUTS
a
n
a
m <
Eo HINGE POINT
?+ t FOR FILLS
0p?
'A N p 41
o IN i
M 60 r
N
rO
I C
9O
u1c:
wz
cp
N
V 1
l7i 1
1
1
c
I
1
I
I
v
O
D v
1'•? z
C m
m
O ?
Z
Z
O

N '

1 M
0 8

?
1 6 z
1
1
I
I
I

?
l
? -O 0
l
1
A '
r I
Cz
Ch O
o
. z
V
C
Sm?mW?
1 G)
Z
U10 m:qm:q0A
-n 1
N ZSzcnB
1
1 0
8
m[1 z•
m p c

z
F?ypp 0
m ? i
c
C ?
m= 5z a 1

? ? /
p>O z
D
mz
Z? C
m?0c: p /
z /
c
P /
rcn
N
Z
m
z
Z

/
/
--1
rn
rI
N 1
N
rO
I C
IRE?
z;O
Lr1 C
mz
co
N
8
I
z
Q
N
m
v
Z
C50
V " t3i
IRO
_C
&Z
L" LJ
m
c
I 1
N
PP m
N
Ul
N ?
+ O D
N
co O r-
-1 1 N
00
N m
++ O
C30 En Z
IO
IN
rg)
C
-1
c.
m
-+
v
N
0
0
N
o
i
O
-+ A . W N
X O _
rA -1 D H H rn
-i x
0 m CD CO Cl)
?
N O O C1
m n O vt
m
O
R:\Pro,J\B4ed6_r°y_<yp-d9? 6/2/99
I
.
I
I 112' Y
I
I
I
I

Q I
I
I
I
I
I I 1 1
II N ?"

I
I ?

I 1

to
N
'PO
II V e
v C I

Ell f)
I c
I (/,)
wz

D r\) co
o f I? O ? ?
V
O CD O

bob

--1
0
p

C
n I
. r ^
7V
v

?"
1 I v1

o
y? v? y
aaiaai 2 C
m
1
? Z
O
I o
Ul
I N N
O
C O N a

1 A A p
. -' oX
O C

b 1

A

D O N w C O
--1 0 .
C
p -i -48
5"
00 0
p
r ,
?O 10 A. P (n

SD 91,
-
0

i v
PV?-'
v I m
cn

/1 ?7?

N
i i z I
11
I i I I rA

~ -az
I o I ino
N
i ?

i
i V w
eC
wo
i i

I N
?'
I W
N

I z

i

I m
? ,
n
z
s ?
Z
s ? < ?
r

? o
z

L" f^
mm
__
w?
T
°a
'a A
na
0
0
TL
t
N
W
N
H
m
i
O
-i
r
1
N
-1
N
U
0
g
.dqn
a
on
in z ?
m
°
ZN
?m
yn
n°2
V
w ?
Nf
0
'Ivl?

??? a l1 n?l
j IS ??I ?I "II
11Is
ICI ?II II
11° II I II
7I?? III a
il? I? I
I
Iii ? . ?
71I =moo
a? ???III ? I
NI o?? ?. ? III
?I? I
D2 & I
711 t ? z ?I
sl II' ? ?
4 ? n ?I I °a 't6 rfl
-*-; fflxwdd A,
gR?
O ?Q
m
orr
R A. "' D D
?v
m=1 D
S
r
M,
k$ m
i n
g ? n
5 rn
omD
for
2 07
O
2
2
W
r
1
P
r
'n
v
m
N
? m
N r
x
x
W r
m
a ?
N
S
m
A
O
m
x
r
M
m
A
ogre J
q?\
\qff?
2 2
o c)
mm
CU A
cif
vo
Z Z
00
1-4
N N
LA K
=o
0o
c
v
f7
03 c:)
r m
m
??
cm
-i 1 .n
-
r
mC
m
h
p
F? ~ H
ti
o =? ?o p
?w C
rn
Uj
vi
\
n
v
N
I G
0
r
I Iz ti? >^
m
? m c
a
-t
I I• ? a
r
I ° rz m
1 ? 1
AFtR. \ \ •
e
? ri ??
1 a'i ? s } J,r2\ \
Z C) ?43t \ \
8/17/99
1 ? 'Q I \
o Ef \ \ \
4 1 waoo Posis wi . cy
6¢l STEEL CABLE
C u ,I ?
. N
Tir• - O+r.PN
Z is
O
y d
o
F
r.o
_ m
\ n'
P6? °?o
oz
` \9 N
Z \ ?6 '9?e fin

r ?
? I oA I ? x?q
A11
.71 1~?
1, ?
it
O
i ?

Is ? I I
"1I I ??
I? I
1 .?I
? •.
I I I x ?I

?? I
?€ I I I
I O
I
Iu
p ? ??
?p a
`?
1 ?I ? I
i ? ?m
4 i i 1 ? h^
A

,fR
I I VIII
I I I ?Ii?. :???
!? ? i iii ????
\Ty ?„njvwr
o -
\gefJ' ` N17'}p57'W
67.71' n,
Hr„
J)
k Nis ' ?f
•C A< 16
0
"
n
Az?
oz?? -7
°?°mz'z w3
no-
wAnm?
NPm?`-n
rr-?rr-c9i
vNm
mm-1 •Uy
m Z'
an tl
m A m 340 .
m
S?0?S
O j ea"yyy
a
8/17/99
1
rrrrryl
ti
-+-oD'D
rrrrr?
w
1 1-11
n
r
i;
n
v
a
C
it r
v Z
n ?
' m
o m
a N
D
0
m
O
A
m
A
C
t
y
n
rr+ ? 0 I
m?a ? I
N ?
I
I
o gr^
A N '?

I
? n
nz +
°
S 2?
m?O
zn
9 2
? L
.o no
N ?
m
1
r
N
n

U
IN
a
. y
A
d
r
0
? s
0
0
0
z
o^
. o
a y
N ?
v^
n°
m?
3
0
m
O
e
W00 CST S /
0 ? Cy
STEEL CABLE
E ?L?•
r
u?
?rs
`o
onZ
c m?=
Imo
s oAn
az?
?? VI
O Z
?y N n ?
v? -
o??i f?Tl
?? F rt?r
O
}\qF N!7'JB'SJ'W
r 61.3/'
M
?? ,f9J • 9 f
1
po'i'` o D v
rrrr4?
?QI
1D ?o??oD?
rrrr4v?
8M
??ro
y

oZ

? n i ? Qp
a tzn s p
a zy?oD'
11 4 4 4 r
n o
i
z $ ?-L ?~?
R
? I ~ r Qd y
1
a
1\ \\ 93
f
B,E y
o POSTS W/ 4`Pcq\
ELL CABLE ?t"Ff

D N
i
Arm
oz??
n
?opz
ti
;nymmn
N m
L "'T'ory
a p??oz
11p
JI ?nrn ?E -+
n
4 C
=a m
??^ODb :0 y^ODb
o
?y^ODb ? ?y^OD?
b? ZL
Cl)
i
i
M.9Z.b41ZN
,5['102
Y6i5Y
3,11A?SiS
r
a

w Z ? P
a ?z
O
x
Ong
;a =2
m
?An
OZ?
mN
n?n
,ooz
N q U
u N'?
T
m
Mj
Sy brig.
/99
7
-- --7? ?, ----
1r??
/92 J ?J.
•ss, f
m.
? i
Ib?1?l°b
O y '?
2C'm2?
?o?mcn 5??0\i5'
Z2
C? m
SC06y5
2 / 3,1405
' 1 I ' r • l i r
5/28/99
A
Ul
a
V
W
?O
N
O
N
P- m
L7
P Z
V
b cm
N ? ?N =
O
N
W
G
N
A
m
N
ut m
P
V
P ?
O
n
N
Ol m
C r
N P
M
m .o
N a
m
N
V
N N
co
INI
Ga
O
(J
N

g i K go
? ? Z P
x?
a?
y
x PA N
cn =
0
a:p
n npm
N? I
a
I

' I
.... ..........
<'. m "v .
n 17:

N a N -?-
a w ?o!

Ai

W
P'
A'
? rr
V
if

Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on Southbound US 29/70,185 Bus.
over Rich Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
T.I.P. No. B-4096
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
4,2
DATE William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
DATE V' Nicholas L. Graf, PE
Division Administrator, FHWA
Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on Southbound US 29/70,185 Bus.
over Rich Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8. 1602101
T.I.P. No. B-4096
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
/- //- 02.
DATE oel A. Johnson
Project Development Engineer
1-0-?a U L41
DATE William T. Goodwin Jr., P.E., nit Head
Bridge Replacement Planning Unit
DATE Lubin V. Prevatt, P.E., Assistant Manager
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 140
on Us 29/70 & I-85 Bus. over Rich Fork Creek
Davidson County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
TIP. No. B-4096
Commitments Developed Through Project Development and
Design
Division 9 Resident Engineer/Roadside Environmental Unit/Structure Design
Unit/Roadway Design Unit
Bridge Demolition:
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 140. Bridge No. 140
is composed entirely of reinforced concrete with an asphalt wearing surface. The
asphalt wearing surface can be removed without dropping into waters of the
United States. There is a potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into
waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete bridge is approximately 150 cubic yards (115 cubic
meters).
Turbidity Curtains:
Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a
turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative measure.
Revegetation:
The temporary detour structure and approaches will be removed after the
new bridge is completed, and the area will be revegetated with
appropriate plant species.
Green Sheet
Categorical Exclusion Document Pale I of 1
01/23/02
Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on Southbound US 29/70, 185 Bus.
over Rich fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
T.I.P. No. B-4096
INTRODUCTION: Bridge No. 140 is included in the 2002-2008 North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) Transportation Improvement Program 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
Bridge Maintenance Unit records indicate the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 45.2 out
of a possible 100 for a new structure. The bridge is considered to be structurally deficient.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in safer traffic operations.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located on southbound US 29/70 and I-85 Bus. over Rich Fork Creek
between Lexington and Thomasville in Davidson County (see Figure 1). Development in
the area is industrial and residential in nature.
US 29/70 and I-85 Bus. is classified as a rural minor arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and it is a Federal-Aid Highway. This route is not a designated
bicycle route and there is no indication that an unusual number of bicyclists use this
roadway.
In the vicinity of the bridge, US 29/70 and 1-85 Bus. has 24-foot (7.3-meter) pavement
widths in each direction with 10-foot (3.0-meter) grass shoulders (see Figures 3 and 4).
The median width is 24 feet (7.3 meters). The roadway grade is flat in the area of the
bridge with a slight rise in grade just west of the bridge. The existing bridge is on a
tangent. The roadway is situated approximately 22.0 feet (6.7 meters) above the creek
bed.
Bridge No. 140 is a five-span structure that consists of reinforced concrete deck girders
with an asphalt wearing surface. The end bents consist of reinforced concrete caps on
steel piles. The interior bents consist of reinforced concrete post and web piers on pile
footings. The existing bridge (see Figure 3) was constructed in 1946. The overall length
of the structure is 213 feet (64.9 meters). The clear roadway width is 30.0 feet (9.1
meters). The bridge is not posted for load limits.
There are no utilities attached to the existing structure. Duke Power has a high-tension
line crossing US 29/70 and I-85 Bus. at the south end of the existing bridge. A 4-inch
forced sewer line crosses the creek 150 feet west of the bridge. Utility impacts are
anticipated to be high.
The current traffic volume of 21,000 vehicles per day (VPD) is expected to increase to
37,500 VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes ten- percent truck-tractor
semi-trailer (TTST) and six-percent dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 55
miles (88 kilometers) per hour in the project area.
There were four accidents reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 140 during a recent
three-year period. All four accidents were in the northbound lane and none were related to
the bridge.
School bus information was not available for this location. However since an on-site
detour is being provided, school bus routing should not be affected.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The replacement structure will consist of a 230-foot (70.1-meter) long bridge. The
bridge will be 36 feet (11.0 meters) in width to provide for two 12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes
with an 8-foot (2.4-meter) offset on the outside and a 4-foot (1.2-meter) offset on the
inside.
The roadway grade of the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing
grade at this location.
The existing roadway will remain a 24-foot (7.2-meter) pavement width to provide two
12-foot (3.6-meter) lanes. An eight-foot (2.4-meter) shoulder with four-foot (1.2 meter)
paved and four-foot (1.2 meter) turf will be provided on the outside. A six-foot (1.8
meter) shoulder with two-foot (0.6 meter) paved and four-foot (1.2 meter) turf on the
inside. This roadway will be designed as a rural minor arterial.
B. Reasonable and Feasible Alternatives
The two alternatives for replacing Bridge No. 140 that were studied are described below.
Alternative 1 (Recommended) involves replacement of the structure along the existing
roadway alignment. A temporary one lane detour structure located northwest of the
existing bridge would serve as an on-site detour. Improvements to the approach roadways
will be required for a distance of approximately 450 feet (137.2 meters) each end of the
structure.
2
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Traffic will be maintained on the northbound bridge in a two-lane two-way configuration,
by use of a crossover median detour. The existing northbound structure (No. 138) has a
clear roadway width of 30 feet (9.1 meters). This structure would allow for the temporary
median barrier and one 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lane with two one-foot (0.3 meter)
shoulders in both directions. Due to this narrow travel way, an off-site wide load detour
(US 64, I-85 & NC 109) would be required.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Consideration
A third alternative to use a two-lane on-site detour was eliminated from consideration due
to the additional cost and the fact that the traffic did not justify it.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service provided by US 29/70 & I-85 Bus.
"Rehabilitation" of the old bridge is not practical due to its age, deteriorated condition
and design. The deck, superstructure and substructure are all in poor condition.
D. Recommended Alternative and Reasons for Recommendations
Bridge No. 140 will be replaced at the existing location with traffic being maintained by
an on-site detour structure as shown by Alternative 1 in Figure 2. The existing
northbound structure (No. 138) has a clear roadway width of 30 feet (9.1 meters).
Alternative 2 would use this structure to maintain traffic in both directions. This structure
would allow for the temporary median barrier and one 12-foot (3.6 meter) travel lane with
two one-foot (0.3 meter) shoulders in both directions. Due to this narrow travel way, an
off-site wide load detour (US 64, I-85 & NC 109) would be required. This off-site wide
load detour would add significantly to the user delays, require 2-3 at grade railroad
crossings and possible confusion with local wide load deliveries between the detour
points and the actual work zone. Alternative 1 is recommended because it eliminates the
tremendous user delays associated with Alternate 2. These user delays are generated
when a four lane highway is reduced to a two lane highway with reduced speed limit.
Alternate 2 would double the user delays since both directions of US 29 & 70 / I-85
Business would be affected. The NCDOT Division 9 Engineer concurs with the selection
of Alternative 1 as the recommended alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the two alternatives are as follows:
Alternative 1
Recommended Alternative 2
Structure $ 538,200 $ 538,200
Roadway Approaches $ 221,815 $ 221,815
Detour Structure and Approaches $ 450,000 $ 350,000
Structure Removal $ 51,120 $ 51,120
Misc. & Mob. $ 283,865 $ 283,865
Eng. & Contingencies $ 205,000 $ 205,000
Total Construction Cost $ 1,750,000 $ 1,650,000
Right-of-way and Utility Costs $ 165,875 $ 152,000
Total Project Cost $ 1,915,875 $ 1,802,000
The estimated cost of the project shown in the 2002-2008 NCDOT Transportation
Improvement Program is $1,100,000, including $100,000 for right-of-way, and
$1,000,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Physical Characteristics
Soil and water resources, which occur in the project study area, are discussed below. Soil
types and availability of water directly influence composition and distribution of flora
and fauna in any biotic community.
Davidson County lies in the Piedmont Physiographic Province. Land in the project study
area is characterized as gently to moderately sloping. The project is located northeast of
Lexington and southwest of Thomasville. The project study area is located
approximately 670 ft (205 m) above mean sea level.
A.1 Soils
The project study area is located within the Poindexter-Enon-Zion soil association. This
association is described as gently sloping to steep, well-drained soils with a loamy
subsurface and clayey subsoil.
Table 1 describes soil characteristics of the 3 different series that are located in the
project area and separates out the 4 different soil map units into the appropriate series.
The soil map units are defined following the table.
Table 1. Soil Series and Characteristics of the Project Area
Soil Map
Soil Series Unit in Topographic Location Drainage Permeability Hydric
Series'
Chewacla Ch flood plains poor moderate hydric Inclusions:
poorly drained soils
Mecklenburg MeB broad ridges and uplands well slow non-hydric
Poindexter PnE, upland ridges and side well moderate non-hydric
PUB slopes
I Ch: Chewacla clay loam, frequently flooded
MeB: Mecklenburg laom, 2-8% slopes
PnE: Poindexter-Zion sandy loams,15-25% slopes
PUB: Poindexter-Zion-Urban land complex, 2-15%
A.2 Water Resources
This section contains information concerning those water resources likely to be impacted
by the project. Water resource information encompasses the resources' relationship to
major water systems, its physical aspects, best usage classification, and water quality of
the resources. Probable impacts to these water bodies are also discussed, as are means to
minimize impacts.
A.2.1 Characteristics of Water Resources
Water resources located within the project study area lie in the Yadkin-PeeDee River
Basin, Division of Water Quality (DWQ) sub-basin 03-07-07, and the United State
Department of Interior Hydrologic Unit 03040103. Water resources include Rich Fork
Creek.
Rich Fork Creek originates approximately 17.5 mi (28.2 km) northeast of the project
study area and flows southwest. Approximately 3.2 mi (5.1 km) southwest of Bridge No.
140, Rich Fork Creek converges with Abbotts Creek. Rich Fork Creek at the project site
is approximately 25 ft (7.6 m) wide and is 3 ft (0.9 m) deep in the pools and 1 ft (0.3 m)
deep in the riffles. The flow rate was moderate and the clarity was good during the site
visit. The substrate is composed primarily of silt with areas having cobble and gravel. A
point bar is located north of the bridge, on the eastern bank.
A.2.2 Best Usage Classification
Streams have been assigned a best usage classification by the DWQ. According to the
DWQ, the best usage classification of Rich Fork Creek (DWQ Index No. 12-119-7) is C
(Date 9/1/74). Class C waters are suitable for aquatic life propagation and survival,
fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. No water resources classified as
High Quality Waters (HQW's), Water Supplies (WS-I orWS-II) or Outstanding Resource
Waters (ORW's) are located within 1.0 mi (1.6 kni) of the project study area.
A.2.3 Water Quality
The DWQ has initiated a basinwide approach to water quality management for the 17
river basins within the state. This was accomplished with the Ambient Monitoring
System (AMS) which is a network of stream, lake, and estuarine water quality monitoring
stations. The program assesses water quality by collecting physical and chemical water
quality data at fixed monitoring sites every five years. This data is used for basinwide
assessment and planning. The nearest station is 1.3 mi (2.1 km) northwest of Bridge No.
140 at Lake Thom-A-Lex. This site was last sampled July 1994 and was found to be
eutrophic and fully support its designated uses (NCDENR, 1998).
Likewise, the Benthic Macroinvertebrate Ambient Network (BMAN) is managed by the
DWQ and is part of an ongoing ambient water quality monitoring program which
addresses long term trends in water quality. The program assesses water quality by
sampling for selected benthic macroinvertebrate organisms at fixed monitoring sites.
Macroinvertebrates are sensitive to very subtle changes in water quality; thus, the species
richness and overall biomass of these organisms are reflections of water quality. BMAN
sampling station B-20 (Rich Fork Creek, SR 2123, Davidson County) is located 0.97 mi
(0.57 km) southwest, downstream from Bridge No. 140. This site was sampled in
September 1983 and received a bioclassification of Poor (NCDENR, 1998). BMAN
sampling station B-18 (Rich Fork, NC 109, Davidson County) is located 7:4 mi (11.9 km)
northeast, upstream of Bridge No. 140. This site was sampled in April 1996 and received
a bioclassification of Fair (NCDENR, 1998).
Point source pollution refers to discharges that enter surface water through a pipe, ditch,
or other defined points of discharge. Point source dischargers located throughout North
Carolina are permitted through the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) program. Any person discharging pollutants from point source into the waters
of the United States is required to obtain a NPDES permit. Lexingon Water Treatment
Plant (Permit No. NC0028037 Date, 8/18/93) in Davidson County is a permitted point
source discharger to Abbotts Creek on US 29/70 & I-85 Business. Abbotts Creek crosses
US 29/70-I85 Business 1.4 mi (2.3 km) southwest of Bridge No. 140.
Non-point source pollution refers to runoff that enters surface waters through stormwater
flow or a non-defined point of discharge. There are many types of land use activities that
can serve as sources of non-point source pollution in the Yadkin-Pee Dee River Basin
near the project study area. Agriculture, such as crop production; urban runoff;
construction, including roads and land development; and silviculture, including
harvesting, reforestation, and maintenance are the primary sources of non-point source
pollution to Rich Fork Creek (NCDENR, 1998).
A.2.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
Potential impacts to water resources in the project study area are dependent upon final
construction limits. Roadway construction in and adjacent to water resources may result
in water quality impacts. Clearing and grubbing activities near the water will result in
soil erosion leading to increased sedimentation and turbidity. These effects may extend
downstream for considerable distance with decreasing intensity.
Removal of streamside vegetation will have a negative effect on water quality. The
vegetation typically shades the water's surface from sunlight, thus moderating water
temperature. The removal of streamside canopy during construction will result in more
extreme fluctuating water temperatures. During warmer portions of the year, the water
temperature will increase, resulting in a decrease in dissolved oxygen because warmer
water holds less oxygen. Streambank vegetation is also important because it stabilizes
streambanks and reduces sedimentation by trapping soil particles.
Construction activities adjacent to water resources increase the potential for toxic
compounds (gas, oil, and highway spills) to be carried into nearby water resources via
precipitation, sheet flow, and subsurface drainage. Increased amounts of toxic materials
can adversely alter the water quality of any water resource, thus impacting its biological
and chemical functions. Indirect impacts to surface waters may extend both upstream and
downstream of the project study area. Indirect impacts may include changes in flooding
regime, discharge, erosion, and sedimentation patterns.
Removal of a bridge can cause impacts to water resources. Bridge No. 140 is entirely
composed of reinforced concrete. There is a potential for components of the bridge to be
dropped into waters of the United States during construction. Conditions in the stream
will raise sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended as a
preventative measure.
In order to minimize impacts to water resources in the entire impact area, NCDOT's Best
Management Practices (BMPs) for the Protection of Surface Waters should be strictly
enforced during the entire life of the project. The NCDOT, in cooperation with the
DWQ, has developed a sedimentation control program for highway projects which adopts
formal BMPs for the protection of surface waters. Because Bridge No. 140 is being
removed, NCDOT's BMP for Bridge Demolition and Removal shall be used as well.
These practices were developed in coordination with the United States Army Corps of
Engineers (COE), the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission (WRC), and the
National Marine Fisheries Service in order to establish a consistent, environmentally
sound approach to the demolition and removal of bridges on North Carolina's public road
system.
Erosion and sedimentation will be most pronounced as a result of disturbance of the
stream banks and substrate. Sedimentation from these activities may be high during
construction, but should diminish rapidly following project completion if exposed soils
are revegetated and streambanks stabilized.
Although temporary impacts to the stream cannot be avoided altogether, impacts could be
minimized if Alternate 2 was chosen rather than Alternate 1. Less streamside vegetation
would be removed and there would be decreased construction activity adjacent to water
resources with Alternate 2. Therefore, from a water resources perspective, Alternate 2 is
preferred.
B. Biotic Resources
Biotic resources include aquatic and terrestrial ecosystems. This system describes those
ecosystems encountered in the study area as well as the relationships between flora and
fauna within these ecosystems. Composition and distribution of biotic communities
throughout the project area are reflective of topography, hydrologic influences, and past
and present land uses. Descriptions of the terrestrial systems are presented in the context
of plant community classifications.
Dominant flora and fauna likely to occur in each community are described and discussed.
Fauna observed during field investigations are denoted with an asterisk (*). Scientific
nomenclature and common names (when applicable) are provided for each animal and
plant species described. Subsequent references to the same organism will include the
common name only.
Plant community descriptions are based on a classification system utilized by the 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). Habitats 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 (Martof et al. 1980; Webster et al. 1985; Rohde et al. 1994;
Potter et al. 1980).
B.1 Terrestrial Communities
There are two terrestrial communities that are identifiable in the project study area:
disturbed community, and hardwood forest.
B.1.1 Disturbed Community
This community includes two types of habitat that have recently been or are currently
impacted by human disturbance including regularly maintained roadside shoulder and
irregularly maintained roadside shoulder. These habitats are kept in a low-growing, early
successional state. The regularly maintained roadside shoulder is mowed frequently and
is dominated by herbaceous vegetation. Dominant species include fescue (Festuca sp.),
foxtail grass (Setaria sp.), poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), common plantain
(Plantago major), wood sorrel (Oxalis sp.), dandelion (Taraxacum officinale), and violets
(Viola sp.). The irregularly maintained disturbed community has higher growing
herbaceous vegetation with scattered tree saplings. Dominant vegetation includes similar
species as the regularly maintained areas as well as broomsedge (Andropogon sp.), red
cedar (Juniperus virginiana), and sweetgum (Liquidambar styraciflua) saplings.
B.1.2 Hardwood Forest
This hardwood forest community is composed of uneven aged trees and low-growing
herbaceous vegetation, with the exception of giant cane (Arundinaria gigantea). The
vegetation is similar throughout; however, the frequency of riparian vegetation increases
as the project study area approaches the creek. Hydrophytic vegetation also increases in
the defined wetland communities located within the hardwood forest community.
Species not predominate throughout this community but that were dominant in the
defined wetland area, are listed in the wetland description (See Section C.1.1.2). The
hardwood forest is located in a depression compared to the surrounding disturbed
community with the elevation steadily increasing as it gets further away from the stream.
Some of the wetland areas located in this community may have resulted from stormwater
running off the steep fill slopes of the road and settling in the depression.
Dominant species located in the canopy and subcanopy include sycamore (Platanus
occidentalis), ironwood (Carpinus caroliniana), tulip poplar (Lireodendron tulipifera),
red maple (Acer rubrum), sweetgum, riverbirch (Betula nigra), box elder (Acer negundo),
green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), elderberry (Sambucus canadensis), and winged elm
(Ulmus alata). The herbaceous and shrubby vegetation includes giant cane, fescue,
oatgrass (Danthonia sp.), common plantain, ragweed (Ambrosia sp.), violets, poison ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans), trumpet creeper (Campsis radicans) Virginia creeper
(Parthenocissus quinquefolia), Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica), common
greenbrier (Smilax rotundifolia), jewelweed (Impatiens sp.), muscadine grape (Vitis
rotundifolia), multiflora rose (Rosa multiflora), Chinese privet (Ligustrum sinense), and
blackberry (Rubus argutus).
B.2 Faunal Component
Many species prefer open, disturbed habitat to feed and nest in. The least shrew
(Cryptotis parva) inhabits relatively open areas dominated by herbaceous vegetation.
Birds such as mourning doves (Zenaida macroura) and American crows (Corvus
ossifragus) forage for seeds and insects in open, disturbed areas. Soaring over open areas
searching for carrion, turkey vultures (Cathartes aura) may be observed.
Many species are highly adaptive and may utilize the edges of forests and clearings or
prefer a mixture of habitat types. The Eastern cottontail (Sylvilagus floridanus) prefers a
mix of herbaceous and woody vegetation and may be found in the dense shrub vegetation
or out in the pasture. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus)* will utilize the forested
areas as well as the adjacent open areas. The black rat snake (Elaphe obsoleta) will come
out of forested habitat to forage in open areas. Northern mockingbirds (Mimus
polyglottos) may be observed perched singing in edge habitat in urban areas. Blue jays
(Cyanocitta cristata), chipping sparrows (Spizella passerina)*, and bluebirds (Sialia
sialis) also utilize edge habitat.
Many species prefer to forage and nest primarily in forested communities. The opossum
(Didelphis viginiana) and the raccoon (Procyon lotor)* prefer woodlands but can be
observed as roadkill in open areas as well. In the leaf litter of the forested habitats, the
golden mouse (Ochrotomys nuttalli) and the white-footed mouse (Peromyscus lencopus)
may be found. Gray squirrels (Sciurus carolinensis)* are often observed in wooded
areas. The spring peeper (Hyla crucifer) can be found under forest litter and in brushy
undergrowth. The Eastern box turtle (Terrapene carolina) is a terrestrial turtle but will
be found near streams in hot, dry weather. The five-lined skink (Eumeces fasciatus) may
also be found in forested communities. Birds such as the Northern cardinal (Thryothorus
ludovicianus)*, tufted titmouse (Pares bicolor)*, red eyed vireo (Vireo olivaceus)*, and
carolina wren (Thryothorus ludovicianus)* will forage and nest within the hardwood
forest community. The Southeastern shrew (Sorex longirostris) may be found in the
more densely vegetated areas of the hardwood forest.
B.3 Aquatic Community
There is a perennial stream located in the project study area. Physical processes such as
flow variability, channel structure, and substrate have a tremendous influence on the
ecology of streams. Physical processes in addition to the chemistry and temperature of
the stream water have a profound influence on the aquatic biota that the stream is capable
of supporting.
Perennial streams sustain flow throughout the year. Perennial streams support an
assemblage of fauna that require constant source of flowing water, as compared to
intermittent or standing water. Mammals such as white-tailed deer and raccoons will
utilize streams from the banks. The northern dusky salamander (Desmognathus fuscus)
and the three-lined salamander (Eurycea gultolineata) both are found in wooded areas of
piedmont streams and creeks. Green frogs (Rana clamitans), Fowler's toads (Bufo
woodhousei), Eastern box turtles, and painted turtles (Chrysemys picta) frequent forested
streams. Fish species that may be located here include the rosyside dace (Clinostomus
funduloides), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocephalus), golden shiner (Notemigonus
crysolencas), redlip shiner (Notropis chiliticus), creek chub (Semotilus atromaculatus),
redbreast sunfish (Lepomis auritus), and bluegill (Lepomis macrochirusi).
10
B.4 Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Construction of the subject project will have various impacts on the biotic resources
described. Any construction related activities in or near these resources have the
potential to impact biological functions. This section quantifies and qualifies impacts to
the natural resources in terms of the ecosystems affected. Usually, project construction
does not require the entire ROW width; therefore, actual impacts may be considerably
less. All measurements are approximate.
B.4.1 Terrestrial Impacts
Calculated impacts to terrestrial communities reflect the relative abundance of each
community (Table 2). Project construction will result in the clearing and degradation of
portions of these communities. Estimated impacts are derived using the ROW limits
within the project study area. Because the ROW limits are designated as the same area
for both alternates, the calculated impacts will be the same. However, it is anticipated
that the impacts for Alternate 2 will be less than the calculated impacts since it will not
require the construction of a temporary on-site detour.
Table 2. Anticipated Impacts to Terrestrial Communities
Community Area of Impact *
Disturbed Community 0.40 ha / 0.98 ac
Hardwood Forest 0.48 ha / 1.18 ac
TOTAL 0.88 ha / 2.16 ac
*Because the ROW limits for both alternates are the same, the Impacts depicted for each will be the same.
The biotic communities found within the project area will be altered as a result of project
construction. Terrestrial communities serve as nesting, foraging, and sheltering habitat
for fauna. During construction, species that utilize open disturbed habitat will
temporarily be displaced. Eventually, altered areas will revegetate and a disturbed
community will be re-established. Because the species that inhabit disturbed
communities are adapted to living in highly altered habitats, the area should be
repopulated by species for which suitable habitat is provided following project
completion.
Some of the forested habitats located in the project study area are already relatively
fragmented by disturbed, open areas. Following construction completion and
revegetation, edge species will still have adequate habitat and the impacts from the loss of
habitat should be minimal. The forested habitat loss will potentially impact fauna not
located in the project study area as well. Interior species may be impacted from the
reduced forested habitat available. If forested tracts become too small in area, interior
species will not repopulate. However, because the impact will be along the already
11
disturbed edge habitat, and due to the fragmented nature of the area, impacts to fauna in
the forest communities should be minimal.
B.4.2 Aquatic and Wetland Impacts
Construction activities will impact the water resources located in the project area as well
as those downstream. Impacts are likely to result from the physical disturbance of
aquatic habitats (i.e. substrate and water quality). Disturbance of aquatic habitats has a
detrimental effect on aquatic community composition by reducing species diversity and
the overall quality of aquatic habitats. Physical alterations to aquatic habitats can result
in the following impacts to aquatic communities:
Inhibition of plant growth
Algae blooms resulting from increased nutrient concentrations
Loss of benthic macroinvertebrates through scouring resulting from an increased
sediment load.
Road construction impacts can effect the functions that wetlands perform in ecosystem as
well. Wetlands influence regional water flow regimes by intercepting and storing storm
runoff which ultimately reduces the dangers of flooding in surrounding and downstream
areas. Loss of wetland communities will result in loss of water storage area. Wetlands
have been documented to remove organic and inorganic nutrients and toxic materials
from water that flows across them as well as decrease the sediment load. In this respect,
impacting wetlands can directly affect the water quality, and therefore the aquatic
organisms, of the streams in the project study area.
Impacts to aquatic communities can be minimized by strict adherence to BMPs for
Protection of Surface Waters and BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal. Strict
erosion and sedimentation controls will be maintained during the entire life of the project.
B.4.3 Environmentally Preferred Alternate
Because the ROW limits are the same for both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2, impacts are
depicted the same for both alternates in Section B.4.1 and B.4.2. However it is
anticipated that project construction for Alternate 2 will require less area of the ROW
than Alternate 1 because it will not require an on-site detour to be constructed. It is
anticipated that impacts to both aquatic and terrestrial communities will be greater for
Alternate 1. Therefore, from a natural resources perspective, Alternate 2 is preferred.
C. Jurisdictional Issues
12
This section provides descriptions, inventories, and impact analysis pertinent to two
important issues: Waters of the United States and Protected and Rare Species.
C.1 Waters of the United States
Surface waters and jurisdictional wetlands fall under the broad category of "waters of the
United States," as defined under Title 33 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR)
§328.3 (a). Wetlands, defined in 33 CFR §328.3 (b), are those areas that are inundated
or saturated by surface or ground water at a frequency and duration sufficient to support,
and under normal circumstances do support, a prevalence of vegetation typically adapted
to life in saturated conditions. Surface waters are waters used in interstate or foreign
commerce, waters subject to ebb and flow-of tides, all interstate waters including
interstate wetlands, and all other waters such as intrastate lakes, rivers, and streams. Any
action that proposes to place fill material into these areas falls under the jurisdiction of
the COE under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344).
C.1.1 Characteristics of Wetlands and Surface Waters
C.1.1.1 Jurisdictional Streams
Rich Fork Creek is the only jurisdictional stream located in the project study area and is
fully discussed in Section A.2.1.
C.1.1.2 Jurisdictional Wetlands
Potential wetland communities were evaluated using criteria specified in the 1987 "Corps
of Engineers Wetland Delineation Manual". For an area to be considered a "wetland", the
following specifications must be met; 1) presence of hydric soils (low soil chroma
values), 2)-presence of hydrophytic vegetation, and 3) evidence of hydrology, including;
saturated soils, stained leaf litter, oxidized rhizospheres, matted vegetation, high water
marks on trees, buttressed tree bases, and surface roots.
There are 5 wetland areas identified within the project study area. The approximate
impact area for each is noted in Table 3.
Wetland A
Wetland A is located directly under the bridge bents west of Rich Fork Creek near the
banks in a very disturbed location. It is approximately 0.06 ac (0.024 ha) in area. This
wetland is an open area that is driven on to cross under the bridge, with compacted clay
soils and is considered marginal. It is unlikely that the hydrology is coming from
overbank flooding of Rich Fork Creek. Low chroma soil colors were observed.
13
Dominant vegetation includes poison ivy, rush (Juncus sp.), red maple, grape, and
American elm (Ulmus americana).
Wetland B
Wetland B is located under the bridge bents east of Rich Fork Creek near the banks in a
very disturbed location. It is approximately 0.064 ac (0.026 ha) in area. It is in an open
area with compacted clay soils and is considered marginal. It is unlikely that the
hydrology is coming from overbank flooding of Rich Fork Creek. Low chroma soil
colors and water stained leaves were observed. Dominant vegetation includes poison ivy,
grape, box elder, goldenrod, and bedstraw (Galium aparine).
Wetland C
Wetland C is located west of Rich Fork Creek in a depression that is parallel to US 29/70
& I-85 Business. This wetland is located within a hardwood forest community in an area
where the abundance of hydrophytic vegetation is increased. It is approximately 0.071 ac
(0.029 ha) in area. Low chroma soil colors (5Y4/1), water stained leaves, water in the pit,
and saturated soils were observed. Dominant vegetation includes Japanese honeysuckle,
netted chain fern (Woodwardia areolata), sweetgum, elderberry, ironwood, green ash,
and tag alder (Alnus serrulata).
Wetland D
Wetland D is located east of Rich Fork Creek parallel to US 29/70 & I-85 Business in the
hardwood forest community. It is approximately 0.012 ac (0.005 ha) in area. Low
chroma soil colors (10YR5/1), drainage patterns were observed however the soils were
marginal in areas. Dominant vegetation includes poison ivy, box elder, sweetgum, red
maple, violet, and a sedge (Carex sp.)
Wetland E
Wetland E is located east of Rich Fork Creek, northeast of wetland D, and is associated
with a ponded area outside of the ROW limits. This wetland is located in a hardwood
forest community. It is approximately 0.022 ac (0.009 ha) in area. Low chroma soil
colors (10YR5/1), drainage patterns were observed however the soils were marginal in
areas. Dominant vegetation includes poison ivy, box elder, sweetgum, red maple, violet,
and a sedge.
C.1.2 Summary of Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
14
Approximately 90 feet (24.4 meters) of Rich Fork Creek is located within the project
study area. Actual impacts to the surface water community may be less than reported
because the entire ROW width and easements are often not impacted by construction
projects. The amount of surface water impacts may be modified by any changes in
roadway design. Temporary causeways associated with the on-site detour and/or bridge
construction and demolition may be required.
Bridge No. 140 is composed entirely of reinforced concrete. There is a potential for
components of the bridge to be dropped into waters of the United States during
construction. The resulting temporary fill associated with the concrete bridge is
approximately 150 cubic yards (115 cubic meters). Conditions in the stream will raise
sediment concerns and therefore a turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative
measure. Bridge demolition is classified as a Case 3, for which there are no special
restrictions beyond those outlined in BMPs for the Protection of Surface Waters and
BMPs for Bridge Demolition and Removal.
There are 5 wetland systems located within the ROW limits of the project. The total
estimated impact to these areas by the project is 0.229 ac (0.093 ha).
Table 3. Estimated Area of Wetland Impacts
Wetland Name Impact Area (acres) (hectares)
Wetland A 0.060 0.024
Wetland B 0.064 0.026
Wetland C 0.071 0.029
Wetland D 0.012 0.005
Wetland E 0.022 0.009
Total 0.229 ac 0.093 ha
Because the ROW limits are the same for both Alternate 1 and Alternate 2, impacts are
depicted the same for both alternates in Section B.4.1 and B.4.2. However it is
anticipated that project construction for Alternate 2 will require less area of the ROW
than Alternate 1 because it will not require an on-site detour to be constructed. It is
anticipated that impacts to both wetland and streams will be greater for Alternate 1.
Therefore, from a waters of the United States perspective, Alternate 2 is preferred.
C.1.3 Permits
Impacts to surface waters are anticipated from project construction. In accordance with
provisions of Section 404 of the CWA, a permit will be required from the COE for
discharge of dredge or fill material into "waters of the United States." Due to surface
water impacts, a Section 404 Nationwide (NWP) 23 Permit will be necessary for this
project. The COE reserves the discretionary authority to process the permit application as
an individual permit.
15
A NWP 23 authorizes activities undertaken, assisted, authorized, regulated, funded or
financed in whole, or part, by another Federal agency or department where: that agency
or department has determined that pursuant to the council on environmental quality
regulation for implementing the procedural provisions of the National Environmental
Policy Act; that the activity, work, or discharge is categorically excluded from
environmental documentation because it is included within a category of actions which
neither individually nor cumulatively have a significant effect on the human environment,
and; that the office of the Chief of Engineers has been furnished notice of the agency' or
department's application for the categorical exclusion and concurs with that
determination.
This project will require a CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the DWQ
prior to the issuance of the Nationwide Permit. Section 401 of the CWA requires that the
state issue or deny water certification for any federally permitted or licensed activity that
may result in a discharge to waters of the United States. The issuance of a 401 permit
from the DWQ is a prerequisite to issuance of a Section 404 permit.
C.1.4 Avoidance, Minimization, Mitigation
The function of avoidance, minimization, and mitigation is to restore and maintain the
chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the United States by avoiding
impacts, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts. Each of these three aspects
(avoidance, minimization, and compensatory mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
Avoidance mitigation examines all appropriate and practical possibilities of averting
impacts to waters of the United States. According to a 1990 Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA) between the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and COE, in determining
"appropriate and practical" measures to offset unavoidable impacts, such measures should
be appropriate to the scope and degree of those impacts and practical in terms of costs,
existing technology and logistics in light of overall project purposes.
Minimization includes the examination of appropriate and practical steps to reduce the
adverse impacts to waters of the United States. Implementation of these steps will be
required through project modifications and permit conditions. Practical means to
minimize impacts to surface waters and wetlands impacted by the proposed project
include:
• Decreasing the footprint of the proposed project through the reduction of median
width, ROW widths, fill slopes and/or road shoulder widths.
• Installation of temporary silt fences, earth berms, and temporary ground cover during
construction.
• Strict enforcement of sedimentation and erosion control BMPs for the protection of
surface waters and wetlands.
• Reduction of clearing and grubbing activity in and adjacent to water bodies.
16
Compensatory mitigation is not normally considered until anticipated impacts to waters
of the United States have been avoided and minimized to the maximum extent possible.
Appropriate and practicable compensatory mitigation is required for unavoidable adverse
impacts which remain after all appropriate and practicable minimization has been
required. Compensatory actions often include restoration, creation, and enhancement of
waters of the United States. Such actions should be undertaken in areas adjacent to or
contiguous to the discharge site.
C.2 Protected and Rare Species
Some populations of fauna and flora have been in, or are in, the process of decline either
due to natural forces or their inability to coexist with human activities. Federal law
(under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act [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 USFWS. Other species may receive additional
protection under separate state laws.
C.2.1 Federally-protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classifications of Endangered, Threatened, Proposed
Endangered, and Proposed Threatened are protected under provisions of Section 7 and
Section 9 of the ESA. As of 22 March 2001, there are three federally-protected species
listed for Davidson County (Table 4). A brief description of each species' characteristics
and habitat follows.
Table 4. Federally Protected Species in Davidson County.
Common Name Scientific Name Status'
Bog Turtle Clemmys muhlenbergii T(S/A)
Bald Eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Threatened
Schweinitz's sunflower Helianthus schweinizii Endangered
Endangered species are a taxon which is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of
its range.
Threatened species are a taxon likely to become endangered within the foreseeable future throughout all
or a significant portion of its range.
T(S/A):Treatened due to Similarity of Appearance listed species are a species that is threatened due
due to similarity of appearance with other rare species and is listed for its protection. These species are not
biologically endangered or threatened and are not subject to Section 7 consultation.
Clemmys muhlenbergi (Bog turtle) Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance
(southern population)
Family: Emydidae
17
Date Listed: 4 June 1987
The bog turtle is found in the eastern United States, in two distinct regions. The northern
population, in Massachusetts, Connecticut, southern New York, New Jersey,
Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Delaware is listed as Threatened and protected by the
Endangered Species Act. The southern population, occurring in Virginia, North Carolina,
South Carolina, Tennessee; and Georgia is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of
Appearance.
This species is listed as Threatened Due to Similarity of Appearance, and is therefore not
protected under Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act. However, in order to control
the illegal trade of individuals from the protected northern population, federal regulations
are maintained on the commercial trade of all bog turtles. No survey is required for this
species.
Haliaeetus leucocephalus (Bald Eagle) Threatened
Family: Accipitridae
Date Listed: 11 March 1967
The bald eagle is a large raptor. The characteristic adult plumage consists of a white head
and tail with a dark brown body. Juvenile eagles are completely dark brown and do not
fully develop the majestic white head and tail until the fifth or sixth year. Fish are the
primary food source but bald eagles will also take a variety of birds, mammals, and
turtles (both live and as carrion) when fish are not readily available. Adults average
about three feet from head to tail, weigh approximately 10 to 12 pounds and have a
wingspread that can reach seven feet. Generally, female bald eagles are somewhat larger
than the males.
Breeding pairs of bald eagles unite for life or until the death of their mate. The typical
nest is constructed of large sticks and lined with soft materials such as pine needles and
grasses. Many nests are believed to be used by the same pair of eagles year after year.
Eagle nests are found in close proximity to water (within a half mile) with a clear flight
path to the water, in the largest living tree in an area, and having an open view of the
surrounding land. Human disturbance can cause an eagle to abandon otherwise suitable
habitat.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
No water bodies large enough to support this species occur within a half -mile of the
project study area. The edge of Lake Thom-A-Lex is located within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the
project area, however, a review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats
on 27 February 2001 revealed no records of this species within 1 mi (1.6 km) of the
project study area. Project construction will not have an impact on foraging or nesting
opportunities for the bald eagle.
18
Helianthus schweinitzii (Schweinitz's Sunflower) Endangered
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 6 June 1991
This rhizomatous perennial herb grows from 3 to 6 feet (1 to 2 meters) tall from a cluster
of carrot-like tuberous roots. Stems are usually solitary, branching only at or above mid-
stem. The stem is usually pubescent but can be nearly glabrous; it is often purple. The
leaves are opposite on the lower stem, changing to alternate above. In shape, they are
lanceolate, wider near their bases, but variable in size, being generally larger on the lower
stem, and gradually reduced upwards. Texture of the leaves is rather thick and stiff. The
pubescence of the leaves is distinctive and is one of the best characters to distinguish
Schweinitz's sunflower from its relatives. The upper surface of the leaves is rough, with
the broad-based spinose hairs directed toward the tip of the leaf. The lower surface is
more or less densely pubescent, with soft white hairs obscuring the leaf surface. From
September to frost, Schweinitz's sunflower blooms with comparatively small heads of
yellow flowers.
The species occurs in clearings and edges of upland woods on moist to dryish clays, clay-
loams, or sandy clay-loams that often have a high gravel content and are moderately
podzolized. The underlying rock types are highly weatherable, generally contain low
amounts of resistant minerals such as quartz, and generally weather to fine-textured soils.
Schweinitz's sunflower usually grows in open habitats not typical of the current general
landscape in the piedmont of the Carolinas.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Potential habitat for Schweinitz's sunflower is present within the project study area. A
known specimen was observed prior to the site visit. A plant by plant survey for
Schweinitz's sunflower along the project corridor was conducted on 24 September 2001
by NCDOT biologist. No individual plants or populations of Schweinitz's sunflower
were observed. A review of the North Carolina Natural Heritage Program database of
Rare Species and Unique Habitats revealed no known occurrences of this species within 1
mile (1.6 km) of the project study area. Therefore it can be concluded that construction
of this project will not impact this species.
C.2.2 Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are those plant and animal species which may or may
not be listed in the future. As of 26 February 2001, there are two FSC listed for Davidson
County. FSC are not afforded federal protection under the ESA and are not subject to
any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally proposed or listed as
Threatened or Endangered. Organisms which are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or
Special Concern by the NHP list of Rare Plants and Animal Species 1993 are afforded
state protection or are monitored under the State Endangered Species Act and the NC
Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979. However, the level of protection given to
the state listed species does not apply to NCDOT activities. As of 26 February 2001,
19
there is also one C 1 species listed for Davidson County. C 1 species are a taxon under
consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to support
listing. Table 5 provides the FSC and Cl species listed for Davidson County and
indicates the species state status, and whether or not there is adequate habitat for each
species in the project area.
Table 5. Federal Species of Concern and C1 Species Listed for Davidson County
.Common Name Scientific Name State Status' Habitat
Carolina darter Etheostoma collis lepidinion SC Yes
Heller's trefoil Lotus helled C Yes
Georgia aster Aster eongianus C1* Yes
Special Concern (SC) species are a taxon in North Carolina which requires monitoring
Candidate (C) species are a taxon that is very rare in North Carolina, generally with 1.20 populations in the
state.
C1 species are a taxon under consideration for official listing for which there is sufficient information to
support listing.
*C1 is a federal listing classification. Georgia aster is not a FSC.
A review of the NHP database of Rare Species and Unique Habitats on 27 February 2001
revealed no record of any FSC or any other rare and/or protected species within 1 mi (1.6
km) of the project study area. Surveys for the listed FSC were not conducted during the
site visit, nor were any observed.
Vl. CULTURAL RESOURCES
A. Compliance Guidelines
This project is subject to compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act of 1966, as amended, implemented by the Advisory Council on Historic
Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106, codified at Title 36 CFR
Part 800. Section 106 requires 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 afford the Advisory
Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A meeting was held with The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) to evaluate
potential effects of the project. Bridge No. 140 was built in 1946 and is the only historic
architectural structure located within the area of potential effect. Therefore, SHPO
recommended that the bridge be surveyed for eligibility for the National Register, and
recommended that no additional historic architectural surveys be conducted.
20
The area of potential effect (APE) was reviewed by an NCDOT staff architectural
historian, representatives of the Federal Highway Administration, and the SHPO. Bridge
No. 140 was determined to be not eligible for the National Register. The Concurrence
Form for Properties Not Eligible for the National Register of Historic Places is included
in the appendix.
C. Archaeology
The SHPO indicated that there were no known recorded archaeological sites within the
area of potential effect. However, since an on-site detour is proposed, the SHPO
recommended that an archaeological investigation be conducted in connection with this
proj ect.
The area of potential effect was surveyed by NCDOT archaeologist and a report was
submitted to the SHPO. There were no archaeological sites discovered. The SHPO
concurred with this finding in their letter dated October 25, 2001 (see appendix).
VII. GENERAL ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS
The project is expected to have an overall positive impact. Replacement of an inadequate
bridge will result in safer traffic operations.
The project is considered to be a Federal "Categorical Exclusion" due to its limited scope
and lack of substantial environmental consequences.
The bridge replacement will not have an adverse effect on the quality of the human or
natural environment with the use of the current North Carolina Department of
Transportation standards and specifications.
The project-is not in conflict with any plan, existing land use, or zoning regulation. No
change in land use is expected to result from the construction of the project.
No adverse impact on families or communities is anticipated. Right-of-Way acquisition
will be limited. No relocatees are expected with implementation of the proposed
alternative.
No adverse effect on public facilities or services is expected. The project is not expected
to adversely affect social, economic, or religious opportunities in the area.
The proposed project will not require right-of-way acquisition or easement from any land
protected under Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966.
This project has been coordinated with the United States Natural Resources Conservation
Service. The Farmland Protection Policy Act requires all federal agencies or their
representatives to consider the potential impact to prime farmland of all land acquisition
21
and construction projects. All work will be done within the existing right-of-way. There
are no soils classified as prime, unique, or having state or local importance in the vicinity
of the project. Therefore, the project will not involve the direct conversion of farmland
acreage within these classifications.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the
regional emissions analysis and a project level CO analysis is not required. If vegetation
is disposed of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local
laws and regulations of the North Carolina State Implementation Plan (SIP) for air quality
in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation completes the assessment
requirements for air quality (1990 Clean Air Act Amendments and the National
Environmental Policy Act) and no additional reports are required.
The project will not substantially increase traffic volumes. Therefore, it will not have
substantial impact on noise levels. Temporary noise increases may occur during
construction. This evaluation completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic
noise of Title 23, Code of Federal Regulation (CFR), Part 772 and no additional reports
are required.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Environmental Management, Groundwater Section and the North
Carolina Department of Human Resources, Solid Waste Management Section revealed no
underground storage tanks or hazardous waste sites in the project area.
Davidson County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Program. There are no
practical alternatives to crossing the floodplain area. Any shift in alignment will result in
an impact area of about the same magnitude. The proposed project is not anticipated to
increase the level or extent of upstream flood potential.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse
environmental impacts will result from implementation of the project.
22

I.
r'•
I•
I
? ? ZlII
I
I
/
i
1
I
I I
/ I
1
am
oa NO""' c?
9'. NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
B TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
'??or Tn?M?"
DAVIDSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 140 ON US 29/70 -185 BUS
OVER RICH FORK CREEK
B-4096
I Figure One I
] _
\ UWI...n Count 739
to..nv It, C.N9. 3 -
197. 2179
i
¦or.1a.
AA / It-12 / % Toc.rncG. Cn
1798
o i
• I L Z7n5f
2024
Z4j ' \ - s
;M
8 1)
? ? Z'44 P42
\
2710
? I
2711
r Z !3
2713
?I Ne•._ L
i 71=
?..` w 3wo
95
•
•I /
i
._ N
2017
Z
I l ?
\ - 2018 2579
/
I 1 n
e0or1.1 tn. 00
21" Im
Bridge No. 140 97 1 92
Z
ZT-
2123 2700 ? • dz /
B-4096 FIGURE 3
Looking North from the Bridge
East Face of Bridge
B-4096 FIGURE 4 i
i
West Face of Bridge
..MtiM
y 5C
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
October 25, 2001
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
De artment of Transportation

P
FROM: David Brooke
SUBJECT: Bridge No. 140 on US 29/70/I-85, Davidson County, B-4096, ER 01-7912, ER 02-7602
Thank you for your letter of September 5, 2001, transmitting the archaeological survey report by Brian
Overton and Paul Mohler for the above project. No archaeological sites were discovered.We recommend
that no archaeological work be conducted for this project as proposed.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act and the
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36
CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking number.
DB:kgc
Location Mailing Address
Administration 507 N. Blount St. Raleigh. NC 4617 Mail Service Center
Restoration 515 N. Blount St. Raleigh . NC 4613 Mail Service Center
Survey & Planning 515 N. Blount St. Ralcigh. NC 4618 Mail Service Center
Raleigh 27699-4617
Ralcigh 27699-4613
Raleigh 27699-4618
Division of Archives and History
Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
Telephone/Fax
[phone].733-8653
[phone].715-4801
(91)) 733-4763 •715-4801
- r
State of North Carolina
Department of Environment
and Natural Resources
Division of Water Quality
James B. Hunt, Jr., Governor
Bill Holman, Secretary
Kerr T. Stevens, Director
December 7, 2000
MEMORANDUM
ern
NCDENR
To: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
NCDOT, Project Development & Environmental Analysis
Through: John Dorsey, NC Division of Water Quality
From: Cynthia F. Van Der Wiele C-<-?
Subject: Scoping comments on the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 140 on US
29&70/I-85 Business over Rich Fork in Davidson County, T.I.P. Project B-4096.
This memo is in reference to your correspondence dated October 20. 2000, in which you
requested Scoping comments for the above project. The DWQ index number for the stream is
12-119-7 and is classified as C waters. The Division of Water Quality requests that NCDOT
consider the following environmental issues for the proposed project:
A. DWQ prefers replacement of bridges with bridges. However, if the new structure is to be a
culvert, it should be countersunk to allow unimpeded fish and other aquatic organisms
passage through the crossing. Please be aware that floodplain culverts are required under
Nationwide 14.
B. The document should provide a detailed and itemized presentation of the proposed impacts
to wetlands and streams with corresponding mapping.
C. There should be a discussion on mitigation plans for unavoidable impacts. If mitigation is
required, it is preferable to present a conceptual (if not finalized) mitigation plan with the
environmental documentation. While the NCDWQ realizes that this may not always be
practical, it should be noted that for projects requiring mitigation, appropriate mitigation
plans will be required prior to issuance of a 401 Water Quality Certification.
D. When practical, the DWQ requests that bridges be replaced on the existing location with
road closure. If a detour proves necessary, remediation measures in accordance with the
NCDWQ requirements for General 401 Certification 2726/Nationwide Permit No. 33
(Temporary Construction, Access and bewatering) must be followed.
E. If applicable, DOT should not install the bridge bents in the creek, to the maximum extent
practicable.
F. Wetland and stream impacts should be avoided (includin" sediment and erosion COMI"OI
structures/measures) to the maximum extent practical. If this is not possible, alternativcs
1621 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1621 Telephone [phone] FAX [phone]
An Equal Opportunity Affirmative Action Employer 50% recycled/ 10% post-consumer paper
Mr. William D. Gilmore memo
12/07/00
Page 2
that minimize wetland impacts should be chosen. Mitigation for unavoidable impacts will
be required by DWQ for impacts to wetlands in excess of one acre and/or to streams in
excess of 150 linear feet.
G. Borrow/waste areas should not be located in wetlands. It is likely that compensatory
mitigation will be required if wetlands are impacted by waste or borrow.
H. If foundation test borings are necessary; it should be noted in the document. Geotechnical
work is approved under General 401 Certification Number 3027/Nationwide Permit No. 6
for Survey Activities.
In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0506(b)(6)}, mitigation
will be required for impacts of greater than 150 linear feet to any single perennial stream.
In the event that mitigation becomes required, the mitigation plan should be designed to
replace appropriate lost functions and values. In accordance with the NCDWQ Wetlands
Rules { 15A NCAC 2H.0506 (h)(3)). the Wetland Restoration Program may be available
for use as stream mitigation.
Sediment and erosion control measures should not be placed in wetlands.
K. The 401 Water Quality Certification application will need to specifically address the
proposed methods for stormwater management. More specifically, stormwater should not
be permitted to discharge directly into the creek. Instead, stormwater should be designed
to drain to a properly designed stormwater detention facility/apparatus.
L. While the use of National Wetland Inventory (NWI) maps and soil surveys is a useful
office tool, their inherent inaccuracies require that qualified personnel perform onsite
wetland delineations prior to permit approval.
Thank you for requesting our input at this time. The DOT is reminded that issuance of a 401
Water Quality Certification requires that appropriate measures be instituted to ensure that water
quality standards are met and designated uses are not degraded or lost. If you have any questions
or require additional information, please contact Cynthia Van Der Wiele at [phone].
Pc: Eric Alsmeyer, USACE Raleigh Field Office
Marella Buncick, USFWS
David Cox, NCWRC
File Copy
Central Files
?. V
Federal Aid #-?g-?'jp ' 2" TIP # JO 42 County: pAVJD So I)
(W)
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description:
I
On 51W re resentatives of the
[ -<1 h Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Fe ral Highway Administration (FHWA)
orth Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
M Other
reviewed the subject project at
0 Sc ing meeting
istoric architectural resources photograph review session/consultation
Other
All parties present agreed
e are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effects.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criteria Consideration G
tthin the project's area of potential effects.
there are properties over fifty years old within the project's Area of Potential Effects (APE), but based
on the historical information available and the photogra hso f each pro the property identified
as (List Attached is considere not eli ible f ti nail Registe a d no fu eAeluateton of it 1?,?itlis necessary. ?l ere are no National Register-listed ProP P J
erties wit in a ro'ect s area of pote LJd
all properties greater than 50 years of age located in the APE have been considered at this consultation,
and based upon the above concurrence, all compliance for historic architecture with Section 106 of
the National Historic Preservation Act and GS 121-12(a) has been completed for this project.
Signed:
b
Representative, NCDOT i Daie
FHWA, for the Divis on Ad nistrator, or other Federal Agency Date
)
?5_// 7/O
Represe ative, SHPO uaie
State Historic Preservation Officer
If a survey report is prepared. a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.
V

UV
0 ?j59 q 3 2
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 24, 2004
US Army Corps of Engineers
Regulatory Branch
Post Office Box 1890
Wilmington, NC 28402-1890
ATTENTION: Mr. Eric Alsmeyer
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDo TIPPETT
SECRETARY
WETLANDS/401(;ROUP
JUN 2 9 ?004
WATER QUALITY SECTION
Subject: Nationwide 23 Permit Modification Application for the
Replacement of Bridge No. 140 over Rich Fork Creek on US
29/70,1-85 Business, Davidson County. Federal Aid Project No.
BRSTP-29(20), State Project No. 8.1602 NCDOT Division 9,
TIP Project No. B-4096.
Dear Mr. Alsmeyer:
On May 31, 2003 the NCDOT applied for a Nationwide 23 for the above referenced
project. That application mistakenly stated that traffic will use an onsite one lane detour
structure located northwest of the existing structure during construction. An Addendum to
the original Categorical Exclusion (CE) document was signed on November 13, 2003.
The addendum changed the preferred alternative to maintain traffic on the northbound
bridge in a two-lane two-way configuration, by use of a crossover median detour. The
existing northbound structure has a clear roadway width of 30 feet. This structure would
allow for the temporary median barrier and one 12-foot travel lane with two one foot
shoulders in both directions. Due to the narrow travel way, an offsite wide load detour
would be required. The changes to the design to not change the impacts reported in
the original permit application. Therefore, no revised permit drawings are included
with this letter. A copy of the CE addendum is attached for your reference.
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1548 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27899-1548
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG.
LOCATION:
TRANSPORTATION BUILDING
1 SOUTH WILMINGTON STREET
RALEIGH NC

If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact Brett Feulner at
[phone].
Sincerely,
Gregory . 'Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NC Division of Water Quality
Ms. Marella Buncick, USFWS
Ms. Marla Chambers, NCWRC
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. S.P. Ivey, P.E., Division Engineer
Ms. Diane Hampton, Division Environmental Officer
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Ms. Art McMillan, PE, Highway Design
Mr. John F. Sullivan, FHWA
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Joel Johnson, P.E., Project Planning Engineer
Mr. David Franklin, USACE, Wilmigton
Mr. Ron Hancock, Bridge Construction
Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on US 29/70,185 Bus.
over Rich Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
T.I.P. No. B-4096
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
N. C. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
Date Gregory J. Thorpe, PhD
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Date John F. Sullivan, III
Division Administrator, FHWA
Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on US 29/70,185 Bus.
over Rich Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
T.I.P. No. B-4096
ADDENDUM TO
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
Documentation Prepared in
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch By:
//- / 1- - o- 3 4z t k Gl
Date oel A. Johnso
Project Planning Engineer, PDEA 1L c
Date William T. Goodwin, Jr., PE
Unit Head, PDEA
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Replacement of Bridge No. 140
on Us 29%70 & I-85 Bus. over Rich Fork Creek
. Davidson County
Federal-Aid No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
TIP. No. B-4096
Commitments Developed Through Project Develol2ment and
De?--
Division 9 Resident Engineer/Roadside Environmental Unit/Structure Design
Unlt/Roadway Design Unit
Bridge Demolition:
NCDOT will adhere to the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for "Bridge
Demolition and Removal" during the removal of Bridge No. 140. Bridge No. 140
is composed entirely of reinforced concrete with an asphalt wearing surface. The
asphalt wearing surface can be removed without dropping into waters of the
United States. There is a potential for components of the bridge to be dropped into
waters of the United States during construction. The resulting temporary fill
associated with the concrete bridge is approximately 150 cubic yards (115 cubic
meters).
Turbidity Curtains:
Conditions in the stream will raise sediment concerns and therefore a
turbidity curtain is recommended as a preventative measure.
Green Sheet
Addendum to Categorical Exclusion Page 1 of 1
November 2003
Davidson County
Bridge No. 140 on US 29/70,185 Bus.
over Rich Fork Creek
Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-29(20)
State Project No. 8.1602101
T.I.P. No. B4096
I. BACKGROUND
A Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the subject project was approved January 15, 2002. The
document presented the following two alternatives:
Alternative 1 (Recommended in original document) involves replacement of the structure along
the existing roadway alignment. A temporary one lane detour structure located northwest of the
existing bridge would serve as an on-site detour. Improvements to the approach roadways will be
required for a distance of approximately 450 feet at each end of the structure.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure along the existing roadway alignment.
Traffic will be maintained on the northbound bridge in a two-lane two-way configuration, by use
of a crossover median detour. The existing northbound structure (No. 138) has a clear roadway
width of 30 feet. This structure would allow for the temporary median barrier and one 12-foot
travel lane with two one-foot shoulders in both directions. Due to this narrow travel way, an off-
site wide load detour (US 64,1-85 & NC 109) would be required.
After receiving new information from the Division Engineer, Alternative 2 is now the
recommended alternative. This new information came to light during a field review of the
project. The project, as designed in Alternative 1, includes a temporary detour and structure to be
constructed to handle the southbound traffic during construction. This project has serious
constructibility issues. Due to a sanitary sewer line, pump station, and right of way issues, the
proposed onsite detour is very close to the existing southbound bridge and travel lane. The fill for
the detour extends underneath the existing bridge, which would not be constructible without
utilizing shoring. The narrow median between the two existing lanes and the close proximity of
the detour would not allow room for a crane to operate for demolition of the existing bridge or
the construction of the new bridge. A small amount of working room could be gained by moving
the detour further away but this would necessitate shoring the outside fill of the detour. With the
detour in place, access to construct the substructure would require the removal of fill and
pavement on the existing roadway. Having to remove this fill to construct a road for access to
construct the substructure would probably require shoring for the existing northbound lanes and
the temporary detour. The estimated cost for this detour, not including any shoring or the
removal of existing fill and pavement, is approximately $450,000.
II. DISCUSSION
Alternative 1 was originally recommended over Alternative 2 due to the expected user delays
associated with reducing four lanes of traffic down to two lanes. Another consideration was the
anticipated safety concerns with the wide load detour. Knowledge gained through other
construction projects along this corridor, indicate both of these issues are less of a problem than
expected when the original document was done. Therefore, Alternative 2 is the recommended
alternative due to less construction cost and time.
III. COST ESTIMATES
The estimated cost of the project is $1,452,000 including $1,300,000 in construction costs and
$152,000 in right of way costs. This is over $450,000 less than the cost of Alternative I.
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
Bridge No. 140 will be replaced with a new bridge at approximately the same location and
elevation as the existing bridge. The new bridge will be approximately 230 feet in length and 36
feet in width. A travelway width of 24 feet will be provided, with an offset of 8 feet on the
outside and 4 foot on the inside. Traffic will be maintained on the northbound bridge in a two-
lane two-way configuration, by use of a crossover median detour. The existing northbound
structure (No. 138) has a clear roadway width of 30 feet. This structure would allow for the
temporary median barrier and one 12-foot travel lane with two one-foot shoulders in both
directions. Due to this narrow travel way, an off-site wide load detour (US 64,1-85 & NC 109)
would be required.
The approach roadway will consist of two 12-foot travel lanes with 10-foot grassed shoulders on
each side.
As indicated in the original CE, environmental impacts of Alternative 2 are slightly less than
Alternative 1. The NCDOT Division 9 Construction Engineer concurs with the selection of this
alternative.
V. CONCLUSIONS
The recommended alternative is changed from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2 due reduced
construction cost and time.
.IU `...
8-11.1 cp
211.
z9w 1967
ql I _' ? ' ? ??9
• Im I
Bridge No. 140 ? 2t2l 3-
192
low ZIN -, =3 21 ZJ Z?M 02 ZIB, /
10
IF)
21
2705
i 7Z706 -
o9aa.on coun.y
Ca?.vw.y CM.O. 27M
19y.? R aA
.aY.10.
a? - .110 0 T', C
1
Me. O L
ZM7
!.. -
Il
7m
j
1
y?hel"
sue' . - -
d >i
? I I
/

1V
7!•0
Z711
S L"3
Z71Z
` i
Y ,
4 P.•
ffi
/,?of "O1^'? c?'o NORTH CAROUNA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT &
P`,' ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS BRANCH
e
.aror??"s,..
DAVIDSON COUNTY
REPLACE BRIDGE 140 ON US 29/70 -1 85 BUS
OVER RICH FORK CREEK
B-4096
Figure One
2010
£0 /V; / OT dO JL33HS
'O'N i311IASVWOH.L NV
'O'N'NO.LJNIxg,i Nasmj B SS3NISfIg
98-I'OL/6b Sa NO N33MO 'J2I0A HOIN
H3AO 01'TUHM11HU 80 ,LNgWHDVldg2I
(9601'-9) T0Tb09T'8:.LO3fOVd
A.LNf1O0 NOSQIAVQ
SAVMHJIH AO NOISIAIQ
JLou"YoN
,a
'LPtl JO 4Q81i ?Lo(JDAT oiP rWPPi3v DUP spuvilDM O? v)ovdU[1 7 It-V7
SHSSHUGGVV l 1Vl?l S21NVN'OIN '190HVd
?1f ?Tf I?1 ?.SaSS3iIQQV Q1?V SHI?liTfi?I?I 1f ?i
U X1 A® A l? ?1r1 ?1 d Ol?L d
E c
76
Z
m c d
N Co
m
.
, o
.
.x L a
w U E
LL
CL L,)
E c O
N -

U) -0
C O
c

O
p
_ d

N
C Z
O
P
m P,
Z
lL --

?
Q c 'C O U

U
N C)

H
Q
IL o
`
> m o

w
a h
U- m
.?
g ? o
u~i

C

. m V
O CY)
O
O O

w

T
7
D
?
7
N m
_
co N
N
O
O
0
O
t
N

CD O J
Q
co z ~
O
F-