20051178 Ver 1-_Complete File_20060526

„a SEAT[ o?
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
DEPARTNIENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
May 23, 2006
MEMORANDUM TO:
John Thomas, NCDOT Coordinator
USACE
FROM:
Brett M. Feulner, Environmental Specialist
Natural Environment Unit
D ?^
Mq y ? ?5 Q
s O
?Tj?N? qNp ST rEk QUg0'
6
OR?q? ?pN
LYNDD TIPPETT
SECRETARY

SUBJECT: Permit modification request for the Replacement of Bridge No.
75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road), over Smith River in
Rockingham County. State Project No. 8.1511701, Federal Aid
Project No. BRSTP-700(1), WBS Element 33122.1.1, Division 7,
TIP No. B-3509
REFERENCE: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit, Issued July 14, 2005 (USACE
Action ID 200521062 and.200521063)
On June 30, 2005, NCDOT requested Nationwide 23 and 33 permits to construct the above-
mentioned project. The USACE issued Nationwide 23 and 33 permits on July 14, 2005 to
impact 0.002 acres of permanent fill within the Smith River and 0.001 acres of temporary fill
within the Smith River. Permanent impacts will result from the placement of bridge bents
required to construct the new bridge. Temporary impacts will result from the construction of a
temporary onsite detour bridge and a temporary work bridge. After further review, the NCDOT
determined that the construction of the temporary detour and work bridge will require 0.05
acres of temporary impacts for the foundations required to support the structure, due to bedrock
in the area. The location and size of the temporary bridge will remain the same as originally
proposed, therefore no revised drawings have been prepared. We hereby request the USACE
modify the original permit to cover the increase in impacts mentioned above.
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. Jerry Parker, Division 7 Environmental Officer
MAILING ADDRESS:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER
RALEIGH NC 27699-1548
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division 7 Engineer
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Majed Alghandour, P. E., Programming
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, P.E., PDEA
Mr. Scott McLendon, USACE, Wilmington
TELEPHONE: [phone]
FAX: [phone]
WEesIrE• www.NCDOT.ORG
LOCATION:
2728 CAPITAL BLVD
SUITE 240
RALEIGH, NC 27699
Re: project mcdification B-3509
Subject: Re: project modification B-3509
From: Sue Homewood <[e-mail]>
Date: Mon, 19 Jun 2006 12:15:40 -0400
To: Sonia Gregory <[e-mail]>
it turns out we didn't send the letter certified mail or copy EPA which our rules required so it was
basically an invalid hold letter and the permit was issued as received. I'm not sure how the heck you
want to handle that in BIMS. sorry i didn't think about that when it all happened.
On 6/19/2006 10:47 AM, Sonia Gregory wrote:
I have a Permit modification request for B-3509 in Rockingham County and the project is on Hold.
It looks like they completly
ignored your letter about accordance with the General Certification that you did August 31, 2005. 1
didn't do any in BIMS with this project. I can fax and send you a copy of the letter. Thanks, Sonia
1 of 1 6/19/2006 12:24 PM
\ NA
T ?9pG
co
r
August 31, 2005
Dr. Greg Thorpe, PhD., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina, 27699-1548
Subject: NCDOT TIP No. B-3509, Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road) over Smith River
in Rockingham County. State Project No. 8.1511701, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-
700(1), WBS Element 33122.1.1, DWQ Project No. 051178
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
The Division of Water Quality, in consultation with the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission, has
determined that this project has the potential to remove existing uses of the stream. Based on the information that
we have received, we believe that an in-water construction moratorium from April 1 to June 30 would protect the
resident fish populations and thus the existing uses of the stream.
In accordance with General Certification 3403, the Division of Water Quality has the authority to require submission
of an Individual Certification if "...it is determined that the project is likely to have a significant adverse effect upon
water quality or degrade the waters so that existing uses of the wetland, stream, or downstream waters are
precluded." Based on the information received from the NC Wildlife Resources Commission, we have determined
that this project as presently proposed in your application has the potential to degrade waters so that existing uses to
the referenced stream might be removed. Thus, we are notifying the North Carolina Department of Transportation
that you are respectfully required to submit a formal application for individual certification for the above referenced
project.
In lieu of applying for an individual permit for this project, the NCDOT may instead request that the Division of
Water Quality issue a written concurrence with the General Certification 3403 which would include the construction
moratorium that the Division feels is necessary to protect the existing uses of the stream.
If you have any additional questions or require additional information please contact either myself at 919-733-5694
or Sue Homewood at 336-771-4600 ext. 287 or [e-mail].
ncer ly,
John E. Hennessy
Transportation Permitting Unit
cc: Mr. Brett Feulner, PDEA
Travis Wilson, NCWRC
John Thomas, USACE Raleigh Field Office
DWQ WSRO File Copy
DWQ 401/Wetlands Transportation Unit
One
N?p
rthCarO lna
Transportation Permitting Unit N1urally
1650 Mail Service Center, Raleigh, North Carolina 27699.1650
2321 Crabtree Boulevard, Suite 250, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604
Phone: [phone] / FAX [phone] / Internet: htt?://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands
Michael F. Easley, Governor
William G. Ross Jr., Secretary
North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources
Alan W. Klimek, P.E. Director
Division of Water Quality
An Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer - 50% Recycled/10% Post Consumer Paper
?° Effl@gowmp
q?. JUL 5 _ 2005
STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA yy MAX TORS TERM BRAM
DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
MICHAEL F. EASLEY
GOVERNOR
June 30, 2005
U.S. Army Corp of Engineers
Regulatory Field Office
6508 Falls of the Neuse Road, Suite 120
Raleigh, NC 27615
ATTN: Mr. John T. Thomas
NCDOT Coordinator
LYNDO TIPPETT
SECRETARY
051178
Subject: Nationwide 23 and 33 Permit Applications for the Replacement of Bridge No. 75 on
SR 3003 (West Meadow Road), over Smith River in Rockingham County. State Project
No. 8.1511701, Federal Aid Project No. BRSTP-700 (1), WBS Element 33122.1.1,
Division 7, TIP No. B-3509
Dear Sir:
Please find enclosed a copy of the Categorical Exclusion (CE) Document, Pre-construction Notification
(PCN), design plan sheets, and permit drawings for the above mentioned project. The North Carolina
Department of Transportation (NCDOT) proposes to replace the 340-foot Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
with a four-span 345-foot long bridge over the existing alignment. The cross section of the travel way
across the new structure includes two 14-foot travel lanes and provides 2-foot shoulders with 5.5-foot
sidewalks on each side. The proposed approach roadway from the west consists of a curb and gutter
facility providing two 14-foot lanes and 5-foot sidewalks. The approach roadway from the east within the
project limit will provide 14-foot travel lanes and a combination of curb and gutter and shoulder section.
Traffic will use an onsite detour structure located north of the existing structure during construction.
Permanent impacts to the Smith River total 86 ft2 (0.002 ac) and temporary impacts total approximately
0.001 ac.
IMPACTS TO WATERS OF THE UNITED STATES
The project study area is located within the subbasin 03-02-03 of the Roanoke River Basin and is part of
U.S. Geologic Survey (USGS) hydrologic unit 03010103. The North Carolina Department of Water
Quality (NCDWQ) Stream Index Numbers (SIN) for the Smith River in the project area include both 22-
40-(2.5) and 22-40-(3). The Smith River is incorrectly classified in the CE and the proper classification is
WS-IV upstream of bridge and C, downstream of the bridge. Smith River is listed on the 2002 List of
Impaired Waters [303(d)] for the Roanoke River Basin due to urban runoff and storm sewer sources
outside of state jurisdiction. There are no wetlands present in the project area.
NCWRC has requested a moratorium from April 1 to June 30 for the presence of darters. However, due
to the low water quality in the Smith River in the vicinity of this bridge and due to the lack of statutory
regulations requiring this moratorium, NCDOT does not believe that this moratorium is warranted.
Permanent Impacts: Smith River will be spanned by a 345-foot bridge. Permanent impacts from bridge
bents will total 86 ft2 (0.002 ac).
MAILING ADDRESS: TELEPHONE: [phone] LOCATION:
NC DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION FAX: [phone] CAPITAL BLVD
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS PLB SUITE 168
1598 MAIL SERVICE CENTER WEBSITE: WWW.NCDOT.ORG. RALEIGH, NC 27604
RALEIGH NC 27699-1598
Temporary Impacts: A temporary detour structure will be constructed and a temporary work bridge will
be used to construct the detour bridge and replace the existing bridge. The work bridge and detour bridge
will result in approximately 0.001 acre of temporary impacts to Smith River due to the bents in the
channel.
Utility Impacts: No utility impacts are anticipated for this project.
Bridge Demolition: Bridge No. 75 is an eight-span structure that consists of reinforced concrete deck
girders with an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and
piers. In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will adhere to the Best Management Practices for Bridge
Demolition and Removal. No fill from bridge demolition is expected.
Schedule: The project calls for a letting date of November 15, 2005 with a date of availability of
December 27, 2005. It is anticipated that the contractor will begin construction shortly after the date of
availability.
Restoration Plan: Following construction of the bridge, all material used in the construction of the
structure will be removed. The existing approach fill will be removed to natural grade and the area will
be revegetated according to NCDOT guidelines. Class II riprap and filter fabric will be used for bank
stabilization. Pre-project elevations will be restored. Fill for temporary detour will be restored back to
natural conditions.
Removal and Disposal Plan: The contractor will be required to submit a reclamation plan for removal
and disposal of all material off-site at an upland location. The contractor will use excavation equipment
for removal of any earthen material. The material used for installation of the temporary work bridge will
be removed after the new bridge is built. The temporary fill areas will be restored to their original
contours and replanted with native species. After the temporary detour is no longer needed, the contractor
will remove all materials. All material will become the property of the contractor.
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 USFWS lists two federally protected species for
Rockingham County, the smooth coneflower (Echinacea laevigata) and the James spinymussel
(Pleurohema collina).
Open habitat is available for the smooth coneflower within the project area. No individuals were
observed when field work was conducted on July 29, 1999 or July 18, 2002, and a biological conclusion
of No Effect was rendered. The North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) records indicate no
occurrences of smooth coneflower within the project area or vicinity. Surveys will be conducted prior to
project construction.
A survey for James spinymussel was conducted on September 6, 2001 by Tim Savidge to determine if
this species or habitat is present within the project area. No habitat was determined to be available
because no mussel species were found, therefore a biological conclusion of No Effect was rendered.
AVOIDANCE, MINIMIZATION, and MITIGATION
There are no wetlands in the project area and the surface water impacts are due to the placement of bridge
bents, therefore no mitigation will be required.
2
The NCDOT is committed to incorporating all reasonable and practicable design features to avoid and
minimize jurisdictional impacts, and to provide full compensatory mitigation of all remaining,
unavoidable jurisdictional impacts. Avoidance measures were taken during the planning and NEPA
compliance stages; minimization measures were incorporated as part of the project design.
According to the Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b)(1) guidelines, NCDOT must avoid, minimize,
and mitigate, in sequential order, impacts to Waters of the U.S. The following is a list of the project's
jurisdictional stream avoidance/minimization activities proposed or completed by NCDOT:
Avoidance/Minimization:
• Bridge deck drains will not discharge directly to the Smith River.
• A work bridge will be used instead of causeways to reduce impacts to Smith River.
• Standard NCDOT Best Management Practices for the Protection of Surface Waters and Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal will be followed
Mitigation:
• Due to the nature of the impacts, no mitigation is proposed
REGULATORY APPROVALS
Section 404 Permit: This project is being processed by the Federal Highway Administration as a
"Categorical Exclusion" in accordance with 23 CFR 771.115(b). We are requesting the issuance of
Nationwide Permits 23 and 33 for impacts associated with the construction of this project.
Section 401 Permit: We anticipate 401 General Certification numbers 3403 and 3366 will apply to this
project. All general conditions of the Water Quality Certifications will be met. Therefore, in accordance
with 15A NCAC 2H, Section .0500(a) and 15A NCAC 213.0200 we are providing two copies of this
application to the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources, Division of Water
Quality, for their notification.
Thank you for your assistance with this project. A copy of this permit application will be posted on the
NCDOT website at: htti)://www.ncdot.orj,,/planning/pe/naturalunit/Pennit.html. If you have any
questions or need additional information, please contact Mr. Brett Feulner, NCDOT - Office of Natural
Environment, at [phone] or bmfeulner(?dot.state. nc.us.
Sincerely,
td--? Lam,
Y
,,iCiregory J. horpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director, PDEA
Cc: w/attachment
Mr. John Hennessy, NCDWQ (2 copies)
Mr. Travis Wilson, NCWRC
Mr. Gary Jordan, USFWS
Dr. David Chang, P.E., Hydraulics
Mr. Greg Perfetti, P.E., Structure Design
Mr. Mark Staley, Roadside Environmental
Mr. J. M. Mills, P.E., Division Engineer
Mr. Jerry Parker, DEO
w/o attachment
Mr. Jay Bennett, P.E., Roadway Design
Mr. Omar Sultan, Programming and TIP
Mr. Art McMillan, P.E., Highway Design
Ms. Stacy Baldwin, PDEA
Mr. David Franklin, USAGE, Wilmington
Office Use Only: Form Version May 2002
178
USACE Action ID No. DWQ
(If any particular item is not applicable to this project, please enter Not Appucanie or -N/H .)
1. Processing
1. Check all of the approval(s) requested for this project:
® Section 404 Permit ? Riparian or Watershed Buffer Rules
? Section 10 Permit ? Isolated Wetland Permit from DWQ
? 401 Water Quality Certification
2. Nationwide, Regional or General Permit Number(s) Requested: Nationwide 23 & 33
3. If this notification is solely a courtesy copy because written approval for the 401 Certification
is not required, check here:
4. If payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration Program (NCWRP) is proposed for
mitigation of impacts (verify availability with NCWRP prior to submittal of PCN), complete
section VIII and check here: ?
5. If your project is located in any of North Carolina's twenty coastal counties (listed on page
4), and the project is within a North Carolina Division of Coastal Management Area of
Environmental Concern (see the top of page 2 for further details), check here: ?
II. Applicant Information
Owner/Applicant Information
Name: North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Mailing Address: Project Development and Environmental Analysis
1598 Mail Service Center
Raleigh NC 27699-1598
Telephone Number: 919-733-3141 Fax Number: 919-733-9794
E-mail Address: tg horpe(&)dot state.nc.us
2. Agent/Consultant Information (A signed and dated copy of the Agent Authorization letter
must be attached if the Agent has signatory authority for the owner/applicant.)
Name:
Company Affiliation:
Mailing Address:
Telephone Number: Fax Number:
E-mail Address:
Pagel of 8
III. Project Information
Attach a vicinity map clearly showing the location of the property with respect to local
landmarks such as towns, rivers, and roads. Also provide a detailed site plan showing property
boundaries and development plans in relation to surrounding properties. Both the vicinity map
and site plan must include a scale and north arrow. The specific footprints of all buildings,
impervious surfaces, or other facilities must be included. If possible, the maps and plans should
include the appropriate USGS Topographic Quad Map and NRCS Soil Survey with the property
boundaries outlined. Plan drawings, or other maps may be included at the applicant's discretion,
so long as the property is clearly defined. For administrative and distribution purposes, the
USACE requires information to be submitted on sheets no larger than 11 by 17-inch format;
however, DWQ may accept paperwork of any size. DWQ prefers full-size construction
drawings rather than a sequential sheet version of the full-size plans. If full-size plans are
reduced to a small scale such that the final version is illegible, the applicant will be informed that
the project has been placed on hold until decipherable maps are provided.
1. Name of project: Bridge No. 75 Replacement
2. T.I.P. Project Number or State Project Number (NCDOT Only): B-3509
3. Property Identification Number (Tax PIN): N/A
4. Location
County: Rockingham Nearest Town: Eden
Subdivision name (include phase/lot number): N/A
Directions to site (include road numbers, landmarks, etc.): Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West
Meadow Road), over Smith River (please refer to attached maps)
5. Site coordinates, if available (UTM or Lat/Long):
(Note - If project is linear, such as a road or utility line, attach a sheet that separately lists the
coordinates for each crossing of a distinct waterbody.)
6. Property size (acres): Please refer to attached drawings
7. Nearest body of water (stream/river/sound/ocean/lake):
Smith River
8. River Basin: Roanoke River
(Note - this must be one of North Carolina's seventeen designated major river basins. The
River Basin map is available at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/admin/maps/.)
9. Describe the existing conditions on the site and general land use in the vicinity of the project
at the time of this application: Development in the area is industrial, commercial, and
residential. Spray Industrial Historical District, a district listed on the National Register of
Historic Places, is located west of Bridge No. 75.
Page 2 of 8
ti
10. Describe the overall project in detail, including the type of equipment to be used: Replace
Bridge No. 75 over Smith River with a new bridge. The new bridge will be 345 feet long
and 43 feet wide. The cross section includes two 14-foot travel lanes to accommodate
bicycle traffic and provide 2-foot shoulders with 5.5-foot sidewalks on each side. The west
approach will include two 14-foot lanes and 5-foot sidewalks. The east approach will
include 14-foot travel lanes and a combination of curb and gutter and shoulder section.
Construction equipment will consist of heavy duty trucks, earth moving equipment, cranes,
etc.
11. Explain the purpose of the proposed work: Bridge No. 75 is considered structurally
deficient and functionally obsolete. The replacement of this inadequate structure will result
in safer and more efficient traffic operations.
IV. Prior Project History
If jurisdictional determinations and/or permits have been requested and/or obtained for this
project (including all prior phases of the same subdivision) in the past, please explain. Include
the USACE Action ID Number, DWQ Project Number, application date, and date permits and
certifications were issued or withdrawn. Provide photocopies of previously issued permits,
certifications or other useful information. Describe previously approved wetland, stream and
buffer impacts, along with associated mitigation (where applicable). If this is a NCDOT project,
list and describe permits issued for prior segments of the same T.I.P. project, along with
construction schedules.
V. Future Project Plans
Are any future permit requests anticipated for this project? If so, describe the anticipated work,
and provide justification for the exclusion of this work from the current application.
N/A
VI. Proposed Impacts to Waters of the United States/Waters of the State
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
wetlands, open water, and stream channels associated with the project. The applicant must also
provide justification for these impacts in Section VII below. All proposed impacts, permanent
and temporary, must be listed herein, and must be clearly identifiable on an accompanying site
plan. All wetlands and waters, and all streams (intermittent and perennial) must be shown on a
delineation map, whether or not impacts are proposed to these systems. Wetland and stream
evaluation and delineation forms should be included as appropriate. Photographs may be
included at the applicant's discretion. If this proposed impact is strictly for wetland or stream
Page 3 of 8

mitigation, list and describe the impact in Section VIII below. If additional space is needed for
listing or description, please attach a separate sheet.
1. Provide a written description of the proposed impacts: Permanent impacts associated with
this project total 0.002 acres due to the bridge bents. A temporary detour bridge and
temporary work bridge will also be built on-site. The temporary work bridge will result in
approximatley 0.001 acres of fill of temporary impacts to Smith River due to the bents
located in the channel.
2. Individually list wetland impacts below:
Wetland Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Located within
I00-year Floodplain**
(yes/no) Distance to
Nearest Stream
(linear feet)
Type of Wetland***
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: mechanized clearing, grading, till,
excavation, flooding, ditching/drainage, etc. For dams, separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding.
** 100-Year floodplains are identified through the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Maps
(FIRM), or FEMA-approved local floodplain maps. Maps are available through the FEMA Map Service Center at 1-800-358-9616, or
online at littp://www.femi.gov.
*** List a wetland type that best describes wetland to be impacted (e.g., freshwater/saltwater marsh, forested wetland, beaver pond,
Carolina Bay, bog, etc.) Indicate if wetland is isolated (determination of isolation to be made by USACE only).
List the total acreage (estimated) of all existing wetlands on the property: N/A
Total area of wetland impact proposed: N/A
3. Individually list all intermittent and perennial stream impacts below:
Stream Impact Site
Number
indicate on ma
Type of Impact* Length of
Impact
(linear feet)
Stream Name** Average Width
of Stream
Before Impact Perennial or
Intermittent?
leasespecify)
Temp. work bridge work bridge bents NA Smith River 200-300 ft. perennial
Permanent Bridge Bridge bents NA Smith River 200-300 ft. perennial

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: culverts and associated rip-rap,
dams (separately list impacts due to both structure and flooding), relocation (include linear feet before and after, and net loss/gain),
stabilization activities (cement wall, rip-rap, crib wall, gabions, etc.), excavation, ditching/straightening, etc. If stream relocation is
proposed, plans and profiles showing the linear footprint for both the original and relocated streams must be included.
** Stream names can be found on USGS topographic maps. If a stream has no name, list as UT (unnamed tributary) to the nearest
downstream named stream into which it flows. USGS maps are available through the USGS at 1-800-358-9616, or online at
Page 4 of 8
www.usJ4s.tmv. Several internet sites also allow direct download and printing of USGS maps (e.g., www.topozone.ann,
www.in,tpgticst.com, etc.).
Cumulative impacts (linear distance in feet) to all streams on site
0
4. Individually list all open water impacts (including lakes, ponds, estuaries, sounds, Atlantic
Ocean and any other water of the U.S.) below:
Open Water Impact
Site Number
(indicate on ma)
Type of Impact* Area of
Impact
(acres) Name Waterbody
(if applicable) Type of Waterbody
(lake' pond, estuary' bound,
bay, ocean, etc.)
N/A

* List each impact separately and identify temporary impacts. Impacts include, but are not limited to: till, excavation, dredging,
flooding, drainage, bulkheads, etc.
5. Pond Creation
If construction of a pond is proposed, associated wetland and stream impacts should be
included above in the wetland and stream impact sections. Also, the proposed pond should
be described here and illustrated on any maps included with this application.
Pond to be created in (check all that apply): ? uplands ? stream ? wetlands
Describe the method of construction (e.g., dam/embankment, excavation, installation of
draw-down valve or spillway, etc.):
Proposed use or purpose of pond (e.g., livestock watering, irrigation, aesthetic, trout pond,
local stormwater requirement, etc.):
Size of watershed draining to pond: Expected pond surface area:
VII. Impact Justification (Avoidance and Minimization)
Specifically describe measures taken to avoid the proposed impacts. It may be useful to provide
information related to site constraints such as topography, building ordinances, accessibility, and
financial viability of the project. The applicant may attach drawings of alternative, lower-impact
site layouts, and explain why these design options were not feasible. Also discuss how impacts
were minimized once the desired site plan was developed. If applicable, discuss construction
techniques to be followed during construction to reduce impacts.
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow BMP for the protection of Surface Waters and
Bridge Demolition and Removal A work bridge will be used instead of a causeway to reduce
impacts to Smith River.
Page 5 of 8
VIII. Mitigation
DWQ - In accordance with 15A NCAC 2H .0500, mitigation may be required by the NC
Division of Water Quality for projects involving greater than or equal to one acre of impacts to
freshwater wetlands or greater than or equal to 150 linear feet of total impacts to perennial
streams.
USACE - In accordance with the Final Notice of Issuance and Modification of Nationwide
Permits, published in the Federal Register on March 9, 2000, mitigation will be required when
necessary to ensure that adverse effects to the aquatic environment are minimal. Factors
including size and type of proposed impact and function and relative value of the impacted
aquatic resource will be considered in determining acceptability of appropriate and practicable
mitigation as proposed. Examples of mitigation that may be appropriate and practicable include,
but are not limited to: reducing the size of the project; establishing and maintaining wetland
and/or upland vegetated buffers to protect open waters such as streams; and replacing losses of
aquatic resource functions and values by creating, restoring, enhancing, or preserving similar
functions and values, preferable in the same watershed.
If mitigation is required for this project, a copy of the mitigation plan must be attached in order
for USACE or DWQ to consider the application complete for processing. Any application
lacking a required mitigation plan or NCWRP concurrence shall be placed on hold as
incomplete. An applicant may also choose to review the current guidelines for stream restoration
in DWQ's Draft Technical Guide for Stream Work in North Carolina, available at
http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/ncwetlands/stnngide.html.
1. Provide a brief description of the proposed mitigation plan. The description should provide
as much information as possible, including, but not limited to: site location (attach directions
and/or map, if offsite), affected stream and river basin, type and amount (acreage/linear feet)
of mitigation proposed (restoration, enhancement, creation, or preservation), a plan view,
preservation mechanism (e.g., deed restrictions, conservation easement, etc.), and a
description of the current site conditions and proposed method of construction. Please attach
a separate sheet if more space is needed.
Mitigation is not expected to be needed for the proposed alternative.
2. Mitigation may also be made by payment into the North Carolina Wetlands Restoration
Program (NCWRP). Please note it is the applicant's responsibility to contact the NCWRP at
[phone] to determine availability and to request written approval of mitigation prior
to submittal of a PCN. For additional information regarding the application process for the
NCWRP, check the NCWRP website at http://h2o.enr.state.nc.us/wip/index.htm. If use of
the NCWRP is proposed, please check the appropriate box on page three and provide the
following information:
Amount of stream mitigation requested (linear feet): N/A
Amount of buffer mitigation requested (square feet): N/A
Amount of Riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Amount of Non-riparian wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
Page 6 of 9
I

Amount of Coastal wetland mitigation requested (acres): N/A
IX. Environmental Documentation (required by DWQ)
Does the project involve an expenditure of public (federal/state) funds or the use of public
(federal/state) land?
Yes ® No ?
If yes, does the project require preparation of an environmental document pursuant to the
requirements of the National or North Carolina Environmental Policy Act (NEPA/SEPA)?
Note: If you are not sure whether a NEPA/SEPA document is required, call the SEPA
coordinator at [phone] to review current thresholds for environmental documentation.
Yes ® No ?
If yes, has the document review been finalized by the State Clearinghouse? If so, please attach a
copy of the NEPA or SEPA final approval letter.
Yes ® No ?
X. Proposed Impacts on Riparian and Watershed Buffers (required by DWQ)
It is the applicant's (or agent's) responsibility to determine, delineate and map all impacts to
required state and local buffers associated with the project. The applicant must also provide
justification for these impacts in Section VII above. All proposed impacts must be listed herein,
and must be clearly identifiable on the accompanying site plan. All buffers must be shown on a
map, whether or not impacts are proposed to the buffers. Correspondence from the DWQ
Regional Office may be included as appropriate. Photographs may also be included at the
applicant's discretion.
Will the project impact protected riparian buffers identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0233
(Neuse), 15A NCAC 2B .0259 (Tar-Pamlico), 15A NCAC 2B .0250 (Randleman Rules and
Water Supply Buffer Requirements), or other (please identify )?
Yes ? No ® If you answered "yes", provide the following information:
Identify the square feet and acreage of impact to each zone of the riparian buffers. If buffer
mitigation is required calculate the required amount of mitigation by applying the buffer
multipliers.
Zone* Impact
(square feet) Multiplier Required
Mitigation
1 3
2 1.5
Total
* Zone I extends out 30 teet perpendicular trom near bank of channel, Gone 2 extends an
additional 20 feet from the edge of Zone 1.
If buffer mitigation is required, please discuss what type of mitigation is proposed (i.e., Donation
of Property, Conservation Easement, Riparian Buffer Restoration / Enhancement, Preservation or
Page 7 of 8
Payment into the Riparian Buffer Restoration Fund). Please attach all appropriate information as
identified within 15A NCAC 2B .0242 or .0260.
XI. Stormwater (required by DWQ)
Describe impervious acreage (both existing and proposed) versus total acreage on the site.
Discuss stormwater controls proposed in order to protect surface waters and wetlands
downstream from the property.
X11. Sewage Disposal (required by DWQ)
Clearly detail the ultimate treatment methods and disposition (non-discharge or discharge) of
wastewater generated from the proposed project, or available capacity of the subject facility.
XIII. Violations (required by DWQ)
Is this site in violation of DWQ Wetland Rules (15A NCAC 2H.0500) or any Buffer Rules?
Yes ? No
Is this an after-the-fact permit application?
Yes ? No
XIV. Other Circumstances (Optional):
It is the applicant's responsibility to submit the application sufficiently in advance of desired
construction dates to allow processing time for these permits. However, an applicant may
choose to list constraints associated with construction or sequencing that may impose limits on
work schedules (e.g., draw-down schedules for lakes, dates associated with Endangered and
Threatened Species, accessibility problems, or other issues outside of the applicant's control).
't 6,1;b1e)5
. Applicant/Agent's Signature ' Dlate
(Agent's signature is valid only if an authorization letter from the applicant is provided.)
Page 8 of 8
NORTH CARODNA

d
1789 cen Q
703 7
nl 7 oes

1 17 4
171 7
1 90 i e•
1704 1713,
o
, a C NA
R AD
59 ' 1 05 17 B-3509
Q 17
o o+
17
' /

1560 J
'7 4 17 5 1962
0
178a

l e ovr• 17
?.

q D
V3 m ?.

s? 96

1574
s
'
EDEN
m
a
C
J? v,
15

156511 1
,
158 I \ ,
1 , V D®T
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
VICINITY ROCgINGHAM COUNTY
P
OJ
R
ECT: 8.1511701 (B-3509)
MAPS BRIDGE N0.75 ON SR 3003
(MEADOW RD.) OVER
SMITH RIVER
'
-
SHEET
'1 OF
? 9 0 7 A 04
0
M
M
W
G.. r`? CQ vai 0
0 o Z
W ®x °za
.,? ?z? o0F C?
r? °z zA w
?a th w o o
?? U
?°
o a a P:
Q p F
°C o W
0
M ?
O ce
? N
1
i
i
I
I
>
-------------------------------- - -- --- --------
W
N ?Y
r _.
N
Rop,D
t?E
Op _
1
i
y1,
i
U
w_
CL
m
540
S30
R 20
ozs
tip
---- / ; /
/Oilib4 00
:00 Z --4c
tip.
• 5 r, JJ
! % / ?yE ??. /inn/ ` ,• ; ?yrn I
b :: rf'rn. Qty,, '„ ?w,._ nH -•/ ( , V '.,
1 I
------------
b`? / /t.. '7 _ .? .• --.,.L t f_.; .`\ •'- H1510HIC NOUNRIR,
10, zg?
15-,`00
?b
/ n
cjH
15+00
: - -- a
S,0 fir ?m
. 7 I ?
?y I I . d - -- -- --- - -
CD
- ------------------
- /?... ,y?:+f? 1..11 _rn?r ? ne?,_F --_•_...
?' { q %
:'' ?I li I 7" A
I I ? u• •
/ • I .; f ? ? I t
24-+ 0-00
ST ?y. ' i '' t anQ -
M F m - Zf p
I

---__ II 1 I p ?ET's n y 6r s
n iJN4 III' 2 i?ht WN.
n IYYr???"' 7 J r? ? ? •? o' FN'j
>
C
N n 20+00 A.
11 / I I 4 M V
I
i ,
`1 `? `° v4 r P t'iN • RVT .N 11 ,' '+Iff 370
• § ? 111 ? l?
.' i r? b a V •?
t
FT-1
ji?
r-11 _! :;; :r
L n off r ? ? t g _ i ? a

'
-
? f
;..
`*1 I?1 ? W z r?v7i ar Cn1i '^ m z

i
n ?
'
I
1
+r
?
yy
n
f

i 1? I
?
1 ii 1
11 , 1
?
11
1 ', ?
S T
2
1
?
00.00
f n

4
Tp.
aP -vo
p
" m
.06 +
. , T
?cHUNE ?
?
o
MA
REVISIONS
REVISIONS
c. ,.flr< is 11:01 Fu
? ! I ? I cn W UI Ul cLn Ul .A -A Ul I Ul Ul cn Ul Ul cn Ul
O - N W t? cn ,T W Lo I O I N W -4 Ul Ol ?l
0 o l 01 o l O O I O O O O -O O O' O o t O' O. O• O O
--' -1 ''' I I 11 I I I 1 I'_ i ?I! II- I °o =---
I I 1 I ?i ' '? I 1 1 ? I I I! I i I I I I I I ? ?- ! ?~ I' i ' Ir I T••_•, I? 'i-• ?? I
! ! I I I I' I I i I ? I i lI I
I..,..., I-.; I ..t. ,...j -..?.?.. I ;•I-r-F ;...L_I _ 1.. l...j I.. .. i. ..1..1 'il 1._ `rye- ? I, ... ...
I I
I! i I I 1 I I I I I( i I I I I I I I (? j 1! I I I I ?I + I I 11 I I I II 11 I I li 11Y -r', I ? - --
! I I 1 1 1 l I I I 1 O 1 iI 1 I I ! I II ?' j p. !
- i !,, ;! I Tq ! L..I I I I I I I Q I ; i I I I' , I ,' ! I 4 I -
I I I I I ?.p 'Ill *7a 1. i i_ _.I ?. i. ,I. I? ., i !i 1 I•iI t Ic;l ??j I r q?<n;o
- i '; ; I I:? I I ILI??N .I:I,•x I I I. I I.I I ! ? I ( li I II I ? II ?i liii tq'1 `'n!y
- l
! ! ' ! I ! ! I I I I.I-i Iln I-. :i ?I I I .I ..II _.! '.. '? (! I' ?Wf' II •??.
11 I LI
1 i
I ?I - I I 1 ? I I i ? 1 '
-1 N6A, OO?UTI ?+ (I 1 1'I I; 11 I I 1 I ?1'I !: it i I
LA -
f
N0
O i Lfl
I I i I i i. I I: I Q I I !" 1 1. I! 1 I ; !:' I ! I!
DA$OU I 110}90 ; LA-
OC I I
I rL e2l1.E.g 39C . iy.' , j I ,, I I I! i
°I - -PEGS GRL !s 1- -! I:I 0 4'1i --
I
! ;! I ; I 1! I r'I 1 I II ! I i i !
I I I
12
i i I
i
1
I ti` I I
i..
I.
1 I I? ! 11 ! i i
I I ?61j11.17
7OUN0 tl ! P 1i0+7/ ¢ I p IC I , i I ° i I I I 11 i I I I i i 1
'POCIQ.
r
C I I EL 152517 1 I I I I i k I r lnl !I I -1 j-i ( I I W 1° i i I I C I-I ! I I l Y
{ I !! ! I I I I I •x iln !? 1 1 1 I l I J
O I I j Ip(/! I I.! I I ( in j, I i I O !' I i I i i ! I
O - OUND P ?ll? ! i- ' !I I i 1 i I ! I I O I ( i I I 1 i 1 I I'a I! I I i
EL A I I a I -? ;-i I -t' o f;-IIf I , t t
O (!111iI!? I + I i ijllm iI I I I
I I I I I }-
X; 917 ;;g ) I I'
!
I ! I 1-• ) I i t I: 2 I
N I
I I !! I i I 'I I! I )
I I'C'I I I! I A aft i I:' i• ?I it i i II?
71
Q I I I i I. .;. I : Ii I i f Q '! )?7 " I I ,3A Ap. I
O I i t I , I i I} ! I I? I ? i I I I : I I I ? i ' I I ! ° ' I I ? VI- I '' '' ? ?I ? I ' mo: ,' I ! I? (' ? ? 1 I
! j i? ' IY R NDAp C1£t)Gl? !' 'I: I I I, ) i i I' I' y r' IIII i I!t 1
+-t 1 a-.1 :_.. ENO G rDEll I !'876 ..._ i« !.. i.., }. _ A ?.;. 1 ?A cnn IJ. r
1
t i,?I fl-
71 ' I i 4 Ilcc?? I• °'I I ! i ! 11 j ! W j I I F. i 1 1 o
i I I I i , I I i = ! Vl0 (V I I bl ' f I' I O,
! i! : I 1, I i I I i ?F I^F 1 !xtivwz
(
1-:-I---?1. j--r- ?. i_. ? ? t? - •? t ?--?' - - -.I I I i - i?.._ i' - i 11 1 !I_ I.1 --? ' { ?. -. i ! I I ? 1
t ..t
. 1 it 4ilaTi:! I I II??CUYrv ?'
I l i, i! 1 I I I I I I ?? q. I l i i II ~I I, I I 11:? OI i I
i I ! I. II I > ;? I. i x
I I
L: _ ..I I .1. _ i 1 _ .. .
I I I ?:i I f !1 i 1! !( I I .}.. fl i 1 I I-- _.I LL.I I ? s -I ; I I I_ .I_?i `??_? ' r
! ill I I rls" 1 i
! -1 I I I I _ -1 t r r-
71
i^ I I ?I 1.1 I-? I I? II 1 -I I? Ql - I ' j I ! i?? ?1 •?-_
!' ! 1 I I'I I i! I I I 1 I I I I I 'I O 1 Ir I I- I I ? I I I ! I i
-I -- --= I- II I!_ I I' IT ; I I I I _ II I l V T'j 1' t m_ I ?? I I I I
I ._I ! ! ( 1 I -T I ! I I -~ ! I r?r - - I 711 i I ' r?• ! _ 1 --:1?..?_ 1I I 1 _ _ • -
,
I'1 I ! -1 I I ?! ? ? I :I ??il I I I'II I'? 1 ;}I !?j I? ', ii +• f? c/1 ?,.a
,
I 1 I I
II ..
Ip
. I j I A ? Ul l I I Cll U1 I' I I-{' I I I I I I I j I 1 I;
cn:- _cnL O rvL W a u, ! Q,
O: IT I oI 1 bl i j OI b I I i ; ! i i ?' r1 i I I ?I l j yf N p? Ii
i i
I! I! I( I 11 I' 1 I I I I j aI?
! ? , I I ? I I , '! I'i I I I I 1' II o 1 71
I ? I _„ 11 U, I 4 vl j Ul i Ul i ' ' I ! '? cn 1. on I i o ! 1 I I I j 1 ! I ; I
co:
; i O'
10 101 I j O -? OI
b ' I TI?
Q d
r' o II ifi ?I . I -b
!
1i I ! j
-b ;i
4? ii,
1 1?111iIf i I I L ? x
i
'!I '? ilililll! .I I II'I Ii 1 I I6 it I i;;lj 1
! i i i'i I j I'j I I I.) 1 I;i ! I. I I I' I II II I 1, i !il I. II ! I !:
-{-
i
i i i I I! I I I I i i I I I , I I I I_r i i I I 11 i t I "x ?'
' ....4 .•....'.
. . _.L.• ! ; I ? ! ! I I I . I 1 . i I ! } - j.., _... . I.... .:- ,..? .F ?... ?..,_ .. 1... I. I ? 1.) ., J... : I :c ; I ..
'i I ' ? I rl I L.
1 71
O ! I 1 ? I I I! ! i I I! 1 I I I 1 ( ?i i t f- I I I' - ?I , ,? i,
I I iI ,?I I ? i
7-7
° ! i'1 _'Y! III'. ',?
O 111 1 I .I ' !' .c .II
O -I I i I ' 1.I I r ` I;I_ 1 I' ! ! I; I'I I. n I I l
_l I ?Y! ISTA/Of37 5. I I i 1; c, ?`? T 1
u
, I
1 I I IIII' ! I' I ?r a I j?I Ii
IN, I: , 1 1 { 1i 517
I t
F,f I5
,
__._. lcl j -?_ I i5 TA/0f 8.d/dll,I LL,. tr I. I.. I;. L I I . ? I L I_ I I.?' .. I1!?i !i
I I i j i i ti -1 L L. I. I O \
W i I I ?
I; i / I f UT510E1 £ 1, I i I I Ni I' f I I U1: I i I: I
{ I I I I I +/ j I /, I l ? j I I O+ 11 r N I. j I ?,I, 00 ! 1 I I ;; I' ! g -
° i I I ' I ! ( 1 1 (--1'--•1-'.'I I I I I. 1 r i I ! I I I ! i ! ,? I ; '--'T-•_ _ '.-?_ 1,
hl I , I!? I I I! I ! I I I I b '' g ,!' I 1
IgTI I I I I ! I ICI ?: hi ? f -i ?;?-I I?-i ;? (i -! I ?-,?_ I•--111_. I i! !? (j??!? If It ? o;?l ,_ ?
: I ? .c7t L I.. UI .I I ? I I !:i I ??. 't '? I !lam
_.._.. _. l ?[ .. L._I. .. ,.. }._.... } I _..:_ _1.,. i ? :....? .:. :_ .:.1 .,.. ._ 1....1_ ... ?._ _... ul ?. ?: ? :_j.- 1 _ ..1 : ! L I. •. _ !. l_. ?. i 11 : I 1 , ; I •.I_.I ? . l.. ! ' ' ? 1 ' ' t
I ? : ' ' , I I } I i 1 I i.l , ? I - 4 ? , ?t._I •?f. I I.:. I Iij..I ?? +._,{I...I II .I ..} ,? 11 It_:_iF..?` i _ _
i
1I I '? I ? 11 I ? ?q?? If I i I I i I I II -
dI +s
i - ?
N GR C.
N I ! I l! 1 1 1 1 1 1 l i I ?!?. ?inl ( I i` I + I I f?i I I l II i I j'I I !jl I I li I
O I 1 1 i O! I I I i ( I I I' I j
CD I ' i I i! 1-r;/ .1rA a+?oRJ I I ?'
i I i I I I COIY 1; U ON -r-
L iiI?11! i ;'? I I I :\ I 11 I. I? 1 (!i li
;
C f
i, I I i. 11 I!i I ; I i j I f I? ; i? I J:•77
,
W IL
I I I i I 1 I I 1t T N I I I
+ I I ? I'I li i I; I -c sra +aO I;I
I! I j 1 I I I, I' I! i I I. I:I I: I 1 I i. 1 j; O EL ?RAL
G9 I 7 1 1 I, I I of i °?
O'
Q
1 -} ; - - ! j •? Y`t -I ! I ;- I I , -I -! t-t -i= . ? --1- -.? -t r-1 ? -I- I ? ! ?I _ I . i . _? ' ? 1-I- i _ .L? i i _- ? - -
i III ii IC 'I I 1? Ih r? ? 7;.1.1 ! ? 111 I I '?; I 'f? .-c
,
i •.' I_ j. I. ! , I.1 ..'_..li. ! , i'I ILL 1 I; i• -, ! .._1- r._i '._? .t l.. .r._. IT t
t i I t-, r?'-•
+ - . 1 I ' I 1 ! •' ! I.. I . 1 'i 41--
,
- - -
'
" .{_ I? ! .?-l
a -
-
I ? 1 iii I iI? Ii, I ?I! ? IIII ?'Ifjr I ', II j ?,,,' I Ili I ? ,?? L?2?? 1?. ii ii?Ii I; -- I,'- i,;I<
j I I ! I I i I I i ! 1 i I . i I I I ,, l. l i ! 1 : I I:..Y! i ' I I N I N5j' UGr/ Ni
I I
I
I I I I u
! I I i I i
I I i I I I
II _ 1
r Y I t r ? ?I I Y, I ? ?. r ,! 11
I I
,
! i I' ;. I I I I I
.I i I I I i i Ii
i I i I I ! I I J i I.I •jC11i o, i. ! 1. r
i;! I I!,, 1: ! I I1. I i I I i ! tl -I I- I I I I I I I 1 I I i I_ i I 11- ID o. t 71
i I I( 1 I I! I: ' I I I:i ! I I I ?,I i I I I I j I ;I 1 lit s
I i i'I I I !: t i I` I I I:. i I I I I I.i , iI ! I' 1
, I Ln i Ul Ull Ul Ul Ul Ul A fl I Ul I Ul I Ul Ul I Ul Ul ! >. 5
'? tD N W Z. ! O I - Ul (7) Ul CO CD
O 0 I 0 I 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 I 0 I 0 I O i 0 I O z?. y 1-
PROPERTY OWNERS
NAMES AND ADDRESSES
PARCEL NO.
NAMES
ADDRESSES
3
4
CAMERON, WILLIAM JOHN
SPRAY COTTON MILL
351 MEADOW RD.
EDEN, NC 27288
P. O. BOX 3207
EDEN, NC 27289

K
c

76 a? rn
O
P
°
¢z
w
"
o
>
cn C) xo??o?
O ?U0co

E^
zz°°
o
0
o
V
?
2
L) L)
1
w
o
11,
Q
0Q

w

i
0
a

CL

0 f I
r
GE

J
m

LL (1) ? J
A
C
f
?
-U I L
y G

co

r
s
LL

? E c

z

C C U
y?,?c
o O
a
w U
E
?
a
? o 0

c o L)
o
0
.a

a

LLz
?

N O
C
L d L O O O

? ?U?

N
W 0,0
c
`?
a m
? o 0
3
W
c

Q N
^ LL c
N
1..1. i -6 co o
c
F-'

0 y
c ?

r ?
W ?

0

w

a
`v
.n
v

O
O
J

O

? O J
¢
F
-
z z ° W
H
a in
lZilillilill
P
00
R In
O In
0
10
OF
O
3
0
z
?? C h
Cl)
® Z 0
0
l
O ?
E
m^
z ° za
W?
z
0 0 a
z €
t y ..
93
m 0 i
4
0
?0 b
l P1 W aycm 3M000
\O / o 91. 0 o X.
? P
M+
00
Ln =3
1 4
P ? ?
?0
0U
?Z
1 W
L '\ U
P
in
y z '? f o
a 6G
"tiV L /`- S 1? a ?L`d
.dom.
Q m - --; " ?Z
'T Cj
h
8 pal
ti
y ? CC
C
x q
?
r
V e ? h
? a
@o
d?
f°

1L
n
u
4 w
n
..t Z a
m W
? w
Q a ?yg
y
p °c
A ?+
d
_ q
0
h ? y
P? aQ
$ to
Ln

44 °

S9
`9
(y N
w
4 w0 m 0O
a? u
N L
, Zn
V

10 Ci
a o

0
Ln o
? a
LO
U G
w
?
0 G
0
d

W
d F O
iy F a
Q
3 ?
=
? n.
F

t7 t7
0
J J
co
a M
m

q o a

°
IF-
?

°
to "'
00
Vj N
rn
U ? =
o o o u?

`" ? 0 "'
N N a

G.
60S£-? ??d.? 06ZIOZD ?11??PWINOLY-

W

?

a o 0

m

?
?
r
r
r
N
M M

U M
M 0
7q
tLtis s71¦O t
? F
a
CEO
w d
i
C
i !
C =p9?i
G (hi

W

? W

Q VV N
NW ?
a tij
?x N
'W
4,
W ? v1 4A W
OW
a
a
o 4i L
?

rrV^
vJ
?
? Ld
?T
?
Wx
?OT

W

W S
WWW
?W?

W

W ?

?W W

OT

WO ?JO
W y
0 W
?O O
• v
i
§ v
i §? W
m?Q LLJ
W
Z
U aC

? Wp
a
U

m

m

m

a
?L

LLJ

W

j
?CL
W
ja
O
i
W
z?
W
?c
a
?
~
?
?a
?
Q
:
?
?a .
?
?
,

Q v
C'L opUt ? ?? c
n
qpvwf
:t?.7 pvmmi
UJ (
O
U? pxmVi
UJ ???Z
Np?? W
m W

.
W

i
L

Te?

i?' m J J
a

LLJ ¢°

hW (

W
Wd?
O?O
?°
W
?O
W
WTW
o L
K
W
?Q°
W
?O
W
?WW?
4j
W
W
W
W

s

2

U
aC
?Txt >icc k? >i? ?W
x?
? W
T
W {
Pi
Pi V
2
W
x
8 aW
?? WW
?
? W?
?ja, cW?W aWW ?WO? ?W Q?W ?W ?Qti
Cc m 4 1
.
W to fo N ?'

W W

3 W

W 41 i

W

0
0
W? O

N?
Om
WJV1
O
O
O 2 W
O W
O W
O
W? W
O
W??Q
c9 O U
p i
?I
L
? k
bD Z W v
i v
i l
i
c

?N?
?
p?p¢m
?
m`to?
p
, ?
v 3
C? ?
v O
p
r
T C?
c2? ?
`.
Q. ?¢ y?titi ? a? ?¢ cc
??
Ya1?0 N ti icl U
a
W k
W W c
3 ,
a s ? ? a o o W W W W > > ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ° 3 3?
O
2
J
d
i
O O O
ti
??o
2=?
UUO O
WW
J ? 1
m ? 0
W
0
U
a [?? fW ?I 20?
j? ,
O U O
W
W
i
i
i N •
b N? ?
N m
~ W?. M
ti SSW i LL. dd
? UjW
`
W O Op
i L
? W ti I ?
LyJ---- ------- 24- kip kg 2??
° i Wr.? ? Woodd
Z ° ? ? ? N i 1 W
n E; I O O
ti rr O i Ii W ??
al O ? L
n ti i
C:2 ZOW j
? U
1?2NI a?
(? W 1
I V) CL
1 s
Q ? ac^ WW
? a
? s+ 41 2 ?
ya CiJ ? ?
to
• J?,I t??U J »
I ? o? ?d o a o?.
j O >V O
W
W
63 '1
01slt su.a

W I /
'
l

`
N
p I x
/ 3 ? 'XVH$
WIN
9 ? ? W
? ?
' i J . ?lJ LLl
z
Q / J ? .S NJH c?
f
?JW ??W
cr Es 8 Q.
Q °
6 lL G
t;
0

_ ??

W

W
S N ? U
N y
3
d 1?

g ? ?s

z W ? W
w
? p
? g
W m
H

W
a G
a
W?

3
:3

? ?
h h 4 4 in
U
u lzi a v r1
v W
1 ?NV
W m2 r, > ¢ i it '` 3 3

O O 1 O, I

o O3 0 "?

r ?O
2r ?-• ?Ij
?o
'=
U r
2 • N
lf)0 YO-4
v r
r b
2 r
I
7N.4 NOd
1N! d 30NIH
? ?W
NO
3
?Y
o
;r m
U
I
W I,
2? I
T
CL I
N p I
W
x I
J
I
?
O
-r-C
U ? '
I
7"
I

? I
I
I
1
3
o
i
S WO i
? W N
O I
n_ 1
,1 I
Q
O
0
>U
W

y
N

41
O

N
_ d
1 N
I
r
O ?
ti
4JW$
p
N zi m t; ?Ln
Ln
O 2 W`
Z ?Wp?
N v
Oe?~
ti
CJ
I
W
Nino
? a
O
w ??v3
WtimO
3 a?
f
i
r
~Y Y?
C\"
Q
J
rte' _ I
j
oa
Z
cr, C)
U-j CC
Z I
vJ
2
O

O >V p ?
W ¢
?

I
I Nz
i
qll

(? O 2
I ? Lk
cc Z>I
?2 O
R
a
W
?O
W
N
Qw
{a
cn `
W
LL, 6?j
?W
?3 2 g O
0
ti
W
?i
?o
W
I a
I
I
I
I
I
t
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1
I
I
JJ
1
I' T
I II ?J
I
I I
a
1
I
?II
1
I
A' I
I I
I
1
A I 1
y I I
I i
Z
W
U
?W
N
O
2
J
8
O
Q
D
J
1
.7,M
~ ? W
W N
W
S
N {jy
Z GGF
V C
w ?
?o
w '
? m
w
a
y o
W?
a
i
i
c? -
d ?
?w
v
Cd

? 4 W W 3 3
3 i3 u z a 2 2 W t?
W W W > i S C C I` 3 3
0

O
V
990
?W?
v O M I
a ? ao
2 a2?
o In
U 12?
a ??1
I
I
i
I
I
1
I 1
I 1
1
II

L
? Y 11
I I
I 1
11
II
?

Q I 1
II
II
I I

J I 1
I'
1 ? C9
I I ?
I I
1 I W

W

W 1 I
II
I 1

? -?
?2
4? I I
I I
I I

jV
?
W?
Q 1 1
t I

i
I, W
COi2 I I

O
?v N
s
?o
r2
-tno Yo-j
1NIOd 39NIH
U # to
?* I
,., 1NlOd 30NlH ?
:. ?,o+ o Ij
Q
O ? R
Q

cam., -?------
gi
0
?,
R?
0

qi
0 'I

ap 2
WUQ 0?
22
> CR
`? O
Lo
Z
U
i I

? i WI?NI
ENO
o
R
O ,
I cc
I UN
v
P'
?
W
3
3
W~

C 0 E

a?
O
Lo LQ
?Q ?zz
a 2 cn
?2 UO
3W ?Q
D
R
0
i
r1 N$ N
NdN N
triW???O?
Vi J (/) I
YZ,
U l O k Wp
z o
??.? dd?ON
oWd?'n?n?d
U3t ? t;
W O W j
{{,? O
V p W 1? 10 2p
-?o
?
Z) F` UL
OI y ? Q vs
O r? O e

Z
0
W
y
9iW N
Lg
x
ti
UFO 3
O m Q.
U
cry 3
: ?_gW3
w?mo
2°
M
.
d
V)
0
m?
0
WJ
m?
qW
cz,
0?2
W
R
M
a?,c
o ?n ?n
'r ct:
voo
J J
$31M
•LLU ou"
_

N
N
ea \ ?\ \IV A*v F -(I1 r
_ Lo Lr 0% c

i

?

? `?
Jr ?.
\ 1
'
Ij ?
$ r' e Y
? 1 1 I T I I I T I T 11 1 1 1 1 I N 1 11 11 I T 11 11 1 1 1
C ? 1
'
? s•1
?
r 0" ?

1
? + II I II I II I T I 1 1 11 1111 11 1 1 1 1 11 111 1 11 . 1 1 11 11 1 1 1 1
W ? W ? 7i O \? 1 •
? Ji ?
Y \ 1
?
m
a N,3 Y11 \?1 + I

Q j{
Ys . 1
i 1
.h ??„
?3 'ii
? 1 \
b I
' I 11

11

5

.1

1 11

1

11

111

1

1

11 1

11

1

1

1111

1

1
O

111

?11

1

c 9.?b
$ 11 1 11 1 111 1 II III II R 111 1 11 111 11 I N II II II I' II I I II I ,

i
S
} I I
I
I '
,- / H ill I
`
I I
,

111 11 1 1 111 11 1 Hi ll I I ll 11 1111 I ll 11 1 1 1111 111 111 111 1 11111 1;: 1

y?`
?? ?/ / W 1 `Q ?
µ0y p / I I 113AT O.91
Q
r
3 ??, (I ///
? C O
0
RNv 1 1111 1 N 1111 I ll 1111 1 1111 1 11111 11 1111 1 11111 ?III I

?
O ? h
? O1 .11
O I I I / //
1 jt' 1 4 n ? ? `?
1
4 Hill o
)
0/A6fU (II h O

°
• y rl1! $$
¦ to I #II? '?'W Y $?`g?ia
I.
C
i QQ
??
,,,
I
I ? ?{
I

t I 1
Fj
? a ? O
d ?? / adO,r-?vs? +
j y Y1
1
1
_
t2, 't

uq,
IN
11111I
N
11,
[y ii??••yy ii??
1Y I 6 1
" ? ? ? ? 'a'9\
? ? it 4 ? ? ? ?
?/ '?
W' 1v'
4. _ 6
89 j
N.Zr.2L ZS ,Q I 19.
111 11 11 lil l IN 11 1111 111 1111111 11
1 11
1 Hi ll 11 IN I I I
I
I
II
w
NM NMi
.
°o
V 0PS1 j I I I ? ,? W , ?/1 1 n n O
1 I
I W1': - ? Cl ° V V
U
Q x I
i W /
pp
? Z 1 /. ?O?r h t+/
I N
?
?
I
V
1 I
gl I II or• O
r 9t'CI - r.LO.SLaS `
L?ILYIS ? °O
? N spat Op in
R
ea?p?dOadaoN
yl- NON
"
'192 _ _ .
I? 1L'S9 0 -'" ° ?n
fNpp ya ul
0 OIWl$!W 3.OO.bb.OZN
to
`
O1 = c?
o
,
? r• 0
?
'
l w
/
dO. I m '-
m
14?
l r
j
6?
? ' p
1 ?
?
L'9?
F EE AJ
?"
>?, ?•
a{
YSa
7? p8 ??W
W V
S d J
VV
a
t a
?

_ ?I tS
yp
Oo ?TJ
9
5

I 1 1•' 1J t•,
' l? /
?
J
Y
v- s a
a
?In
1?T?,T
H F• F•
W SST 1302000
?NNN
S
O
a
,/ ?
'l
(1 \
? iV
1L _
W
¢
O??OOOOO X O
9
a
\
?
?
'/
6`O
1
/
r -%'?
Yl-
61
' O
?
i
1
l
6

• , `T? a mod
- /_ - `? O
-

1
I
/
J '
? //
! d7(
rd3(s
?
t
/
/
? r Ss =?
Ol 3

3z

I

I

III

I

I

Hi

l

ill
U5
ro
?3
I l
{
1
L
OQ l
JS
? JNO7 / / ?
a v
? a
?
{$
M.L.hzGS_ ? rd7(S
/
u nM ? \ QU

7 l C
a
9 u l I
lf a(r
b [Lb3N
2
J i
''I,
'I'Q'?' M/??
?JllT'?? h
T
r
7j
0
7
b
? b
_
r.
,I,
\
F Q
ooru
N. 2.C0.ws?
Cy????y h }
Si O
`
/'
?.oo.u.
Sz's 21a'pa•r
? JE
12 szno•oo•A
/ \
?f?r?
\ ay z
? 11 1 1 111 11 1 I N Hill i t M -I-
N

•
.
a
/ --?_
50.00/ / W / t a
B'B9 SC891
? ,
lla. 13315
X
A l
` ?l ;$ 1 I
?
1 g `1 ,? _?
Ng . I t

zl It
~
yyy
1111
ay
s
G ,I,x
/ ? N
Vi
_ l I
.
l
? r14
FF
l
ll
,
j
I
l
q
yy
f'?
a bel . '?
yyj
/l Il
?? t /J II "7 ? i ,y
?
G
?e
u
/
O
.
1
5
1 5 , I ,? Ig ztors
?o??y9 /?? 4 / I I?S9'S 3(p,?4SiN la ? Hq ?1 At
0.GrN .r

sQ ?/ / / `
C b 1 tr,

031A
•3MLS 4200

W

Q Z ? Z
I C7 I C?
?Q
LO ?
i
t9xn :Y
r
00PS1
Z
z? a
10' ?* Z J s t
L L I? W `Df.

\
? N U
?
• ?1 \? O YN
, ? . 7

u
¦

96'9B•
Y
o p
r

• o
0 O,
0
o ,?
O. O
; 00
i
• 6r6
19 o 'F s?
o lo' a !p

? ,d9y ot. NU

R
.MO b
..
0 -

Y'00/ ?
O m
? C3
0! iZ a m O
4
Jrd
Of,/r

b.S
z a x
Vof
? `i

.•
4 it 11 O
, ?

o
?( 3Jri ? X N
i ? V ?
e t •? 3JV ii V
? ?
?., 04 ,Z WSS o ,

r p II ?? I I I
? Q? Q.

? OD

? Irl I I I

,
g
?

00,(0 0 o

CL
I
m
,
H
W
m UJ a
r
N
Z- 11
02 a W
J
V ?
2
? O
V
I Q
I W
? qlM
•300 ?]1tOt
I
I yd?? - -
Pln It
jig
o r%'$ W [ Iv°+ ?? I ?IQ ?3 s
i\ ?yiy , I ? rn
U • ?. _ ` d' _ i \ •JI `?? I I 1 it
\ \JMOJ,Ly
LL ,? x d a? \\ 1 \ b? ,-WSJ I I I 'r „111
U 3 [?. • } \ ` ?S?ro. Y \ f tab)
a 3 ?,y;d - a 4,1-b\?z ? oo? 1 r e ? d? 9 O G
?r+ \ -^ 1\\, ?+'ra __ _!r .` \ \\\??? 1, =c;
aid \ '?'cv 1 I \ ?\ o \ 4. +? - -? .\ \ ` b r aq ??
?M'tj? ,. i ? \ ? \ \\ t?? 40 •?• _ ' ?+? \ ? Q?F +"? \\ \ \\\ `Tc-??+\°.ys , ? © - ?I±o?,c•. - •? _
??\? ? "1 111 \??\ ?+/ ?\.?` \ p// I +•w4 bl ? ?J ?Q.
r C3 11 •\.\ •1 y3 + V v ° \\ . m? ° 1 ' sne 11a s,
WL ? ?' ?sb i 1 Y? Q. in „?• C`: ??}? ?e`'?' ? ?? i \", 1¦?L7a;??.l?? ?S? ro ? ?N ?\ * a \ }?: m \' Y ?1 ? 1 L,a0.,fN nr¦ N
???o oC? ??\?m , I 9
t`3i p,I,?y,I,G3 P ¦ 1 yrn.?5" it It 111
TT? ?ys?s
C Ihi} L k I 111 ` c. 0? \ \? 1 d ilr I u W
t Qr-df2 Od -7c? I I i j tl \\ °s 1 0?\ \ f 9
11?rj11I?
a 1 II xs?/ s Jwr \ \ \ 1 *1 /
In I;N
?? r rup C} IC> "I I I I III 9 /'?, ' ?yy?I$.€gg ©° \\ o `\?\a M\\ a\? ,ONE
°j to l 1 /mod'' 1 ',6S:S m \ '?\\? 11, , x Q ' _
14 w
r.a z 3t o Ciy N H WTUCi IC} ' 13A7H3,9 21 II h /.y,+ \ ,n?°- \ \ \
W: Nin _ ° tib?i WT bI f3 1 l //I -- °LJ? ?r ° _ `ISa.EUfi 1
A Ai
is " w? y ? ? Q'I p yul = I c ///j u N q g N cZg - _ - - g = \ o\ \
00 A?
/III /' o
ve r g Q e I w 1 Y ?g9 `' • I O
?04 ?t
(`j°j 1111 It 'all
y _ y g 1E . , ?,;,o
gSi
ti aIQiQI?IflII} 3a8p z ?rj," t3 ON
Nl?jh as v cs - - - ='°s.u ?_ _ r a I I d_ ' ' -? q - A,p'\ Q \ G? /
4. cm
CCON
N?
II II U t 1 1 t 1 - - -? ,Eb 9E _
a4o??fXo I ? ' ?Q 8?
u?ti t ? a * a
Nd' a aMj`8so $ Q3 W * 1 x o2 ? / - ? -
,17Qyf{?' q u r: ([`,? r6 * Wry[ 8 1 W c>
o S w 2 ` F- V °a I (, i - ?[`1 FL's 1 ?-
t4J
J 1111 II 1 i t? YID I?7/ 6 I 1
?J iL ' ?t 2 I r - ' ro ,o Noi,Yr- a h Z?
LA-A
-. z 1 W' Q
J J.t? W 1 Q] •?1 •?1 _ l6. WI ¦? _ 6Y \ ? 4 1 3i
1 i i - - - - 6EI • wzo?s. _ Ile ?'i?
! ? ? b i s.isrb oo ¦,z0\sSAS 5 ,yt aW
v' fyi ?+' aa`ruvto9 J4g3 , - 3s3 rl .? y ? ? \ ? •^ : .w. j ? <vs ? /x o3 a
"'`V• 4j$ Q •?,? , Q ?:Y 1 r ?W yji 0 % O'/Otl 3N009 0 / Q
1sa.9i?C `/--- o
x,°711 II 11 t t 1 t I ,fig YII _ - r w ^ O.O?5• / /' /3?S `Yd9/? ?cF y,'?
olXa Ou°
s ?¢
4/1
?II II II 1 1 ly $?t ?L (/ c • y? pL? m N ?a / f1
L
ttqq W O n • \a 1 ` r? s `/ti?j / ,a a 1 ryy.
\4NN Q?N ?xxW p ? 1 ?/ I? / -' .ar•r ???O?7J .c o ;?"???C3` li
1 r.2ltc Q I 1 r
,l ?/_ ate'/• -' " 7'Llt ay „? ^ ??' '`•b`?fi'+`
N t\Igq11???U? 1 Igo ^ ^ 1' ' r i? _ s /1? r<mN % ,' tip' ?7/ ?\
?zlwerC22 I S J ? 31s ° . b3 t _?'+ i o? ' }? {? b, 4.1
II II Is t 1 It 1 I © ?' • dp ?•" a' \ /?a ?i`yfd' \Q' p " f`j `.
?jN
r , w
qq
?l QO -O nO .?. •'f\n° a Y 1 it /ti?. }}~???
91 y
2j• 9 S
`hay gz? ??zL.° 9r TNc?? - s ! ', '' gY o 'k fJ g
II it 11 1 1 t /yO/ M•SI.fEZrS' _ - ' a eia.4 Q J J ?•\
00 At
Mi'CEL • ?. ? ? ? ? l 14tf °6•
roa
azs 1 1sz?ro3oziv ` / ?} I p"zb swZn 3ls.LLew
L z • 6 ;,? - ? '
•3 of szgto?oo• ? o-iE.
t? ooor T a '!ems- .;? 1-6.1 s2rlo' h /
oo it r -Y
3•oo•pySfry k? muwa a3v06Yrer 50.00/ , 1 a _ l l/y soarer M.- .t1.WS \ ?' SC'e9?, -•`?C
3?a?N ? ? 07? l???tl l f'7?l/'?? X7: `\$ ?I h¦13319 ??F'? II ,?
.J, ? / , /1?. •" / / ? 777 1 ?- ? Jn ? , =)F` ? ^?`
°09 b '^ - - - - - -Ir=cy1 / m l II o3 iwy ?8?
m? a6
+77M
MONISM 03SIA3I1 CI ALL 01 AWJ'JOJJ a]SWU zS V C 13INYA c31VO NOISIA34 MV 113111 su.a
AVA AM Q3aQV -L 13UYJ :1Va NOWA3y Ili
S3314%4111 1M ®O aNV S134MO ALUI10'" 3141 CLL S37NVH3 z9 aNV'VV SIZWJ MVU NOISIA34 Mi
SNOISLAN
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road)
over Smith River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-700(1)
State Project 8.1511701
W.B.S. 33122.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3509
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
W404 lat4l
U Alt Gregory J. Thor Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
67ho)o
DATEc

John F. Sullivan, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road)
over Smith River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-700(1)
State Project 8.1511701
W.B.S. 33122.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3509
CATEGORICAL EXCLUSION
AND
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
June 2004
Document Prepared By:
Mulkey Engineers & Consultants
Date Pamela R. Williams
Project Manager
..05 ? '•+d?a4
AY n
{ i r a IVA?//
d
a
E SPA S
o
Date a 14509 r W. S. Hood P.E.
Principal-in-Charge
Of0 ? eesee.•e?e ?e
O r i?I uoO? ?60e
o''d???67?dljp 81?L0
Document Prepared For:
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Date Jo Wadsworth, P.E.
Pr ect Manager
PROJECT COMMITMENTS
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road)
over Smith River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-700(1)
W.B.S. 33122.1.1
State Project 8.1511701
T.I.P. No. B-3509
In addition to the standard Nationwide Permit No. 23 Conditions, the General Nationwide
Permit Conditions, Section 404 Only Conditions, Regional Conditions, State Consistency
Conditions, NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters, Erosion and
Sediment Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, NCDOT's Guidelines for Best
Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and Removal, General Certification Conditions, and
Section 401 Conditions of Certification, the following special commitments have been agreed to
by NCDOT:
Design Services, Structures, Hydraulics and Division Engineer
An in-stream construction moratorium will be in effect from April 1 to June 30. This
moratorium is required due to the size of the river and the good population of fish in the
project area.
Bridge deck drains will not discharge directly into the Smith River.
The existing waterline attached to the bridge will be relocated.
Texas "classic" bridge railing will be provided on the proposed bridge.
Maintain continuous access to Spray Cotton Mills.
Removal and restoration of area occupied by temporary detour.
PDEA/Design Services/Structure Design
The following measures will be carried out for the replacement of Bridge No. 75 per the
approved Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix B):
1. Photo Documentation: NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 75 and the adjacent buildings
in the (expanded) Spray Industrial Historic District in accordance with a Historic
Structures Recordation Plan.
2. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall consult with the City of Eden and North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO) on the design for the replacement
bridge and provide the HPO an opportunity to comment upon the Preliminary Design
plans for the replacement bridge. Texas "classic" bridge railing will be provided.
Green Sheet
B-3509 Draft Categorical Exclusion
June 2004
Page 1 of 1
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road)
over Smith River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-700(1)
State Project 8.1511701
T.I.P. No. B-3509
INTRODUCTION: Replacement of Bridge No. 75 is included in the North Carolina Department
of Transportation (NCDOT) 2004-2010 Transportation
Federal-Aid Bridge Replacement Program. The location
environmental impacts are anticipated. The project is
Exclusion."
1. PURPOSE AND NEED STATEMENT
Improvement Program and in the
is shown in Figure 1. No substantial
classified as a Federal "Categorical
The purpose of this project is to replace a bridge that is considered structurally deficient and
functionally obsolete within the same transportation corridor. Bridge Maintenance Unit records
indicated the bridge has a sufficiency rating of 45.2 out of a possible 100 for a new structure.
The replacement of this inadequate structure will result in a safer and more efficient shared use
facility.
II. EXISTING CONDITIONS
The project is located within the city limits of Eden in Rockingham County, approximately
0.8 miles (1.29 kilometers) west of NC 14 (Figure 1). Development in the area is industrial,
commercial, and residential in nature. Spray Industrial Historical District, a district listed on the
National Register of Historic Places, is located west of Bridge No. 75.
SR 3003 (W. Meadow Road) is classified as an urban minor arterial in the Statewide Functional
Classification System and is a Federal-Aid Highway. However, this section of road is classified
as a major thoroughfare on the Eden Thoroughfare Plan adopted on December 6, 1996. This
route is not a designated bicycle route.
In the vicinity of the bridge, SR 3003 has a 22-foot (6.7-meter) pavement width with 6-foot
(1.8-meter) grass shoulders. The roadway is on a 3.5% grade across the bridge with a sag
vertical curve on the west approach. The existing bridge is on a tangent that extends 300 feet
(91.4 meters) east of the structure. There is an asphalt roundabout at the west end of the
structure with yield control for the intersection of Church Street, SR 3003 and SR 3002 (Boone
Street). The roadway is situated approximately 35 feet (10.7 meters) above the river bed.
Bridge No. 75 is an eight-span structure that consists of reinforced concrete deck girders with
an asphalt wearing surface. The substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and
piers. The existing bridge (Figure 3) was constructed in 1954. The overall length of the
structure is 340 feet (104 meters). The clear roadway width is 28.0 feet (8.4 meters) with 5-
foot (1.5 meter) sidewalks provided on both sides of the bridge. Bridge No. 75 currently has
posted weight limits of 19 tons (17.2 metric tons) for single vehicle (SV) and 32 tons (29 metric
tons) for truck-tractor semi trailer (TTST).
There are numerous utilities in the area of Bridge No. 75 including a 4-inch (100-millimeter) gas
line and a 14-inch (360-millimeter) water line attached to the existing bridge. There is an 18-
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509
inch (460-millimeter) sanitary sewer line along the east bank of the Smith River that passes
under the existing bridge. There is a smaller sewer line along the north side of SR 3003 that
intersects the 18-inch (460-millimeter) line north of the bridge. There is a 24-inch (600-
millimeter) sanitary sewer line along the west bank of the river that passes under SR 3003 off
the west end of the existing bridge. There are several water lines under SR 3003 and SR 3002
at the west end of the bridge. Overhead power lines are along and across SR 3003 at both
ends of the existing bridge. Utility impacts are anticipated to be high.
The traffic volume for the current year of 2004 is 19,100 vehicles per day (VPD) and is
expected to increase to 22,900 VPD by the year 2025. The projected volume includes 3%
truck-tractor semi-trailer (TTST) and 4% dual-tired vehicles (DT). The posted speed limit is 35
miles (60 kilometers) per hour in the project area.
Four accidents have been reported in the vicinity of Bridge No. 75 during the period from June
2000 to May 2003. Three of the accidents resulted in property damage and no injuries. One
accident resulted in property damage and non-fatal injuries.
There are currently 16 school buses crossing the bridge a total of 59 times daily.
III. ALTERNATIVES
A. Project Description
The recommended replacement structure consists of a bridge approximately 350 feet (107
meters) in length and 43 feet (12.9 meters) wide with Texas "Classic" bridge railing. This
structure will consist of two 14-foot (4.2-meter) travel lanes to accommodate bicycle traffic and
provide 2-foot (0.6-meter) shoulders with 5.5-foot (1.65-meter) sidewalks on each side
(Figure 4).
The proposed approach roadway from the west consists of a curb and gutter facility providing
two 14-foot (4.2-meter) lanes and 5-foot (1.5-meter) sidewalks (Figure 4). The approach
roadway from the east within the project limit will provide 14-foot (4.2-meter) travel lanes and
a combination of curb and gutter and shoulder section.
The recommended bridge length is based on a preliminary hydraulic analysis. The elevation of
the new structure will be approximately the same as the existing grade at this location. The
length of the new structure may be increased or decreased as necessary to accommodate peak
flows as determined by more detailed hydrologic studies during the final design phase.
Causeways are anticipated for the construction of the proposed bridge and temporary detour
structure.
Rockingham County, Replace Bdd-ge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 2
B. Build Alternatives
The three build alternatives studied for replacing Bridge No. 75 are described below.
Alternative 5 is the NCDOT's preferred alternative. Final selection was made after completion of
the public involvement process and receipt of comments on the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation.
Alternative 3 replaces Bridge No. 75 at the existing location (Figure 2A). During construction,
traffic will be routed along SR 3002 (Boone Road), SR 2066 (West King Highway), SR 1387
(South Van Buren Road) and SR 1747 (Stadium Drive). The estimated detour route is
approximately 3.5 miles (5.6 kilometers) in length and will be in place approximately 2 years.
Alternative 3 was eliminated due to strong opposition from city officials and citizens. They
believe that rerouting traffic will have a negative economic impact on the community.
Alternative 5 (preferred) replaces Bridge No. 75 at the existing location (Figure 2B). During
construction, traffic will be maintained by a temporary detour structure north of the existing
bridge. The existing asphalt roundabout will be upgraded to current design standards. The
intersection of Church Street, SR 3002 and SR 3003 will be controlled by a temporary traffic
signal during the construction of the new bridge and revised roundabout.
Alternative 8 replaces Bridge No. 75 on new alignment north of the existing structure (Figure
2C). During construction, traffic will be maintained through phased construction of the new
bridge. Phase 1 maintains traffic on two lanes on the existing bridge during the removal of the
sidewalk on the north side and building of the proposed bridge. Phase 2 shifts the traffic to the
new bridge with temporary traffic signal control and finalizes construction of the proposed
structure and roundabout. Phase 3 will shift traffic to the permanent traffic pattern.
Alternative 8 is not recommended because it will require shifting the structure north, adding
reverse curves to the horizontal alignment, impacting the property on the northeast approach
and the existing Spray Industrial Historic District more than Alternative 5.
C. Alternatives Eliminated From Further Study
Alternative 1 involves replacement of the structure on new location approximately 850 feet
(260 meters) south (downstream) of the existing bridge (Figure 2D). This alignment follows a
proposed realignment of SR 3003 shown on the Eden Thoroughfare Plan. Existing Bridge No.
75 will serve to maintain traffic on-site during construction. The new alignment will be
approximately 2400 feet (730 meters) in length. The proposed bridge will be 525 feet (160
meters) in length. Alternative 1 was eliminated due to citizens' negative input, impacting 4(f)
properties due to the required improvements on Early Street, because it is not within the same
transportation corridor and it does not meet the purpose and need.
Alternative 2 involves replacement of the structure on new location approximately 50 feet (15
meters) north (upstream) of the existing bridge. The existing Bridge No. 75 will serve to
maintain traffic on-site during construction. The new alignment will be approximately 2200 feet
(670 meters) in length. Alternative 2 was eliminated due to the opposition from the community
to a T-intersection design in lieu of a roundabout. Citizens and the City of Eden local officials
strongly prefer a roundabout. A T-intersection will not provide an acceptable level of service
(LOS) due to the high volume of traffic and a two-lane bridge.
Alternative 4 involves replacement of the bridge on new alignment south (downstream) of the
existing bridge utilizing an upgraded roundabout. During construction, traffic will be maintained
on the existing bridge.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 3
Alternative 6 involves replacement of the bridge at the existing location utilizing an upgraded
roundabout. During construction, traffic will be maintained on a temporary bridge located south
(downstream) of the existing bridge.
Alternative 7 involves replacement of the bridge with the centerline alignment shifted
approximately 40 feet (12 meters) south utilizing an upgraded roundabout. During construction,
traffic will be maintained through phased construction of the new bridge. Phase 1 maintains
traffic on two lanes on the existing bridge and constructs approximately 27 feet (8.2 meters) of
the proposed bridge. During Phase 2, traffic will be shifted to the new bridge, the existing
bridge removed and the additional 12.5 feet (3.8 meters) of the new bridge built.
Alternatives 4, 6 and 7 were eliminated due to recommendation from the Limited Soil
Assessment Report. Any alternative that will shift the alignment and/or the construction south
of the existing bridge is not recommend due to the contaminated soil and the landfill debris
that is located south of the bridge. The pump house, a Section 4(f) resource located on the
southeast corner of the bridge, will be demolished with Alternatives 4, 6, and 7.
The "do-nothing" alternative will eventually necessitate closure of the bridge. This is not
acceptable due to the traffic service and community connectivity provided by SR 3003 (W.
Meadow Road) and Bridge No. 75.
"Rehabilitation" of this bridge is not feasible due to its age and deteriorated condition.
D. Preferred Alternative
Alternative 5, replacement of the bridge at the existing location with an on-site detour, was
selected as the preferred alternative. This alternative was selected as the preferred because it
allows traffic to be maintained on-site and has a minimal impact on adjacent properties. The
project will include upgrading the existing roundabout to new design standards.
The Division Engineer and the Eden Historic Preservation Commission concurs with the
selection of Alternative 5 as the preferred alternative.
IV. ESTIMATED COSTS
The estimated costs for the studied alternatives, based on current prices, are as follows:
Alternative 3 Alternative 5
referred Alternative 8
Structures $1,128,800 $1,168,100 $1,364,300
Roadway Approaches 75,400 284,100 425,200
Detour Structure & Approaches 0 975,000 -0-
Structure Removal 108,500 108,500 135,600
Retaining Wall 0 0 833,800
Misc. & Mob. 587,300 704,400 869,900
En q. & Contingencies 300,000 335,000 421,300
Total Construction Cost $2,200,000 $3,575,000 $4,050, 000
Right-of-way Costs 335,100 522,625 521,300
Total Project Cost $2,535,100 1 $4,097,625 4 571 300
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 4
The estimated cost of the project shown in the 2004-2010 NCDOT Transportation Improvement
Program is $1,945,000, including $385,000 for right-of-way and $1,560,000 for construction.
V. NATURAL RESOURCES
A. Methodology
Information sources used to prepare this report include: USGS Northwest Eden, NC 7.5 minute
series topographic map (1978); USGS Northeast Eden, NC 7.5 minute series topographic map
(1983); USGS Southwest Eden, NC 7.5 minute series topographic map (1994); USGS Southeast
Eden, NC 7.5 minute series topographic map (1994); Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Soil
Survey of Rockingham County, NC (February 1992); United States Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) National Wetlands Inventory map (Northwest Eden, NC, 1990); Endangered,
Threatened, and Candidate Species and Federal Species of Concern in North Carolina (USFWS)
via the Internet; North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) computer database, via the
Internet, of rare species and unique habitats (www.ncsparks.net/nhp/elements.htmi); and
NCDOT aerial photography of the study area. Research using these resources was undertaken
prior to the field investigation.
A general field survey was conducted along the proposed project corridor on September 18,
1998. On November 24, 1998, a field survey was conducted to investigate an additional
proposed alternative on new alignment south of the bridge. A third visit was made to the site
on July 29, 1999 to investigate a shift in the proposed alternative south of the bridge. Plant
communities and their associated wildlife were identified using a variety of observation
techniques including active searching, and identifying characteristic signs of wildlife such as
sounds, tracks, scats, and burrows.
Impact calculations were based on the worst-case scenario using the full right-of-way limits for
each individual alternate, the width of the replacement structure, and the length of the project
approaches. The actual construction impacts should be less, but without specific replacement
structure design information, the worst case was assumed for the impact calculations.
B. Topography and Soils
The proposed project lies within the Piedmont Physiographic Province, which includes all parts
of North Carolina west of the Fall Line and east of the Blue Ridge Escarpment. This province is
underlain by igneous, crystalline metamorphic, or occasionally, sedimentary rocks. The
topography of the project vicinity can be characterized as moderately rolling to steeply sloped.
Elevations in the project vicinity range from approximately 510 to 680 feet (155 to 208 meters)
above mean sea level (msl). Current land use in the project vicinity is mainly industrial,
commercial, and residential.
The Mayodan-Stoneville soil classification dominates the project area (USDA-SCS, 1992). Soils
in the Mayodan-Stoneville classification are well drained and gently sloping to moderately steep
upland soils, with a loamy surface layer and loamy and clayey subsoil. Field conditions
appeared to generally conform to the soil survey mapping in the project area. Individual soil
types found in the project area are described below.
Congaree loam is located along both sides of the river. It is characterized as well drained or
moderately well drained and is typically found on wide flood plains. This soil is sometimes
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 5
flooded for brief periods in winter and spring. Chewacla and Wehadkee soils may be included in
the Congaree soil classification. Both inclusions (USDA-SCS, 1992) are listed as hydric (USDA-
SCS, 1991) and may occur in small depressions at the contact between flood plains and upland
areas. Chewacla soils are somewhat poorly drained, moderately permeable, and have a
seasonal high water table 0.5 to 1.5 feet (0.1 to 0.45 meters) below the surface. Wehadkee
soils are poorly drained, moderately permeable, and have a seasonal high water table at or
near the surface.
Urban land is shown north and south of the western approaches for all alternatives. This soil
type consists of areas where more than 85 percent of the surface is covered by buildings,
pavement, or other impervious material. The natural characteristics of the soils and land
surfaces have been altered or destroyed, and runoff is very rapid.
Ayersville gravelly loam, 15 to 45 percent slopes is located east of the river in a narrow strip
adjacent to the Congaree loam. This soil is well drained to excessively drained and occurs on
convex side slopes. Erosion is a severe hazard in areas where the surface of this soil is exposed
or unprotected. Surface runoff can be rapid. Included with this soil are small areas of Stoneville
and Mayodan soils on the smoother parts of the landscape, and Leaksville and Spray soils at
the lower elevations. Neither Ayersville nor any of its inclusions are hydric soils (USDA-SCS,
1991; USDA-SCS, 1992).
Ayersville gravelly loam, 4 to 15 percent slopes is adjacent to the Ayersville gravelly loam,
15 to 45 percent slopes on the north side of the eastern approach. This soil is well drained to
excessively drained and permeability is moderate. Erosion is a moderate to severe hazard in
areas where the soil surface is exposed. Included soils, which make up about 10 to 20 percent
of the soil type, consist of Stoneville, Mayodan, Leaksville, Spray, and Eden soils (USDA-SCS,
1992). None of the soils reportedly found within this map unit are hydric (USDA-SCS, 1991).
Mayodan sandy loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes is located within the project area south of the
eastern approach. This well drained soil is on slightly convex side slopes on uplands.
Permeability and shrink swell potential are moderate. Erosion is a severe hazard in areas where
the surface is exposed or unprotected. Concentrations of aluminum in the subsoil may restrict
rooting depth. Included with this soil are small areas of Stoneville, Pinkston, and Ayersville soils
(USDA-SCS, 1992). Mayodan sandy loam is not a hydric soil, nor are any of the inclusions found
within it (USDA-SCS, 1991).
Mayodan-Urban land complex, 2 to 10 percent slopes is found north and south of the
eastern approaches. This soil complex is about 50 percent Mayodan soil, 35 percent urban land,
and 15 percent included soils. Permeability and shrink swell potential are moderate and surface
runoff is higher than that of other Mayodan soils because of the areas that are covered by
impermeable materials. Included in this soil type are a few areas of Pinkston, Ayersville, and
Stoneville soils (USDA-SCS, 1992). None of the soils found within this map unit are listed as
hydric (USDA-SCS, 1991).
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 6
C. Water Resources
1. Water Resource Characteristics
The proposed project falls within the Roanoke River Basin, with a subbasin designation of ROA3
(03-02-03) and a federal hydrologic unit designation of 03010103. The Smith River is a
relatively wide, moderately flowing river which discharges into the Dan River approximately 1.7
miles (2.7 kilometers) south of the project study area. The Smith River flows in a southerly
direction through the proposed project area with a width of approximately 200 to 300 feet (60
to 90 meters). The depth on the days of the site investigations ranged from approximately 1 to
4 feet (0.3 to 1.2 meters).
The Smith River has a Class C rating from the North Carolina Department of Environment and
Natural Resources (NCDENR). A Class C designation indicates the river's suitability for aquatic
life propagation and survival, fishing, wildlife, secondary recreation, and agriculture. The
Classification Date and Index for this portion of the river is 9/1/57, 22-40-(3).
There are four major and fourteen minor permitted point-source discharges in subbasin 03-02-
03. Point-source discharges located throughout North Carolina are permitted through the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) program. None of the - permitted
discharges noted above are on the Smith River.
Non-point source refers to runoff that enters surface waters through storm water flow or no
defined point of discharge. In the project study area, storm water runoff from SR 3003
(Meadow Road) and other urban surfaces may cause water quality degradation.
Benthic macroinvertebrates are organisms that live in and on the bottom substrates of rivers
and streams. The North Carolina Division of Water Quality (NCDWQ) uses data on these
organisms as a tool to monitor water quality since benthic macroinvertebrates are sensitive to
subtle changes in water quality. Formerly, the NCDWQ used the Benthic Macroinvertebrate
Ambient Network (BMAN) as a primary tool for water quality assessment, but phased this
method out several years ago and has converted to a basin wide assessment sampling protocol.
Each river basin in the state is sampled once every five years and the number of sampling
stations has been increased within each basin. Each basin is sampled for biological, chemical
and physical data.
The DWQ includes the North Carolina Index of Biotic Integrity (NCIBI) as another method to
determine general water quality in the basin wide sampling. The NCIBI is a modification of the
Index of Biotic Integrity initially proposed by Karr (1981) and Karr, et al. (1986). The NCIBI
method was developed for assessing a stream's biological integrity by examining the structure
and health of its fish community. The Index incorporates information about species richness
and composition, trophic composition, fish abundance, and fish condition. The NCIBI
summarizes the effects of all classes of factors influencing aquatic faunal communities (water
quality, energy source, habitat quality, flow regime, and biotic interactions).
According to the NCDWQ, (NCDWQ, October 1, 1998) there is a sampling station located at NC
14 on the Smith River north of the project area. This station was last sampled in September of
1994. The NCIBI rating of the river at this location was determined to be fair.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 7
2. Anticipated Impacts to Water Resources
General Impacts
Neither High Quality Waters (HQW), Water Supplies (WS-I: undeveloped watershed, or WS-II:
predominately undeveloped watersheds) nor Outstanding Resource Waters (ORW) occur within
1 mile (1.6 kilometers) of project study area. The new replacement structure construction and
approach work will likely increase sediment loads in the river in the short term. Construction
related sedimentation can be harmful to local populations of invertebrates, which are an
important part of the aquatic food chain. Potential adverse effects will be minimized through
the use of the NCDOT's Best Management Practices for Protection of Surface Waters (BMPs)
and the use of erosion and sediment control measures as specified in the Erosion and Sediment
Control Guidelines for Contract Construction, as applicable.
Impacts Related to Bridge Demolition and Removal
In order to protect the water quality and aquatic life in the area affected by this project, the
NCDOT and all potential contractors will follow appropriate guidelines for bridge demolition and
removal. These guidelines are presented in three NCDOT documents entitled "Pre-Construction
Guidelines for Bridge Demolition and Removal", "Policy: Bridge Demolition and Removal in
Waters of the United States", and "Best Management Practices for Bridge Demolition and
Removal (all documents dated 9/20/99). Guidelines followed for bridge demolition and
removal are in addition to those implemented for Best Management Practices for the Protection
of Surface Waters.
Dropping any portion of the structure to be removed into waters of the United States should be
attempted only if no other practical method of removal is feasible. In the event that no other
practical method is available, a worst-case scenario is assumed for calculations of fill entering
the water. The maximum potential fill calculated for Bridge No. 75 is 584 cubic yards (446 cubic
meters). The superstructure of the bridge consists of reinforced concrete deck girders. The
substructure consists of reinforced concrete abutments and post and beam interior bents.
The river substrate in the project area has a silty surface, however many large rocks are also
scattered throughout. Due to the nature of the substrate, increased sedimentation will occur if
the bridge were dropped into the water during the demolition and removal process. Where it is
possible to do so, a turbidity curtain is recommended to be used to contain sediments. Aquatic
life which is not very mobile could be harmed when components of the bridge enter the water.
Species which filter feed, as well as those species that feed upon them, could be negatively
impacted by increased sedimentation. Sedimentation could negatively impact submerged
aquatic vegetation by obstructing or reducing the amount of sunlight entering the water. In
addition, compaction to the stream bed will occur from dropping bridge components into the
water.
Under the guidelines presented in the NCDOT documents noted above, work conducted in the
water for this project will fall under Case 2, which indicates that no work will be done in the
water during moratorium periods associated with fish migration, spawning, and larvae
recruitment into nursery areas. This conclusion is based upon the classification of the waters
within the project area and vicinity, as well as comments received during the reporting process
from the NCWRC (memorandum to NCDOT dated January 12, 1999). NCWRC requested that no
in-water work be performed from April 1 to June 30.
oc ing am County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 8
D. Biotic Resources
Living systems described in the following sections include communities of associated plants and
animals in the project area. Classification of natural plant communities is based on the system
used by the NCNHP (Schafale and Weakley 1990). Scientific nomenclature and common names
(when applicable) are used for the plant and animal species described. Subsequent references
to the same species include the common name only. Vascular plant names follow nomenclature
found in Radford et al. (1968) unless more current information is available. Terrestrial and
aquatic wildlife were determined through field observations, evaluation of habitat, and review of
field guides and other documentation.
1. Terrestrial Communities
Terrestrial communities found within the project study area include Man-Dominated, Piedmont
Acidic Cliff, and Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype). Faunal components
associated with these areas will be discussed in the community descriptions below.
Man-Dominated Community
This highly disturbed community encompasses the majority of the project area and includes the
road shoulders and embankments, the sewer line easements north and south of the eastern
approach and commercial properties. An unpaved road under the bridge on the east bank
follows the sewer line easement.
Road shoulders in the project area are variable, ranging from paved to vegetated. The western
approach is all urban area, dominated by parking lots, sidewalks, and various commercial
properties. Road shoulders along the eastern approach include areas of gravel, exposed soil,
and weedy vegetation. The shoulder on the north side of the road includes foxtail (Setaria sp.),
maintained grass, and areas of exposed soil. A ditch extends along the shoulder and grades
into a very steep embankment with areas of visible bedrock. Species clinging to the
embankment include tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima), sweet-gum (Liquidambarstyraciflua),
pokeweed (Phytolacca americana), sycamore (Platanus occidentalis), boxelder (Acer negundo),
and ironwood (Ostrya virginiana).
Areas directly adjacent to the west end of the bridge are steeply sloped down to the river and
reinforced with rock for stabilization. Vegetation in this area includes sycamore, boxelder, green
ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica), elm (Ulmus rubra), and black locust (Robinia pseudo-acacia).
A narrow floodplain with an unpaved road and sewer line extending through it is located on the
east side of the river. Disturbance is such that it has been included within the Man-Dominated
community, however many species found here are typical of floodplain areas and adjacent
ridges and terraces. Vegetation includes boxelder, poison ivy (Toxicodendron radicans), river
birch (Betula nigra), paw paw (Asimina triloba), river oats (Chasmanthium (=Uniola) latifolium),
bitternut hickory (Carya cordiformis), knotweed (Polygonum sp.), spotted touch-me-not
(Impatiens capensis), and greenbriar (Smilaxsp.).
Racoon (Procyon loto) tracks were noted in the Man-Dominated community along the river
shore near small piles of Asiatic clam shells (Corbicula fluminia) on which the raccoon
apparently fed. Virginia opossum (Didelphis virginiana) may find this habitat suitable for nesting
and feeding upon earthworms, snails, insects and various plant materials. Some species of
skinks (Eumeces sp.) may reside in this community near the floodplain area. Birds that favor
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 9
disturbed habitats could find shelter and feed within the weedy sections or floodplain area of
this Man-Dominated community.
Piedmont Acidic _Cliff
This west-facing cliff is found adjacent to the floodplain area on the northwest side of the
bridge. The area is mostly barren of vegetation and is shaded by the more mature trees of the
floodplain. Shafale and Weakley (1990) note that soils in this type of community range from
bare rock to accumulations of organic or mineral matter in crevices, to thin and rocky soils.
They state that soil series are generally not mapped for these sites and hydrology and
vegetation are variable, depending upon aspect, geographic location, and elevation.
Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest (Piedmont Subtype)
This community is located east of the Smith River. The topography is sloping and the dominant
tree is beech (Fagus grandifolia). Other vegetation in this community includes sweet-gum,
northern red oak (Quercus rubra), chestnut oak (Quercus prinus), white oak (Quercus alba),
scarlet oak (Quercus coccinea), and pignut hickory (Carya glabra). Near a drainage that
separates this area from the Man-Dominated community north of it there are a few yellow-
poplars (Liriodendron tulipifera) and scattered Christmas fern (Polystichum acrostichoides).
A tufted titmouse (Parus bicolof was observed in this community during the site investigation.
The eastern chipmunk (Tamias striatus) and gray squirrel (Sciurus carolinensis) could reside in
the Mesic Mixed Hardwood Forest, utilizing the mast producing species for food. Various species
of birds could find nesting habitat here as well. Species that are found along edge habitat
between wooded areas and more open sites may also benefit from this community.
2. Aquatic Communities
The aquatic community in the project study area exists within the Smith River. Within the
project study area of Bridge No. 75, the Smith River flows in a southerly direction and is
approximately 200 to 300 feet (60 to 90 meters) wide. On the day of the field investigation,
the river had a moderately swift current and a depth of approximately 1 to 4 feet (0.3 to 1.2
meters). Sediment load was low and algae was visible on underwater rocks near the surface.
Abundant riffle habitat was observed, as well as small scattered grassy islands of vegetation
near the center of the river.
A cursory search of the shoreline was conducted for evidence of mussel and clam species.
Asiatic clam shells were found along the riverbanks, but no other signs of mollusks were
observed. Unidentified waterfowl (order Anseriformes) were seen in the river near shore areas
where overhanging vegetation was abundant, and Canada geese (Branta canadensis) were
observed in the water near the northwest corner of the bridge.
According to the North Carolina Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC), (NCWRC, September
25, 1998), fish found in the river from a 1981 survey in the vicinity of the bridge include
stoneroller (Campostoma anoma/um), bluehead chub (Nocomis leptocepha/us), bull chub
(Nocomis raneyr), several species of shiner (Notropis spp.), white sucker (Catostomus
commersoni), northern hogsucker (Hypentelium nigricans), three species from the Moxostoma
genus, three species from the Ictalurus genus, margined madtom (Noturus insignis), redbreast
sunfish (Lepomis auritus), bluegill (Lepomis macrochirus), largemouth bass (Micropterus
salmoides), and three species of darter of the Etheostoma and Percina genera. NCWRC had no
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 10
specific recommendations for this area of the Smith River. The NCWRC, in a memorandum to
the NCDOT dated January 12, 1999, requested that no in-water work be performed from April 1
to June 30 due to the size of the river and the good population of fish in the project area.
3. Anticipated Impacts to Biotic Communities
Biotic community impacts resulting from project construction are addressed separately as
terrestrial impacts and aquatic impacts. Table 1 details the anticipated impacts to the various
community types.
a. Terrestrial Communities
The Man-Dominated Community is the only terrestrial community impacted by the proposed
alternatives. The Piedmont Acidic Cliff community appears to be impacted below the proposed
structures, however the proposed detour and replacement bridges will be elevated above this
community.
Alternative 3, which involves replacing the bridge in-place and detouring traffic off-site, will
have the least amount of impacts to the Man-Dominated Community. Alternative 8 will have
the highest amount of permanent impacts. Since this community is common and highly
disturbed, and no rare species are known to be present, these impacts are not considered
substantial.
Table 1
Anticipated m pacts to Terrestrial Communities
Bridge No. 75 Man-Dominated Piedmont Combined
Alternatives Community Acidic Cliff Total
acre (ha) acre (ha) acre (ha)
Alternative 3 0.55 (0.22) 0.0 (0.0) 0.55 (0.22)
Alternative 5 1.29 (0.52) 0.0 (0.0) 1.29 (0.52)
(Preferred)
Alternative 5
(Preferred) 0.63 (0.25) 0.0 (0.0) 0.63 (0.25)
Temporary Detour
Alternative 8 1.79 (0.72) 0.0 (0.0) 1.79 (0.72)J
Table 1 Notes:
? Existing roadways were not considered as part of the total Impacts where alternatives overlapped the existing
alignment.
? Impacts were calculated to 10 feet (3 meters) outside slope stakes.
? Actual construction impacts may be less than those indicated above. Calculations were based upon the worst-case
scenario.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 11
b. Aquatic Communities
Table 2.1
Anticipated Temporary Impacts to A uatic Communities
Bridge No. 75 Smith River Smith River
linear feet
Alternatives acre (ha) meters
Alternative 3 0.058 (0.023) 40.00 (12.2)
Alternative 5 0.058 (0.023) 40.00 (12.2)
(Preferred)
Alternative 5
(Preferred) 0.060 (0.024) 75.50 (23.0)
Temporary Detour
Alternative 8 0.058 (0.023) 40.00 (12.2)
Table 2.2
Anticipated Permanent Impacts to A uatic Communities
Bridge No. 75 Smith River Smith River
linear feet
Alternatives acre (ha) meters
Alternative 3 0.002 (0.0007) 43.0 (13.1)
Alternative 5 0.002 (0.0007) 43.0 (13.1)
(Preferred)
Alternative 5
(Preferred) 0.00 (0.00) 0.00 (0.00)
Temporary Detour
Alternative 8 0.002 (0.0007) 43.0 (13.1)
Tables 2.1 and 2.2 Notes:
? Surface water area Impacts were calculated by estimating the footprint of the bridge piers in water. Assumptions include
6, 4-foot (1.2 meter) diameter drilled piers in the water. Linear impacts were calculated by measuring the proposed
width of the bridge over water, and by considering the width of temporary causeways (see below for further details).
The replacement of Bridge No. 75 will result in up to 0.118 acres (0.047 hectares) of temporary
aquatic community impacts (Table 2.1) and up to 0.002 acres (0.0007 hectares) of permanent
aquatic community impacts (Table 2.2). These calculations are derived from measuring the
width of the bridge over water times the length of the bridge over water. This represents
worst-case conditions; actual disturbed area will be less, however more detailed construction
information is not available at this point.
Temporary aquatic community impacts in Table 2.1 reflect the temporary causeways to
construct the detour and replacement bridges. Alternative 5's temporary detour impacts are
highest due to the temporary detour bridge and causeways needed for the construction of both
the temporary and permanent bridges.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 12
Additional downstream impacts beyond the project study area are possible. In particular, river
banks are very steep in the project area and care will be taken to prevent erosion during
construction. Construction of the bridge and approach work as well as the removal of trees can
result in an increase in sediment loads and water temperature, and a decrease in dissolved
oxygen in the short term. Construction activities can also increase the possibility of toxins, such
as engine fluids and particulate rubber, entering the waterways and impacting aquatic
organisms. These factors can potentially cause the displacement and mortality of fish and local
populations of invertebrates which inhabit these areas. BMPs for the protection of surface
waters will be strictly enforced to minimize potential adverse impacts due to this project.
E. Special Topics
1. "Waters of the United States": Jurisdictional Issues
Wetlands and surface waters fall under the broad category of "waters of the United States" as
defined in 33 CFR Section 328.3 and in accordance with provisions of Section 404 of the Clean
Water Act (33 U.S.C. 1344). Waters of the United States are regulated by the United States
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE).
Investigation into wetland occurrence in the project study area was conducted using methods
of the 1987 USACE Wetland Delineation Manual. No wetlands were found within the project
study area.
Project construction cannot be accomplished without infringing on jurisdictional surface waters.
Anticipated surface water impacts fall under the jurisdiction of the USACE and DWQ. Up to
158.5 feet (48.3 meters) linear or 0.12 acres (0.048 hectares) of jurisdictional surface waters
impacts may occur due to the proposed replacement of Bridge No. 75.
2. Permits
In accordance with Section 404 of the Clean Water Act (CWA) (33 U.S.C. 1344.), a permit is
required from the USACE for projects of this type for the discharge of dredged or fill material
into waters of the United States. The USACE issues two types of permits for these activities. A
general permit may be issued on a nationwide or regional basis for a category or categories of
activities when: those activities are substantially similar in nature and cause only minimal
individual and cumulative environmental impacts, or when the general permit will result in
avoiding unnecessary duplication or regulatory control exercised by another Federal, state, or
local agency provided that the environmental consequences of the action are individually and
cumulatively minimal. If a general permit is not appropriate for a particular activity, then an
individual permit must be utilized. Individual permits are authorized on a case-by-case
evaluation of a specific project involving the proposed discharges.
It is anticipated that this project will fall under Nationwide Permit 23, which is a type of general
permit. Nationwide Permit 23 is relevant to approved Categorical Exclusions. Activities under
this permit are categorically excluded from environmental documentation because they are
included within a category of activities which neither individually nor cumulatively have a
substantial effect on the human environment. Activities authorized under nationwide permits
must satisfy all terms and conditions of the particular permit.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 13
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification from the state is necessary for projects that require
Section 404 Permits. The state has General Certifications which will match the permit type
authorized by the USACE. Although a single form is utilized to request both the 404 Permit and
the 401 Certification, the state must issue the 401 Certification before the USACE will issue the
404 Permit. Written concurrence/notification is not always required by the state, and varies
depending upon the General Certification. If this project qualifies under Nationwide Permit 23,
the DWQ must be notified, however written concurrence from the DWQ is not required.
If no practical alternative exists to remove the current bridge other than to drop it into the
water, prior to removal of debris off-site, fill related to demolition procedures will be considered
during the permitting process. A worst-case scenario will be assumed with the understanding
that if there is any other practical method available, the bridge will not be dropped into the
water. Permitting will be coordinated such that any permit needed for bridge construction will
also address issues related to bridge demolition.
3. Mitigation
The USACE has adopted through the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) a wetland
mitigation policy which embraces the concept of "no net loss of wetlands". The purpose of this
policy is to restore and maintain the chemical, biological, and physical integrity of waters of the
United States, specifically wetlands. Mitigation of wetland impacts has been defined by the
CEQ to include: avoiding impacts to wetlands, minimizing impacts, and rectifying impacts (40
CFR 1508.20). Each of these three aspects (avoidance, minimization, and compensatory
mitigation) must be considered sequentially.
The USACE usually requires compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 404
of the Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total more than
0.10 acre (0.04 hectare).
The DWQ may require compensatory mitigation for activities authorized under Section 401 of
the Clean Water Act if unavoidable impacts to waters of the United States total more than 1
acre (0.45 hectares) of wetlands and/or 150 linear feet (45.7 linear meters) of perennial
streams.
Mitigation is not expected to be needed for any of the proposed alternatives. There are no
known wetlands in the project area and the surface water impacts are below the standard area
and linear thresholds for mitigation requirements.
F. Rare and Protected Species
Some populations of plants and animals have been or are in the process of decline due to
reasons such as natural forces, competition from introduced species, or habitat destruction.
Rare and protected species listed for Rockingham County, and any likely impacts to these
species as a result of the proposed project construction, are discussed in the following sections.
1. Federally Protected Species
Plants and animals with federal classification of Endangered (E), Threatened (T), Proposed
Endangered (PE) and Proposed Threatened (PT) are protected under provisions of Section 7
and Section 9 of the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended. The USFWS lists two
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 14
federally protected species for Rockingham County as of February 25, 2003 (Table 3)(search
perform via web site on March 31, 2004). Information pertinent to these species and the
possibility of impact due to the proposed project is listed below.
TABLE 3
FEDERALLY PROTECTED SPECIES
IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
Scientific Name Common Name Status
Echinacea laevigata (Smooth coneflower) E
Pcollina (James spinymussel) E
NOTES:
E Denotes Endangered (a species that Is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of its range)
Species: Smooth coneflower
Family: Asteraceae
Date Listed: 10/8/92
Smooth coneflower is a rhizomatous perennial herb that reaches a height of approximately 5
feet (1.5 meters). Basal leaves are larger than mid-stem leaves, often measuring 8 inches (20
centimeters) in length and 3 inches (7.5 centimeters) in width. Leaves are elliptical or broadly
lanceolate in shape and flower heads are usually solitary. Flowers are light pink to purplish
with drooping rays. Flowering occurs from May through July.
Habitat for smooth coneflower includes open woods, roadsides, and power line rights-of-way.
This species prefers areas with low competition and abundant sunlight and is often associated
with magnesium and calcium rich soils. Some form of disturbance is needed in order to
maintain the open habitat necessary for the coneflower.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
Open habitat is available in the Man-Dominated Community for this species within
the project area. Initial field work was conducted during the growing season, and
no Echinacea spp. was located in the project area. All open areas of potential
habitat were searched thoroughly. In addition, upon the return visit to the site on
July 29, 1999, which is during the flowering time for this species, the coneflower
was not observed. NCDOT biologists also conducted a survey on July 18, 2002. No
specimens of smooth coneflower were found. NCNHP records indicate no
occurrences of smooth coneflower within the project area or vicinity. This project
will not affect the smooth coneflower.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 15
Species: James spinymussel
Family: Unionidae
Date Listed: July 22, 1988
This species reaches a length of approximately 3 inches (7.6 centimeters). It has a dark brown
epidermis with prominent growth rings, and sometimes has short bilateral spines on the dorsal
surface of the valves. The nacre is white with occasional bluish areas.
Habitat for the James spinymussel consists of runs with moderate currents and sand, gravel,
and cobble substrates. Extirpated populations were known to reside in large streams with a
swift current and sandy bottom.
BIOLOGICAL CONCLUSION: NO EFFECT
A survey was conducted on September 6, 2001 by qualified mussel biologists
(NCDOT and NCWRQ to determine if this species is present within the project area.
No mussel species were found. An examination of Smith River revealed suitable
habitat is not present for mussel species. This project will not affect the James
spinymussel.
2. Federal Species of Concern
Federal Species of Concern (FSC) are not legally protected under the Endangered Species Act
and are not subject to any of its provisions, including Section 7, until they are formally
proposed or listed as Threatened or Endangered. Species designated as FSC are defined as taxa
which may or may not be listed in the future. These species were formerly Candidate 2 (C2)
species or species under consideration for listing for which there is insufficient information to
support listing.
Some of these species are listed as Endangered, Threatened, or Special Concern by the NCNHP
database of rare plant and animal species and are afforded state protection under the State
Endangered Species Act and the North Carolina Plant Protection and Conservation Act of 1979.
Table 4 provides the Federal Species of Concern in Rockingham County and their state
classifications. The most recent North Carolina Natural Heritage Program (NCNHP) list for
Rockingham County (via web site, list updated January 2003, search performed March 31,
2004) was reviewed to obtain information on state status for the FSC's.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 5 over mit River
B-3509 16
Notes.
SR
T
E
Significantly Rare. Species which are very rare in North Carolina but generally more common elsewhere.
Threatened. Species which could become Endangered in the foreseeable future.
Endangered (a species that is in danger of extinction throughout all or a significant portion of Its range).
3. Summary of Anticipated Impacts
Open habitat similar to that preferred by the federally protected species smooth coneflower is
present within the project area. All areas of potential habitat were thoroughly searched and the
species was not located. The NCNHP reports no recorded occurrences of smooth coneflower
within the project vicinity. Habitat is not present for the federally protected species James
spinymussel. A survey was conducted to determine if the species is present in the project area.
No specimens of James spinymussel were located. There are no other areas of concern for the
project at this time.
VI. 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 the National Register of
Historic Places and to afford the Advisory Council a reasonable opportunity to comment on such
undertakings.
B. Historic Architecture
A field survey of the Area of Potential Effects (APE) was conducted on August 6, 1998. All
structures over 50 years of age within the APE were photographed, and later reviewed by the
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO). A Historic Architecture Survey Report
was prepared for the project's APE and submitted to the HPO for their comments.
In a memorandum dated May 25, 2000, the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO)
concurred with the report's findings that the Spray Industrial Historic District is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places and that the proposed expansion should include Price-Lewis-
Hawkins House, the Leaksville Township Municipal Building, the Central Filter Plant and the
Pump House as contributing resources. Bridge No. 75 is within the proposed expansion area,
but is considered a non-contributing resource. A copy of this memorandum is included in
Appendix C. In a meeting between NCDOT, FHWA, and HPO on February 6, 2002 all parties
TABLE 4
NORTH CAROLINA STATUS OF FEDERAL SPECIES
OF CONCERN IN ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
North Carolina Habitat
Scientific Name (Common Name) Status Present
Lotus he/%ri (Heller's trefoil) SR-T No
Lasmigona subviridis (Green Floater) E 7 1 No
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 17
signed a concurrence form stating that the project will have an adverse effect on the Spray
Industrial Historic District. A copy of the concurrence form is included in Appendix C.
In accordance with Section 106 of the National Preservation Act, since the alternatives have
adverse effects on the Spray Industrial Historic District, the HPO and the Federal Highway
Administration entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The City of Eden and NCDOT
have reviewed and concurred with the MOA (Appendix B).
C. Archaeology
The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO), in a memorandum dated
December 3, 1998 stated that there are no recorded archaeological sites located within the
project area and given the narrow floodplain in the vicinity of the existing bridge, it is unlikely
that significant sites may be affected by the proposed project. However, we would like
information concerning the location of the bridge replacement and any necessary detour
structures or new rights-of-way needed for the project as soon as it is available." Preliminary
plans with the proposed alignment and detour alignment were provided to HPO on January 29,
2003. In a memorandum dated March 9, 2003, the HPO was stated that "there is no need for
an archaeological survey". Copies of the SHPO memorandums are included in Appendix C.
VII. FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
Section 4(f) of the Department of Transportation Act of 1966, as amended, states in part "The
Secretary may approve a transportation project or program requiring the use of publicly owned
land of a public park, recreation area, or wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or land of a historic site
of national, state, or local significance (as determined by the Federal, State or local officials
having jurisdiction over the park, recreation area, refuge, or site) only if -
1) There is no prudent and feasible alternative to using that land; and
2) The program or project includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the park,
recreation area, wildlife and waterfowl refuge, or historic site resulting from such
use."
It is anticipated that the proposed project will require the use of property listed on or eligible
for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, the Spray Industrial Historic District and
boundary expansion. Therefore, the project must proceed within the requirements of Section
4(f) of the United States Department of Transportation Act and Section 138 of the Highway Act,
as amended, see the Final Section 4(f) Evaluation.
VIII. 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.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over ml River
B-3509 18
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 residents or businesses are expected to be relocated with the 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.
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 and construction
projects. The project falls within the urban boundary of the City of Eden, therefore, further
consideration under the Farmland Protection Policy Act is not required.
This project is an air quality "neutral" project, so it is not required to be included in the regional
emission analysis (if applicable) and a project level CO analysis is not required.
This project is located in Rockingham County, which has been determined to be in compliance
with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards. 40 CFR Part 51 is not applicable, because the
proposed project is located in an attainment area. This project is not anticipated to create any
adverse effects on the air quality of this attainment area.
The traffic volumes will not increase or decrease because of this project. There are no
receptors located in the immediate project area. The project's impact on noise and air quality
will not be substantial.
Noise levels could increase during construction but will be temporary. If vegetation is disposed
of by burning, all burning shall be done in accordance with applicable local laws and regulations
of the North Carolina SIP for air quality in compliance with 15 NCAC 2D.0520. This evaluation
completes the assessment requirements for highway traffic noise (23 CFR Part 772) and for air
quality (1990 CAAA and NEPA) and no additional reports are required.
In compliance with Executive Order 12898 (Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in
Minority Populations and Low Income Populations) a review was conducted to determine
whether minority or low-income populations were receiving disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental impacts as a result of this project. The investigation
determined the project would not disproportionately impact any minority or low-income
populations.
An examination of records at the North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural
Resources, Division of Water Quality, Groundwater Section and the North Carolina Division of
Solid Waste Management revealed no hazardous waste sites in the project area. A Limited Soil
Assessment Report was prepared since there was evidence that gas stations had been
operating in the project area since the early 1930's. One facility with the possibility of
underground storage tanks (UST) was identified in the project area (the Edgar Rush property)
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 19
in the southwest quadrant of the bridge. No evidence of other USTs was identified within the
current roundabout or within the existing right-of-way along Boone Road.
Rockingham County is a participant in the National Flood Insurance Regular Program. The
project site on Smith River is within a detailed study area (Figure 5). However, it is not
anticipated that a floodway modification will be required since the bridge will be an "in kind"
replacement. Since the proposed bridge will be a structure similar in length and waterway
opening size, it is not anticipated that this project will have any substantial impact on the
existing floodplain or floodway.
On the basis of the above discussion, it is concluded that no substantial adverse environmental
impacts will result from implementation of the project.
DL PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT
Efforts were undertaken early in the planning process to contact local officials and residents to
involve them in the project development. Three Local Officials Meetings and three Citizens
Informational Workshops were held at the Eden City Hall in Eden, North Carolina.
The first Citizens Informational Workshop was held May 13, 2000. Three preliminary
alternatives, Alternative 1, 2, and 3, were presented. The public voiced their concern that
rerouting the traffic permanently or temporarily will have detrimental economical effects on the
businesses at the west end of Bridge No. 75, and noted how important it is to them to keep the
traffic circle/roundabout.
A second Citizens Informational Workshop was held June 18, 2001. Seven preliminary
alternatives, Alternatives 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7, were presented. NCDOT explained the
regulations of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 to the local officials
and why NCDOT must avoid and minimize impacts to contributing elements of the Historic
District.
A third Citizens Informational Workshop was held May 28, 2002. Three build alternatives,
Alternatives 3, 5, and 8, were presented. Approximately 20 citizens attended this workshop.
Ten (10) comment sheets were received at the workshop and all comment sheets
recommended Alternative No. 5 as the preferred.
A small group meeting was held on August 27, 2002 with a Spray Cotton Mills representative to
review the required truck assess points for the mill's proposed use.
In October 2002 a newsletter was mailed to local officials and citizens on the mail list to update
them on the status of the alternative selection. The newsletter informed them that Alternative
5 was the preferred alternative and that the project will include a roundabout.
X. AGENCY COMMENTS
All comments from federal and state regulatory and resource agencies and local government
are addressed elsewhere in this document. However, the Tri-River Cycling Club requested that
bicycle facilities be provided for a future east/west route. In response to this request and
further evaluation the project will provide 14 foot (4.2 meter) lanes within the project area to
accommodate the future bicycle route.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 20
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road)
over Smith River
Federal Aid Project BRSTP-700(1)
State Project 8.1511701
W.B.S. 33122.1.1
T.I.P. No. B-3509
FINAL SECTION 4(F) EVALUATION
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
DIVISION OF HIGHWAYS
APPROVED:
DATE regory J. e, Ph.D.
fEnvi ron menta Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch, NCDOT
?O
DATE John ?4rian, III, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509
FINAL SECTION (4) EVALUATION
(SPRAY INDUSTRIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND PROPOSED EXPANSION)
A. Purpose and Need
Bridge No. 75 provides a vital link for the community and source of income for the businesses
in the project area. The need for this project is to replace Bridge No. 75 within the existing
transportation corridor and an objective is to maintain the economical stability of the
community. The propose action will replace the structurally deficient and functionally obsolete
structure with a safer and more efficient shared use structure and improve flow of traffic
through the roundabout. The current sufficiency rating of the bridge is 45.2 out of 100 for a
new structure. Because of the structural deficiency of the existing bridge, the North Carolina
Board of Transportation approved this project as part of the Federal Bridge Replacement
Program.
Bridge No. 75 was constructed in 1954. The existing structure is 340 feet (104 meters) in
length and has a clear roadway width of 28 feet (8.4 meters). Bridge No. 75 is an eight-span
tangent structure that consists of reinforced concrete deck girders. The substructure of the
existing bridge consists of reinforced concrete abutments and piers. The intersection of West
Meadow Road, Church Street and Boone Road is yield controlled with a roundabout
approximately 80 feet (24 meters) from the west end of Bridge No. 75. The roundabout has a
diameter of approximately 50 feet (15 meters). The clear roadway width surrounding the
roundabout ranges from 28 to 34 feet (8.4 to 10.2 meters) wide.
Bridge No. 75 is located east of the Spray Industrial Historic District, listed on the National
Register of Historic Places, and connects the proposed district expansion boundaries to the
district. Additional properties that are eligible for listing in the project area include the Price-
Lewis-Hawkins House, the Leaksville Township Municipal Building, the Central Filter Plant, and
the Pump House. They are considered contributing resources to the proposed Historic
Boundary Addition. Bridge No. 75 is within the proposed expansion area, but is considered a
non-contributing resource.
B. Proposed Action
NCDOT proposes to replace Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 (West Meadow Road) over Smith River
in Eden with a new structure on the existing alignment. The roundabout at the west end of the
bridge will be upgraded to current design standards. Approximately three of the ten on-street
parking spaces on Church Street in the project area will remain.
Traffic will be maintained by an on-site detour structure located north of Bridge No. 75 during
construction. The intersection of Church Street, SR 3002 (Boone Road) and SR 3003 (West
Meadow Road) will be controlled by a temporary traffic signal through the construction of the
new bridge and revised roundabout.
This project will replace a deteriorating bridge with a new structure within the same
transportation corridor that will accommodate bicycle and pedestrian traffic, shown as
Alternative 5, Figure 2B, Appendix A. The proposed project length is approximately 1440 feet
(440 meters).
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 2
C. Description of Section 4(f) Resource
The Section 4(f) resources are located in the project area on West Meadow Road, Church Street
and Boone Road in the City of Eden (Figure 6, Appendix A).
Bridge No. 75 spans the Smith River and provides access to the commercial and industrial
district of Spray, one of three communities (Spray, Leaksville and Draper) merged in 1967 to
form the City of Eden. This area of Spray lies within the boundary of Spray Industrial
Historic District listed in the National Register in 1986 and located west of Bridge No. 75.
The extensive industrial district of Spray was listed under Criterion A for commerce,
exploration/settlement, industry and invention. Under Criterion B, the district has significance
for its association with several prominent North Carolina industrialists and under Criterion C for
architecture. Ninety-four resources (eighty contributing and fourteen non-contributing) are
included in the Spray Industrial Historic District, which as the nomination states, "...contains
one of the greatest concentrations of intact and continuously operating late nineteenth and
early twentieth century textile mill complexes in the North Carolina Piedmont and the entire
Southeast" (Brown 1986: 8-1). The Spray Industrial Historic District has undergone little
alteration since its listing in the National Register. The most notable alternation has been the
loss of the Leaksville Cotton and Woolen Mills at 422 Church Street, just west of the project
terminus.
The proposed historic boundary expansions for the Spray Industrial Historic District are shown
on Figure 6, Appendix A.
The amended boundaries will add five resources (four contributing and one non-contributing) to
the historic district. The expanded boundary will include the Price-Lewis-Hawkins House, the
(Former) Leaksville Township Municipal Building, the Central Filter Plant and the Pump House
as contributing resources to an enlarged Spray historic district. Bridge No. 75 is located
between the existing district and one area of the proposed expansion. As previously noted the
bridge (built in 1954) is considered to be within the expanded district but is a non-contributing
element.
The Price-Lewis-Hawkins House, a two story, vernacular picturesque dwelling, was one of
several houses erected circa 1910 by the Spray Water Power and Land Company for its
executive personnel. Like other mill company-built houses in the historic district, the Price-
Lewis-Hawkins House contributes to the district under Criterion A for industry and community
planning and under Criterion C for architecture.
The (Former) Leaksville Township Municipal Building, constructed in 1942, housed a
branch of the county courthouse and the county health department as well as the other local
governmental offices. Influenced by the International Style, the two story, concrete block
building has a smooth, stuccoed exterior, steel casement windows, a float parapet roof and a
cornice detailed with geometric ornamentation. The building has a replacement metal and
glass entrance, but otherwise survives intact. Illustrating the changing relationship between
the company and the town, the municipal building contributes to the historic district under
Criterion A for politics/government and industry, and with its International Style design, under
Criterion C for architecture.
The Central Filter Plant and its associated riverside pump house are located on the south
side of West Meadow Road and east of Bridge No. 75 and the Smith River. This public works
system was not only a vital part of the vast industrial complex of Spray, but also underscores
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 5 over Smith River
B-3509 3
the continued interconnection between mill and town. The simple, one story brick building has
a raised, concrete basement, a flat roof and glass block windows. The pump house is a small
structure built on the riverbanks next to Bridge No. 75. The filtration plant and pump house
were built circa 1940, and the facility appears on the 1930-1954 Sanborn Fire Insurance
Company map. They were built as part of the public works/industrial infrastructure of the mills
and the town and contribute under Criterion A for industry.
The existing historic district roughly forms a long spine, primarily along the west bank of the
Smith River. The proposed boundary amendment will extend the southern border to Early
Street, to incorporate the Leaksville Township Municipal Building, and turn west along Early
Street to include the Price-Lewis-Hawkins House at the corner of Chestnut and Early Streets. A
small portion of the eastern boundary will also be extended across the river to include the
adjacent pump house, and the filtration plant, which are located on the south side of West
Meadow Road.
D. Alternatives
Build Alternatives
During the course of the project study, a number of alternatives were considered and are
described and discussed in Section III. Only three build alternatives studied to replace Bridge
No. 75 will meet the project purpose and need and minimize impacts to the historic district.
Each alternative requires acquisition of right-of-way and construction easement within the
historic district and proposed boundary expansion and will have adverse effects on the existing
historic district and proposed expansion. These alternatives are described as Alternatives 3, 5,
and 8 in Section III of the Categorical Exclusion document.
Avoidance Alternatives
Three alternatives that will not require taking or use of land in the historic district and expanded
boundary were evaluated and described below.
a. No-build
The no-build alternative will not require new construction. Bridge No. 75 will remain
and State Bridge Maintenance forces will continue to make necessary periodic repairs to
keep the bridge in service. However, the bridge will eventually deteriorate beyond repair
and necessitate closure and removal of the bridge. Eventual removal of the bridge will
cause negative economical ramifications to the Spray community located west of Bridge
No. 75 and increase trip time for over fifty-nine daily trips by school buses. The no-
build alternative, while avoiding impacts to the existing historic district and eligible
resources, is not considered to be a reasonable and prudent solution and does not meet
the need for the project.
b. Rehabilitation
The existing bridge is both structurally and geometrically deficient with a sufficiency
rating of only 45.2 of a possible 100. Since the structure has deteriorated, major
structural elements would need to be repaired and/or replaced. This would require the
structure to be taken out of service for the duration of the repairs and an acceptable
detour route found. Closure of the structure for any length of time will cause negative
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 4
economical ramifications to the Spray community located west of Bridge No. 75 and
increase trip time for over fifty-nine daily trips by school buses. Rehabilitation of the
existing bridge is not feasible due to the very poor condition of the existing concrete
deck and substructure and was dismissed as an alternative.
C. Relocation outside the district
The location of the bridge provides connectivity for the historic district and direct access
for the community. Moving the bridge location to a point either upstream or
downstream of the current location to avoid impacts to the proposed expanded historic
district will negatively impact the district by disrupting the connectivity of the setting for
the district. Alternative 1 (Figure 2D) was studied which involved replacement of the
structure on new location approximately 850 feet (260 meters) south (downstream) of
the existing bridge. This alignment follows a proposed realignment of SR 3003 shown on
the Eden Thoroughfare Plan. The existing Bridge No. 75 would serve to maintain traffic
on-site during construction. The new alignment would have a design speed of 40 miles
per hour (60 kilometers per hour) and would be approximately 2400 feet (730 meters)
in length. The proposed bridge would be 525 feet (160 meters) in length. Alternative 1
was eliminated due to citizens and local officials' opposition to relocating the bridge.
Also, Early Street would have to be upgraded which would have an adverse effect on
the proposed expanded Spray Industrial Historic District. Alterative 1 is not within the
same transportation corridor and does not meet the purpose and need for the project,
which is to connect the historic community west of the bridge with the historic and other
properties east of the bridge.
Therefore, locating the bridge outside of the Spray Industrial Historic District and the
proposed boundary expansion is not a prudent alternative.
E. Impact on the Section 4(f) Properties
Unavoidable impacts on the historic district are required for replacing the proposed structure
and upgrading the roundabout to current design standards. The impact of the bridge and
roundabout will be minimized to the greatest extent practicable. The proposed right-of-way
and construction easement will not affect any structures in the historic district except the
removal of Bridge No. 75.
Estimated impacts associated with right-of-way acquisition for each alternative are listed below
and shown in Figure 7.
Section 4(f) Properties Alternative 3 Alternative 5 Alternative 8
acre (hectare) acre (hectare) acre (hectare)
Preferred
Spray Industrial 0.073 (0.029) 0.073 (0.029) 0.176 (0.071)
Historic District
Proposed Historic District 0.188 (0.076) 0.188 (0.076) 0.000 (0.000)
Boundary Expansion
Total --acre hectare 0.261 0.105 0.261 0.105 0.176 0.071
The preferred alternative will meet the projects need, will avoid unfavorable economic
consequences, minimizes impacts to the existing historic district and maintains the traffic
pattern the community is use to.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over m t River
B-3509 5
F. Measures to Minimize Harm
The following measures have been developed through a Memorandum of Agreement (Appendix
B) and coordination between the NCDOT, FHWA, the State Historic Preservation Office and the
City of Eden to minimize harm to the National Register historic district and boundary expansion.
a. Design
• The new bridge will be designed to provide Texas "classic" bridge railings.
• The proposed roundabout will be upgraded to current design standards.
• Maintain continuous access to Spray Cotton Mills.
• Removal and restoration of area occupied by temporary detour.
b. The following measures will be performed:
I. Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 75 and the
adjacent buildings in the (expanded) Spray Industrial Historic District in accordance with
the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan (Appendix B).
II. Rei7lacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall consult with the CITY and North Carolina
SHPO on the design for the replacement bridge and provide the SHPO an opportunity to
comment upon the Preliminary Design plans for the replacement bridge.
III. Disoute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30) days to
any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this agreement, FHWA shall
consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the objection. If FHWA or the North
Carolina SHPO determines that the objection cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all
documentation relevant to the dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
(Council). Within thirty (30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the
Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into account in
reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)) and
proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in response to such a
request will be taken into account by FHWA in accordance with 36 CFR Section
800.7(c) (4) with reference to the subject of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to pertain
only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all the actions
under this agreement that is not the subject of the dispute will remain unchanged.
G. Coordination
The proposed project was coordinated with the City of Eden's local officials and citizens. Three
public meetings were conducted and comments concerning the proposed project were
considered in selecting the preferred alternative. The local officials and citizens selected
Rockingham County, Rep ace ri ge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 F
Alternative 5 as their preferred because it provides the least amount of permanent impacts to
the historic district, maintains a roundabout in the intersection at the west end of the bridge,
and maintains traffic within the same transportation corridor.
Coordination and on-going discussions between NCDOT, FHWA, and SHPO have occurred
during the course of the project. The North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
was contacted early in the study process. A survey of historic architectural resources was
conducted in the area of potential effect of the project, in accordance with Section 106 of the
Historic Preservation Act. A memorandum dated May 25, 2000, documenting SHPO
concurrence with the expansion boundary of the Spray Industrial Historic District is included in
Appendix C of this document.
Coordination between the above agencies has served to ensure that all reasonable planning has
been accomplished to minimize any substantial or adverse impacts to these Section 4(f)
resources.
H. Conclusion
The analysis of alternatives to avoid impacts to the Spray Historic District, Section 4(f) resource,
has determined that the No-build, the rehabilitation alternative, and the new location
alternative do not meet and satisfy the project purpose and need. There are unique problems
involved in the use of alternatives that avoid these properties within the historic district or
expanded boundary.
Although, Alternative 3, Figure 2A Appendix A, meets the need to replace the structure in the
same transportation corridor and impacts slightly less area in the historic district, it does not
maintain traffic flow in the community during the construction and creates an unstable
economy for the community in the project area.
Alternative 8, Figure 2C Appendix A, meets the purpose and need of the project and maintains
traffic in the project area. The citizens opposed shifting the proposed bridge and roundabout
north and impacting more area in the existing historic district.
The proposed Alternative 5, Figure 2B Appendix A, meets all the goals of the proposed action.
The propose alternative replaces the deteriorated structure, improves traffic flow by improving
the roundabout, provides for the accommodations of bicycles, incorporates the community's
concerns, and provides an economically sensitive approach to the necessary improvements by
maintaining traffic on site during construction. The selection of Alternative 5 as the preferred
alternative was supported by the local citizens and the Eden Historic Preservation Commission.
1. Agency comments to Draft Categorical Exclusion
The Draft Categorical Exclusion and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation were circulated to the
following federal, state, and local agencies for review and comments. An asterisk (*)
indicates a response was received from the agency. Copies of the correspondence follow
this evaluation.
* Eden Preservation Commission
* U.S. Department of the Interior (Secretary of Interior)
* N.C. Department of Cultural Resources (State Historic Preservation Office)
City of Eden City Manager
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 7
a. Comments Received
Written comments on the Draft Categorical Exclusion and Draft Section 4(f)
Evaluation were received from three agencies. The following are excerpts of the
comments with responses, as appropriate:
N.C. Department of Cultural Resources (State Historic Preservation Office)
Comment: "We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic
resources."
Response: So noted.
Eden Preservation Commission
Comment: "We are gratified that our very strong preference for Alternative 5
is shared by the DOT."
Response: So noted.
Comment: "...request that the preliminary design plans be made available to
us very early in the process."
Response: A meeting was held with the Eden Historic Preservation
Commission and a NCDOT representative on October 20, 2003 to review the
preliminary design plan and answer questions as applicable.
United States Department of the Interior
Comment: With regard to the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FWS has no
comments.
Response: So noted.
2. Conclusion Summary
Based upon the above considerations, there is no feasible and prudent alternative to the
use of land from the Spray Historic District and Expanded Boundary and the proposed
action includes all possible planning to minimize harm to the Spray Industrial Historic
District resulting from such use.
Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
B-3509 8
0E I vF40
North Carolina Department of Cultural
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
June 12, 2003
MEMORANDUM
JUN 16 2003
?O d
1+rvnJ?vs
a,E?Et.o
\•.4l. AU
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David BrookVV
SUBJECT: Bridge 75 on SR 3003 over the Smith River, B-3509, ER99-7717??n4w?e etc
Thank you for your letter of May 15, 2003 transmitting the Categorical Exclusion (CE) for the above
project. We believe the CE adequately addresses our concerns for historic resources.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section 106
codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earlev, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763. In all future communication concerning this project, please cite the above-referenced tracking
number.
cc: Nicholas Graf
www.hoo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994617 (919) 7334763 •733-8653
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 276994613 [phone] • 7154801
•--•... •...•... .-........ r+r w- n_..._. n. n_+_: _v wv •i+o ar_:+n___. __?__.._ n_r_a wrn n-rcnn ri+o .n. n. .+•. •. ?r.r ,.r .nn•
ER 03/745
Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental
Analysis Branch
NC Department of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Dr. Thorpe:
y;0-7
Cci
'F4W tt
??1p DIVISION of Qom;
.J I N GH4VAY? -
??i?r fT6V ELO ??g?AL ADiA
The Department of the Interior has reviewed the April 2003 Draft Categorical Exclusion
and Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation for Replacement of Bridge No. 75 on SR-3003
(West Meadow Road) over Smith River, Rockingham County, North Carolina. We
have the following comments on the Categorical Exclusion concerning U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) issues.
The project will occur on Smith River, a tributary of the Dan River, in suburban and
previously disturbed habitat, minimizing our concerns about new adverse impacts to fish
and wildlife resources.
A survey was conducted for James spiny mussel (Pleurobema collina) on September 6,
2001. Although no specimens were found, the survey is now over two years old.
Another survey should be conducted. The FWS recommends that the North Carolina
Department of Transportation and the Federal Highway Administration not make a "no
effect" conclusion until the new survey for the James spiny mussel is complete.
Surveys for smooth coneflower were conducted on July 29, 1999, and July 18, 2002.
No smooth coneflowers were observed during the surveys. We do not have any data
that would lead us to disagree with your "no effect" determination.
The final Categorical Exclusion should incorporate the appropriate conclusions. With
regard to the Draft Section 4(f) Evaluation, the FWS has no comments.
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
Washington, D.C. 20240
Dr. Gregory J. Thorpe
-2-
If you have any questions or comments, please contact Kevin Moody, Regional
Environmental Coordinator, U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service, at 404/679-7089.
We appreciate the opportunity to comment on the decision documents for this project.
Sincerely,
1 ~
Willie R. 9yvor
O (L Director, Office of Environmental
Policy and Compliance
Rockingham County B-3509
Subject: Rockingham County B-3509
Date: Mon, 18 Apr 2005 14:17:10 -0400
From: [e-mail]
To: [e-mail]
Brett,
Based on additional information that NCDOT provided to us, the Service
supports the biological conclusion of "No Effect" for the James spinymussel
for B-3509. No additional surveys are needed and section 7 consultation is
not required, unless new information becomes available.
Gary Jordan
US Fish and Wildlife Service
PO Box 33726
Raleigh, NC 27636-3726
Phone [phone] ext. 32
Fax [phone]
[e-mail]
1 of] 4/29/2005 11:03 AM
_
L7
C>:try of Eaten
August 14, 2003
Gregory J. Thorpe, PHD
Environmental Management Director
NCDOT
Project Development & Environmental Branch
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, NC 27699-1548
Dear Mr. Thorpe:
ilGEI VLc?
#U6 1 Z; 2'J03
r
P Olv'.G1JN OF R'
T o `?
The Eden Preservation Commission spent a large part of its regular June meeting going
over the document you recently submitted to us.
The consensus at the meeting was that we appreciate the sensitivity and openness that the
Department of Transportation has so far shown toward our special concerns with the new
bridge #75 soon to be built over the Smith River here in Eden.
We are gratified that our very strong preference for alternative #5 is shared by the DOT,
and we look forward to its implementation.
A few items in the voluminous document did raise questions, however. One of these is
the tension over fitting a traffic circle designed to standards for regular highway
situations into the space available in the Spray historical district. It appears that parking
spaces will be severely reduced in number, a fact which is of great concern to the
businesses affected. The Commission is of the opinion that the present 55 foot traffic
circle is working quite well, and urges that flexibility be shown in the application
standards in this unique situation involving a historic district. Certainly there is ample
justification for special consideration, and I am told that there is precedent for special
handling in other states faced with the same problem.
308 East Stadium Drive . Eden, NC 27288-3523 . [phone] . Fax [phone]
'flit printed on renvl:d paper
Mr. Gregory J. Thorpe, PHD
August 14, 2003
Page 2
We are extremely interested to see the preliminary design as soon as it is available, since
this is the only way we can see for ourselves how this and other questions may be
resolved. Thus we urgently request that the preliminary design plans be made available
to us very early in the process.
Another matter that concerns us is our continuing dissatisfaction with the historical
survey that was done at the beginning of the study process for the bridge. We as a
commission have no interest in the filter plant and pump house as eligible to be included
in the National Register District, whereas we have strong interest in Rivermont, the house
now owned by Mr. and Mrs. John Cameron.
Again we appreciate the consideration given our Commission as it has expressed its
views about the new bridge and its environs. We also have a renewed appreciation of the
voluminous research about both the built and the natural environment that seems to be
necessary in a project of this kind. We look forward to a successful outcome in the form
of a handsome new bridge in a much improved and beautiful neighborhood.
We apologize for the delay in responding you your request for comments. The
commission did not hold a July meeting.
Yours sincerely,
'ry-) .5 at-L'%-
Marianne S. Aiken, Chair
Eden Historic Preservation Commission
MSA:kmd
cc: Stacy Harris
APPENDIX A
FIGURES
02
:1;1789 / v
703
771 780
r
1712 711
1 0y
1704 1713
0
0
59 „ x1705 1708 B-3509 +
e> 1707 }
C 1709
1580 17
i
urn
f
1C
t\ . o a
1574 i ° ?p
1565
1561

? ai ren° r l? 10 Sbce 7
3 ?voo d 1
3 K N
Wen ? h 2 29 15
8 ?
220 a old
29 7 t
S
t 158 15 R• L
tken d.
- O
I
ti
-o
R 1%2
e d a 1764 t
VU
EDEN
POP. 15.5
7 V;
ln9 St G
m
7
----------------
a
14
North
rans Carolina Department Of
Transportation
Project Development R
Environmental Analysis
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 75 ON SR 3003
(W. MEADOW RD.)
OVER THE SMITH RIVER
B-3509
0 k11om?Nn 0.8 W-4.n 1.6
0 miN. 0.5 WI. 1.0
FIGURE 1
South side of Bridge
No. 75 and Pump House
M
Ai kv
? k} 4?
H?
. -.F!} 1 - - i4 fit")
B-3509
Replacement of Bridge
No. 75 on
SR 3003 (W. Meadow Road)
Over Smith River
Rockingham County
3
Looking east from Church Street & roundabout intersection
I I
CV)
0
o ?
Mq
Z m .1 Q oe
J ?oEE? VO OF,
^ 0 to
u d E 0 LL
N €~QP Z
S z$d Oo?O
V ? o'Z
m
E E
00 ,nN
Z E
ri
'°
O
LLB %a W
N N N
I*i N Q E
E? N
CL ^ -4
ap
Zo
Vo ?o
O_ Z a.
0 o°
E 3v E
N ?^ N N
E d
J r
Q N o r
?O
N 0 V E
CL Lo Ln
E E it
00 ?
Ln W!
c?
w?N

{

B-3509
Rockingham County
Bridge No. 75
On SR 3003 (W. Meadow Road) Over Smith River in Eden
APPENDIX B
MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT

MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
AMONG
THE FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
AND
NORTH CAROLINA HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICER
FOR
THE REPLACEMENT OF BRIDGE NO. 75
ON NC 700/SR 3003 OVER THE SMITH RIVER IN EDEN,
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY, NORTH CAROLINA
WHEREAS, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) has determined that the
replacement of Bridge No. 75 on NC 700/SR 3003 over the Smith River in Eden,
Rockingham County, North Carolina (the undertaking) will have an effect upon the
expansion of the Spray Industrial Historic District, a property determined eligible for
listing in the National Register of Historic Places, and has consulted with the North
Carolina State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800,
regulations implementing Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. (16
U.S.C. 470f); and
WHEREAS, the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) and the City of
Eden (CITY) have participated in the consultation and been invited to concur in this
Memorandum of Agreement;
NOW, THEREFORE, FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO agree that the undertaking
shall be implemented in accordance with the following stipulations in order to take in to
account the effect of the undertaking on the historic properties.
STIPULATIONS
FHWA will ensure that the following measures are carried out:
1. Recordation: Prior to the initiation of work, NCDOT shall record Bridge No. 75
and the adjacent buildings in the expanded Spray Industrial Historic District in
accordance with the attached Historic Structures Recordation Plan (Appendix A).
II. Replacement Bridge Design: NCDOT shall consult with the CITY and North
Carolina SHPO on the design for the replacement bridge and provide the SHPO
an opportunity to comment upon the Preliminary Design plans for the
replacement bridge.
III. Dispute Resolution: Should the North Carolina SHPO object within thirty (30)
days to any plans or documentation provided for review pursuant to this
agreement, FHWA shall consult with the North Carolina SHPO to resolve the
objection. If FHWA or the North Carolina SHPO determines that the objection
cannot be resolved, FHWA shall forward all documentation relevant to the
- J
dispute to the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (Council). Within thirty
(30) days after receipt of all pertinent documentation, the Council will either:
A. Provide FHWA with recommendations which FHWA will take into
account in reaching a final decision regarding the dispute, or
B. Notify FHWA that it will comment pursuant to 36 CFR Section
800.7(c)) and proceed to comment. Any Council comment provided in
response to such a request will be taken into account by FHWA in
accordance with 36 CFR Section 800.7(c)(4) with reference to the subject
of the dispute.
Any recommendation or comment provided by the Council will be understood to
pertain only to the subject of the dispute; FHWA's responsibility to carry out all
the actions under this agreement that are not the subject of the dispute will remain
unchanged.
Execution of this agreement by FHWA and the North Carolina SHPO, its subsequent
filing with the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation, and implementation of its
terms evidence that FHWA has afforded the Council an opportunity to comment on the
replacement of Bridge No. 75 on NC 700/SR 3003 over the Smith River in Eden and its
effects on the expanded Spray Industrial Historic District, and that FHWA has taken into
account the effects of the undertaking on the historic property.
AGREE:
CONCUR:
V 47
NORTH ?A OLI A
lt?
CITY F E
FILED BY:
OF TRANSPORTATION
DATE
/02
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION DATE
APPENDIX A
Historic Structures Recordation Plan
For the Replacement of Bridge No. 75 on NC 700/SR 3003 over
The Smith River in Eden,
Rockingham County, North Carolina
Photographic Requirements
Selected photographic views of Bridge No. 75 as a whole, and views of the bridge
and the adjacent buildings in the expanded Spray Industrial Historic District,
including:
? Overall views of the bridge (elevations and oblique views)
Overall views of the project area, showing the relationship of the structure to
adjacent buildings and its setting
Photographic Format
? Color slides (all views)
? 35 mm or larger black and white negatives (all views)
4 Two (2) black and white contact sheets (all views)
? All processing to be done to archival standards
? All photographs, slides, and negatives to be labeled according to Division of
Archives and History standards
Copies and Curation
One (1) set of all photographic documentation will be deposited with the North
Carolina Division of Archives and History/State Historic Preservation Office to
be made a permanent part of the statewide survey and iconographic collection.
One contact sheet will be deposited in the files of the Historic Architecture
Section of NCDOT.

1o *
a yt yt it c>
ACHP
J1A ' O
September 23, 2002
Mr. Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue
Raleigh, NC 27601
FWM • NC DIVfSIUN
PSM SEP U30 2002
~
rilV aNAN
{ .

REF: Proposed Replacement of Bridge No. 75 over Smith River
Eden, Rockingham County, North Carolina
Dear Mr. Graf:
On September 10, 2002, the Council received your notification and supporting
documentation regarding the adverse effects of the referenced project on the Spray Industrial
Historic District, which is eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. Based
upon the information you provided, we do not believe that our participation in consultation to
resolve adverse effects is needed. However, should circumstances change and you determine
that our participation is required, please notify us. Pursuant to 36 CFR 800.6(b)(iv), you will
need to file the final Memorandum of Agreement and related documentation at the
conclusion of the consultation process. The filing of the Agreement with the Council is
required in order to complete the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act.
Thank you for providing us with your notification of adverse effect. If you have any questions
or require the further assistance of the Council, please contact us at 202-606-8505.
Sincerely,
Raymond V. Wallace
Historic Preservation Technician
Office of Federal Agency Programs
ADVISORY COUNCIL ON HISTORIC PRESERVATION
1100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Suite 809 • Washington, DC 20004
Pkn- 7n9-,,,n,,,-Rrm 9 Fax 2m4,ni,-Rh47 9 irhn(c?ac.hn.oov • www.achn nnv
?d ?N P u
?? awe +?'?
:hael F. Easley, Governor
beth C. Evans, Secretary
Frey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
September 30, 2002
MEMORANDUM
TO
FROM:
Division of Historical Resources
David J. Olson, Director

er
R
SUBJECT: Adverse Effect Finding, Replace Bridge No. 75 on NC 700/SR 3003 over Smith iv in
Eden, B-3509, Rockingham County, ER 99-7717
Thank you for your letter of August 26, 2002, transmitting the Adverse Effect Finding Documentation
concerning the above project.
We have reviewed the Finding of Adverse Effect Documentation and concur that this undertaking will
adversely effect the (expanded) Spray Industrial Historic District, eligible for the National Register.
We look forward to future consultation regarding mitigation measures for this property.
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 .1300.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above comment,
contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763. In all future
communication concerning this project, please cite the above referenced tracking number.
cc: Mary Pope Furr
Eden HDC
Location Mailing Address
,ministration 507 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4617
restoration 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh , NC 4613 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4613
urvey & Planning 515 N. Blount St, Raleigh, NC 4618 Mail Service Center, Raleigh 27699-4618
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Greg Thorpe, Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
NCDOT Divisionrbf ' hways
David Brook /L4-)
Telephone/Fax
[phone] •733-8653
[phone] •715-4801
[phone] •715-4801

4A* I
09r
q,
T 7a
W a
o =
c ?
U
?O ,fie
#TATEe Of
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
Federal Highway Administration
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, NC 27601
September 6, 2002
IN REPLY REFER TO:
HO-NC
Mr. Don Klima, Director
Eastern Office of Project Review
Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
The Old Post Office Building
1100 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. No. 809
Washington, D.C. 20004
Subject: Notification of Adverse Effect Finding, Replace Bridge No. 75 on NC 700/SR 3003
over Smith River in Eden, Rockingham County, North Carolina, TIP No. B-3509, State
Project No. 8.1511701, Federal Aid No. BRZ-700(1)
Dear Mr. Klima:
After consultation with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office, it was determined
that the subject project would have an adverse effect on the (expanded) Spray Industrial
Historic District, an area eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places.
Subsequently, the North Carolina Department of Transportation has prepared the
accompanying supplementary documentation specified by the Council in Part 800.11(e). This
documentation does not proffer a formal invitation to the Council for participation in the
consultation because none of the circumstances specified in Part 800.6(a)(1)(i)(A)-(C) exist for
this project.
Please review the attached documentation pursuant to 36 CFR Part 800.6(a)(1). If you have any
questions concerning the accompanying information, please contact Felix Davila at (919) 856-
4350 ext. 106.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Attachment
cc: Ms. Stacy Harris, PE, NCDOT
Mr. David Brook, SHPO
Mr. Carl B. Goode, NCDOT
APPENDIX C
CORRESPONDENCE

United States Department of the Interior
FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE
Raleigh Field Office
Post Office Box 33726
Raleigh, North Carolina 27636-3726
December 2, 1998

Mr. William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Division of Highways
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 2761 l -520
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
? DES
j 14
96 .?
•i' ? `c7
Thank you for your letter of November 2. 1998, requesting information from the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (Service) for the purpose of evaluating the potential environmental impacts of the
following proposed bridge replacement projects:
B-3157, Davidson County, Replace Bridge Nos. 74 and 76 on US 29, 64, 70 and I-85 Bus.
over SR 1242 and Michael Creek,
2. B-3174, Guilford County, Replace Bridge No. 306 on US 29, 70, 220 and 421 over NC 6;
3. B-3422, Cabarrus County, Replace Bridge No. 47 on SR 1002 (Cabarrus Ave.) over Three
Mile Branch;
4. B-3424, Cabarrus County, Replace Bridge No. 264 on SR 1745 (Oakwood Ave.) over
Branch Irish Buffalo Creek;
5. B-3447, Davidson County, Replace Bridge No. 420 on SR 203 1 over Southern Railroad,
6. B-3505, Randolph County, Replace Bridge No. 434 on SR 2261 (Old Liberty Road) over
Deep River; and,
7. B-3509, Rockingham County, Replace Bridge No. 75 on NC 700 over Smith River.
This report provides scoping information and is provided in accordance with provisions of the
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA) (16 U.S.C. 661-667d) and Section 7 of the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973, as amended (16 U.S.C. 1531-1543). This report also
serves as initial scoping comments to federal and state resource agencies for use in their
permitting and/or certification processes for these projects. The following is applicable only to
items 2, 6, and 7. Items 1, 3, 4, and 5 are in areas of the state under the jurisdiction of the
Service's Asheville Office. They should be contacted for resource information pertinent to these
projects.
The mission of the Service is to provide leadership in the conservation, protection, and
enhancement of fish and wildlife, and their habitats, for the continuing benefit of all people. Due
to staffing limitations, we are unable toprovide you with
roviddetailed
ass stsyoutf n your planningthis
provided
time. However, the following recommendations are
process and to facilitate a thorough and timely review of the project.
Generally, the Service recommends that wetland impacts be avoided and minimized to the
maximum extent practical as outlined in Section 404 (b)(1) of the Clean Water Act Amendments
of 1977. In regard to avoidance and minimization of impacts, we recommend that proposed
highway projects be aligned along or adjacent to existing roadways, utility corridors, or previously
developed areas in order to minimize habitat fragmentation and encroachment. Areas exhibiting
high biodiversity or ecological value important to the watershed and/or region should be avoided.
Crossings of streams and associated wetland systems should use existing crossings and/or occur
on a structure wherever feasible. Where bridging is not feasible, culvert structures that maintain
natural water flows and hydraulic regimes without scouring, or impeding fish and wildlife passage,
should be employed. Highway shoulder and median widths should be reduced through wetland
areas. Roadway embankments and till areas should be stabilized by using appropriate erosion
control devices and/or techniques:--Wherever appropriate, construction -in -sensitive areas should
occur outside fish spawning and migratory bird nesting seasons.
The National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) maps of the appropriate 7.5 Minute Quadrangles for
each site should be consulted to determine if wetlands may be impacted by the respective projects.
However, while the NWI maps are usefi?I for providing an overview of a given area, they should
not be relied upon in lieu of a detailed wetland delineation by trained personnel using an
acceptable wetland classification methodology.
We reserve the right to review any required federal or state permits that may be required for these
projects at the public notice stage. We may have no objection, provide recommendations for
modification of the project, or recommend denial. Therefore, it is important that resource agency
coordination occur early in the planning process in order to resolve any conflicts that may arise
and minimize delays in project implementation.
In addition to the above guidance, we recommend that the environmental documentation for each
project include the following in sufficient detail to facilitate a thorough review of the action:
I. A clearly defined purpose and need for each proposed project, including a discussion of
the projects's independent utility;

2. A description of the proposed action with an analysis of all alternatives being considered,
including the upgrading of existing bridges, new bridges on existing alignments, new
bridges on new alignments, and a "no action" alternative;
A description of the fish and wildlife resources, and their habitats, within the project
impact areas that may be directly or indirectly affected,
4. The extent and acreage of waters of the U. S., including wetlands, that are to be impacted
by filling, dredging, clearing, ditching, and/or draining. Acres of wetland impact should be
differentiated by habitat type based on the wetland classification scheme of the
National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Wetland boundaries should be determined by using
the 1987 Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual and verified by the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (Corps),
The anticipated environmental impacts, both temporary and permanent, that would be
likely to occur as a direct result of the proposed project. The assessment should also
include the extent to which the proposed project would result in secondary impacts to
natural resources, and how this and similar projects contribute to cumulative adverse
effects;
6. Design features and/or construction techniques which would be employed to avoid or
minimize the fragmentation or direct loss of wildlife habitat value,
7. Design features, construction techniques, and/or any other mitigation measures which
would be employed at wetland crossings and stream channel relocations to avoid or
minimize impacts to waters of the United States; and,
If unavoidable wetland impacts are proposed, we recommend that every effort be made to
identify compensatory mitigation sites in advance. Project planning should include a
detailed compensatory mitigation plan for offsetting unavoidable wetland impacts.
Opportunities to protect mitigation areas in perpetuity, preferably via conservation
easement, should be explored at the outset.
The attached pages identify the federally-listed endangered, threatened, and candidate species that
are known to occur in the respective Counties. Habitat requirements for any federally-listed
species that occur in the project impact areas should be compared with the available habitat at the
project site. If suitable habitat is present within the action area of the project, field surveys for the
species should be performed. A listed species, the smooth coneflower (Echiricrcea laevigala), is
known to occur in the vicinity B-3509 at the City of Eden, Rockingham County.
Habitat for smooth coneflower is open woods, cedar barrens, roadsides, clearcuts, dry limestone
bluffs, and power line rights-of-way, usually on magnesium- and calcium-rich soils associated with
gabbro or diabase in North Carolina. Optimal sites are characterized by abundant sunlight and
little competition in the herbaceous layer.
Environmental documentation should include survey methodologies and results. In addition to
this guidance, the following information should be included in the document regarding protected
species:
A map and description of the specific area used in the analysis of direct, indirect, and
cumulative impacts,
2. A description of the biology and status of the listed species and the habitat of the species
that may be affected by the action, including the results of any onsite inspections,
3. An analysis of the "effects of the action" on the listed species and associated habitat
which includes consideration of
a. The environmental baseline which is an analysis of the effects of past and ongoing
human and natural factors leading to the current status of the species and its
habitat,
b. The impacts of past and present federal, state, and private activities in the project
area and cumulative impacts area,
The direct and indirect impacts of the proposed action. Indirect effects are those
that are caused by the proposed action and are later in time, but are still
reasonably certain to occur;
d. The impacts of interrelated actions (those that are part of a larger action and
depend on the larger action for their justification) and interdependent actions
(those that have no independent utility apart frorn the action under consideration);
and,
e. The cumulative impacts of future state and private activities (not requiring federal
agency involvement) that will be considered as part of future Section 7
consultation,
4. A description of the m nn r in which the action may affect any listed species or
associated habitat including prole ?o proposals
and/or the degradat adverse effects.
habitat are allt
habitat, to
mortality, injury, harassment, th
ways in which listed species may be adversely affected;
A summary of evaluation criteria to be used as a measure of potential effects. Criteria
may include post-project population size, long-term population viability, habitat quality,
and/or habitat quantity; and,
4
6. Based on evaluation criteria, a determination of whether the project is not likely to
adversely affect or may affect threatened and endangered species.
Candidate species are those plant and animal species for which the Service has sufficient
information on their biological status and threats to their survival to propose them as endangered
or threatened under the ESA. Although candidate species receive no statutory protection under
the ESA, Federal agencies are required to informally confer with the Service on actions likely to
jeopardize the continued existence of these species or that may destroy or modify proposed
critical habitat.
Federal species of concern (FSC) include those species for which the Service does not have
enough scientific information to support a listing proposal or species which do not warrant listing
at the present time. These species receive no statutory protection under the ESA, but could
become candidates in the future if additional scientific information becomes available indicating
that they are endangered or threatened. Formal listing places the species under the full protection
of the ESA, and necessitates a new survey if its status in the project area is unknown. Therefore,
it would be prudent for the North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) to avoid any
adverse impacts to candidate species or their habitat. The North Carolina Natural Heritage
Program should be contacted for information on species under state protection.
The Service appreciates the opportunity to comment on these projects. Please continue to advise
us during the progression of the planning process, including your official determination of the
impacts of this project. If you have any questions regarding these comments, please contact Tom
McCartney at 919-856-4520, ext. 32.
Sincerely,
)a-Aflf
John M. Hefner
Ecological Services Supervisor
Enclosures
FWS/R4:TMcCartney:TM. 12/1/98:919/856-4520 extension ',2:\7-bridge.rpl
cc:
Eric Alsmeyer, COE, Raleigh, NC
David Cox, DNR, Creedmoor, NC
Cyndi Bell, NCDWQ, Raleigh, NC
Nicholas Graf, FHWA, Raleigh, NC
Ted Bisterfield, EPA, Atlanta, GA
S
Mapping Symbols for
Threatened and Endangered Species
Birds
Bald Eagle
Peregrine Falcon
Q Piping Plover
Red-cockaded Woodpecker
,k> Roseate Tern
Wood Stork
Fish
O Cape Fear Shiner
(5 Waccamaw Silverside
Plants
,* American Chaffseed
&, Harperella
Michaux's Sumac
Pondberry
Rough-leaved Loosestrife
Schweinitz's Sunflower
4,;, Seabeach Amaranth
4-,Sensitive Joint-vetch
Small Whorled Pogonia
Smooth Coneflower
Mussels
Dwarf-wedge Mussel
Tar Sp inymusse 1
Mammals
_40 Eastern Cougar
Red Wolf
Seaturdes are seasonally ubiquitous along coastal regions,
and therefore, are not labeled. Shortnosed Sturgeon and Manatees
are seasonally ubiquitous in estuarine areas and are also not labeled.
Accounts of Selected Federally Listed Species In ROCKINGHAM County
Data represented on these maps are not based on comprehensive inventories
of this county. Lack of data must not be construed to mean that listed
species are not present.
36'30'
36'15'
uePrepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
based on data provided by NC Natural Heritage Program
D. Newcomb, K. Tripp 1/15/98
0 1 2 3 4 5 MILES
0 1 2 3 4 5 KILOMETERS
avnirac 1 /'21 /44
80' 79045' 79'30'
North Carolina WAafe Resources Comrm'ssioni---i
312 N. Salisbury Street, Raleigh, North Carolina 27604-1188, 919-733-3391
Charles R. Fullwood, Executive Director
MEMORkNDtTM
TO: Stacy Baldwin, Project Planning Engineer
Planning & Environmental Branch, NCDOT
FROM: David Cox, Highway Project C r ' atoorr
Habitat Conservation Prograrg
DATE: January 12, 1999
SUBJECT: NCDOT Group XV Bridge Replacements in Cabarrus, Davidson,
Guilford, Randolph and Rockingham counties, North Carolina. TIP Nos.
B-3157, B-3174, B-3422, B-3424, B-3447, B-3505, and B-3509.
Biologists with the N. C. Wildlife Resources Commission (NCWRC) have
reviewed the information provided and have the following preliminary comments on the
subject project. Our comments are provided in accordance with provisions of the
National Environmental Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(c)) and the Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act (48 Stat. 401, as amended: 16 U.S.C. 661-667d).
On bridge replacement projects of this scope our standard recommendations are as
follows:
1. We generally prefer spanning structures. Spanning structures usually do not
require work within the stream and do not require stream channel realigrunent.
The horizontal and vertical clearances provided by bridges allows for human
and wildlife passage beneath the structure, does not block fish passage, and
does not block navigation by canoeists and boaters.
2. Bridge deck drains should not discharge directly into the stream.
3. Live concrete should not be allowed to contact the water in or entering into the
stream.
4. If possible, bridge supports (bents) should not be placed in the stream.
Bridge Replacement Memo 2 January 12, 1999
5. If temporary access roads or detours are constructed, they should be removed
back to original ground elevations immediately upon the completion of the
project. Disturbed areas should be seeded or mulched to stabilize the soil and
native tree species should be planted with a spacing of not more than 10'x10'.
If possible, when using temporary structures the area should be cleared but not
grubbed. Clearing the area with chain saws, mowers, bush-hogs, or other
mechanized equipment and leaving the stumps and root mat intact, allows the
area to revegetate naturally and minimizes disturbed soil.
6. A clear bank (riprap free) area of at least 10 feet should remain on each side of
the steam underneath the bridge.
7. In trout waters, the N.C. Wildlife Resources Commission reviews all U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers nationwide and general `404' permits. We have the
option of requesting additional measures to protect trout and trout habitat and
we can recommend that the project require an individual `404' permit.
8. In streams that contain threatened or endangered species, NCDOT biologist
Mr. Tim Savidge should be notified. Special measures to protect these
sensitive species may be required. NCDOT should also contact the U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service for information on requirements of the Endangered
Species Act as it relates to the project.
9. In streams that are used by anadromous fish, the NCDOT official policy
entitled "Stream Crossing Guidelines for Anadromous Fish Passage (May 12,
1997)" should be followed.
10. In areas with significant fisheries for sunfish, seasonal exclusions may also be
recommended.
If corrugated metal pipe arches or concrete box culverts are used:
1. The culvert must be designed to allow for fish passage. Generally, this means
that the culvert or pipe invert is buried at least 1 foot below the natural stream
bed. If multiple cells are required the second and/or third cells should be
placed so that their bottoms are at stream bankful stage (similar to Lyonsfield
design). This will allow sufficient water depth in the culvert or pipe during
normal flows to accommodate fish movements. If culverts are long, baffle
systems are required to trap gravel and provide resting areas for fish and other
aquatic organisms.
2. If multiple pipes or cells are used, at least one pipe or box should be designed
to remain dry during normal flows to allow for wildlife passage.
3. Culverts or pipes should be situated so that no channel realignment or
widening is required. Widening of the stream channel at the inlet or outlet of
structures usually causes a decrease in water velocity causing sediment
deposition that will require future maintenance.
4. R.iprap should not be placed on the stream bed.
In most cases, we prefer the replacement of the existing structure at the same
location with road closure. If road closure is not feasible, a temporary detour should be
designed and located to avoid wetland impacts, minimize the need for clearing and to
Bridge Replacement Memo 3 January 12, 1999
avoid destabilizing stream banks. If the structure will be on a new alignment, the old
structure should be removed and the approach fills removed from the 100-year
floodplain. Approach fills should be removed down to the natural ground elevation. The
area should be stabilized with grass and planted with native tree species. If the area that
is reclaimed was previously wetlands, NCDOT should restore the area to wetlands. If
successful, the site may be used as wetland mitigation for the subject project or other
projects in the watershed.
Project specific comments:
1. B-3157 - Michael Creek is small and degraded at this site. NCDOT should
use Best Management Practices to protect downstream resources.
2. B-3174 - No comment.
3. B-3422 -No specific concerns. NCDOT should use Best Management
Practices to protect downstream resources.
4. B-3424 - No specific concerns. NCDOT should use Best Management
Practices to protect downstream resources.
5. B-3447 -No comment.
6. B-3505 - The bridge crossing is in the upper section of the Cox Lake
Hydroelectric impoundment. We have no specific fishery concerns at this
site.
7. B-3 509 - This section of the Smith River supports a diverse fish population.
Due to the size of the river and the good population of fish, we request that no
in-water work be performed from April 1 to June 30.
We request that NCDOT routinely minimize adverse impacts to fish and wildlife
resources in the vicinity of bridge replacements. The NCDOT should install and
(v maintain sedimentation control measures throughout the life of the project and prevent
wet concrete from contacting water in or entering into these streams. Replacement of
? bridges with spanning structures of some type, as opposed to pipe or box culverts, is
N recommended in most cases. Spanning structures allow wildlife passage along
streambanks, reducing habitat fragmentation and vehicle related mortality at highway
N crossings.
?-, If you need further assistance or information on NCWRC concerns regarding
bridge replacements, please contact me at [phone]. Thank you for the opportunity
?- to review and comment on these projects.
^ '.L .
United States
Department of
Agriculture
Natural
Resources
Conservation
Service
4405 Bland Rd,
Suite 205
Raleigh, NC 27609
UJUA
Mr. D. Gilmore, P. E., Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
NCDOT
P. O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27511-5201
November 10, 1998
[phone]
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
Thank you for the opportunity to provide comments on Group XV Bridge Replacement Projects,
B-3157 and B-3447, Davidson County, B-3174, Guilford County, B-3422 and B-3424, Cabarrus
County, B-3505, Randolph County and B-3509, Rockingham County.
The Natural Resources Conservation Service does not have any comments at this time.
Sincerely,
c?l??es- V E o
Mary ollstedt
State Conservationist Q
N0? , 9
- N of m
oG oN`s`?1 N"(s
EIWIA
The Natural Resources Conservation Service works hand-in-hand with the
American people to conserve natural resources on private land AN EQUAL OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
Michael F. Easley, Governor Division of Historical Resources
Lisbeth C. Evans, Secretary David J. Olson, Director
Jeffrey J. Crow, Deputy Secretary
March 9, 2003
MEMORANDUM
TO: Gregory J. Thorpe, Ph.D.
Environmental Management Director
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
1
FROM: David Brook Lktk(
Deputy State Hist C Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: New alignment mapping for replacement of Bridge 75 over Smith River, B-3509,
Rockingham County, ER 99-7717
Thank you for your letter of January 29, 2003, transmitting the additional mapping that we
requested. Having reviewed the plans for the on-site detour, we believe there is no need for an
archaeological survey.
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:dah
cc: Matt Wilkerson/NCDOT
IiJohn Wadsworth/NCDOT
www.hvo.dcr.state.nc.us
Location Mailing Address Telephone/Fax
ADMINISTRATION 507 N. Blount St., Ralcigh NC 4617 Mail Service Center, Raleigh NC 27699-4617 [phone] • 733-8
RESTORATION 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4613 Mail Servicc Center, Raleigh NC 27699.4613 [phone] • 715-4
SURVEY & PLANNING 515 N. Blount St., Raleigh NC 4018 Mail Service Center, Ralcigh NC 27699-4618 [phone] 9 715-4
f'?derrrl ,lid # BRSTP-700(1) TIP # B-3509 County: Rockingham
CGNCURREi`rCE FORM FOR ASSLESSMENT OF EFFECTS
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 75 on SR 3003 over Smith River
On 2/6/02, representatives of the
Noah Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (HPO)
[l Other
Reviewed the subject project and agreed
[] There are no effects on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There are no effects on the National Register-eligible propertyfproperties located within
the project's area of potential effect and listed on the reverse.
There is an effect on the National Register-listed property/properties located within the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and the effect(s) are listed on
the reverse.
C/There is an effect on the National Register-eligible property/Properties located xithin the
project's area of potential effect. The property/properties and effect(s) are listed on the
reverse.
Signed:
N-? 611
Representativ, NC O-I Date
&,f ,r/nit --- `
FHWA, for the Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency Date
Representative, HPO
Gate
V___ P
- J r
11 ) State Fistoric Preservation Officer llate
L..
i
Z::?_)
Federal Aid # BRSTP-700(1) T!P 4 5-3509 Cowity: Rockingham
Properties within the area of potential effect for which there is no effect. Indicate if property
National Register-listed (NR) or determined eligible (DE).
Properties within the area of t:oterntial effect for which there is an effect. Indicate property status
(NR or DE) and describe the effect.
S f)ra N-i56Y ic.
51
- afb1 o e-
Reason(s) why the effect is not adverse (if applicable).
1!litialed: NC.)O`F FHWA /? r' ? HPO ?/ ??1

STATE .,
2
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook, Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
May 25, 2000
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT
William D. Gilmore, P.E.. Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Trai'tspertation
David Brook // "I /--,
Deputy State Itoric Preservation Officer
r • e ^F'1
Replace Bridge no. 75 on NC 700 over Smith River, TIP No. B-3509,
Rockingham County, ER 99-7717
Thank you for your letter of April 6, 2000, transmitting the survey report by Mattson, Alexander and Associates
concerning the above project.
For purposes of compliance with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act, we concur that the
following properties are eligible for the National Register of Historic Places under the criterion cited:
Spray Industrial Historic District - this district is listed in the National Register of Historic Places. The
boundaries depicted in Figure 4 of the report are those listed in the National Register.
Proposed Expansion of Spray Industrial Historic District - the proposed expansion would include the
Price- Lewiis-Hawkins House, the Leaksville Township municipal Building, the Central , the Filter
Plant, and the Pump House as contributing resources. Bridge No. 75 is within the proposed expansion
area, but is considered a non-contributing resource. We concur with the boundaries as shown in Figure
5 of the report.
The following determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places:
Rosemont
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.
Ti,ank you for you; cooperation and consid raivn. I;•',OLI have yuc`stlOns cuncL;nln_ the above comment.
please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
CC: B. chur`,?
Location Mailing Addrese Telephone Fax
\DMINISFRA ION h' \ liluuni St. I''alciuh \r 461- \kol Scr.ic ( cnict. Rniciudh \( '??,yr-i?,l i1 1)1 7;; -6;
1RCHA1- 1. 1 N ='_! \ 141uun' ti, Ralci_h \ -lh , \Lul Scr%l , r cntc:. R.,Icich \r o _yr l - -:a' -I
It 4;5'rUlt \fl(>N \ ISluurr 1i rlci,lh \i `,I ni Scr.i ( nl k loch \( _;r,l ; v ut ? , , ,1 .,U.
til'Rbl':1 X I'I.\N?I\(, \ ISluun; ti I'ilc,ch ,r i Iml ',c;. I-- Ik), „?, .
p0,
OF iRq*
0 rg
o
'47
'TrMES of
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
310 New Bern Avenue, Suite 410
Raleigh, North Carolina 27601
April 6, 2000
Mr. David Brook
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
Department of Cultural Resources
109 East Jones Street
Raleigh, NC 27601
IN REPLY REFER TO
HO-NC
Subject: Historic Architectural Resources Survey Report for the Replacement of
Bridge No. 75 on N.C. 700 over the Smith River, Rockingham County, NC;
Federal Aid No. BRSTP-700(1), State Project No. 8.2860401, TIP No. B-
3509
Dear Mr.Brook:
The North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT) is conducting studies for the
subject project. Attached are three (3) copies of the Historic Architectural Resources
Survey Report prepared by Mattson, Alexander and Associates, Inc. as part of these
studies. The report concludes that there is one National Register-listed Historic District and
there are four National Register-eligible properties within the area of potential effects
(APE). In addition, the report is proposing revised boundaries for the Historic District.
We are requesting your review and concurrence with our findings. As per our recently
approved programmatic agreement, you may respond directly to NCDOT with a copy to
this office.
Sincerely yours,
For Nicholas L. Graf, P.E.
Division Administrator
Enclosures
cc: William Gilmore, PE, NCDOT

TATF
w H .o•,
North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
State Historic Preservation Office
David L. S. Brook. Administrator
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and Historv
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 23. 1999
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, P.E., Manager
Project Development and Environmental Analysis Branch
Division of Highways
Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook ! rl:'-??? I v?1fi?
Deputy State Historic Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Replacement Project TIP No. B-3509, Bridge No. 75 on NC 700 over
Smith River, Rockingham County, Federal Aid No. BRSTP-700 (1), ER 99-7717
On October 21, 1999, we sent a letter to you concerning the above referenced project. We stated
that we were aware of no historic properties that would be affected by the project and therefore
had no comment on the project as currently proposed. Unfortunately, that was a misstatement.
We are aware of historic properties in the project area and are in consultation with NCDOT
architectural historians regarding a Historic Structures Survev Report for the Spray Historic
District. We apologize for any confusion and inconvenience this may have caused and look
forward to further consultation on this project.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act
and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations for Compliance with Section
106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions concerning the above
comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental review coordinator, at 919/733-
4763.
cc: Roy Shelton, FHWA
B. Church
Location Mailing Address
\D'V11VIs'rRA'r10N i07 \. Blount St. Ralciuh M 4617 Anil Smwc t cntcr
ARCHAEOLOGY 4'_1 Blount tit. Ra[Ie 'it \'t 4611) Mail ticrnicc ( cntcr
RF.S1 R1%11O\ sI \ Bln(1nl Y RAL.121V 461 " Tail ltr'.icc ( _ntri
Raleieh V '_7(199-4017
R:IIcIL'h V 17690-4611)
R.11CI_h V 769V-46'
hti;
4elcphone,' ax
19191 33-47(,l
19191 ?-. -, +1? 'I ? 1611
Federal.4id 4BRSTP-700(1) TIP 913-3509 County: Rockingham
CONCURRENCE FORM FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR THE NATIONAL
REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Project Description: Replace Bridge No. 75on NC 700 over Smith River
On December 16, 1999, representatives of the
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Highway Administration (FHWA)
North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO)
Reviewed the subject project at
a scoping meeting
photograph review session/consultation
other
All parties present agreed

Signed:
there are no properties over fifty years old within the project's area of potential effect.
there are no properties less than fifty years old which are considered to meet Criterion
Consideration G within the project's area of potential effect.
there are properties over fifty years old (list attached) within the project's area of potential effect,
but based on the historical information available and the photographs of each property, properties
identified as -* 3 3 (p are considered not eligible for the National
Register and no furth r evaluation of them is necessary.
there are no National Register-listed properties located within the project's area of potential effect.
Representative CDOT Date
xz?;7 ,,- 1.7-,A
FHVVA, fdyfhe Division Administrator, or other Federal Agency

ve, SHPO
Date
r // / Z/ z-?/l9-t? r // l Z/ z-?/l9
Historic Preservation Officer Date
If a survey report is prepared, a final copy of this form and the attached list will be included.

North Carolina Department of Cultural Resources
James B. Hunt Jr., Governor Division of Archives and History
Betty Ray McCain, Secretary Jeffrey J. Crow, Director
December 3, 1998
MEMORANDUM
TO: William D. Gilmore, PE, Manager
Planning and Environmental Branch
North Carolina Department of Transportation
FROM: David Brook t-
Deputy State Hi ti?'??c Preservation Officer
SUBJECT: Bridge Group XV, Bridge 75 on NC 700 over Smith
River, B-3509, Rockingham County, ER 99-7717
Thank you for your memorandum of November 2, 1998, concerning the above
project.
We have conducted a search of our maps and files and have located the following
property of historical or architectural importance within the general area of the
project:
Spray Industrial Historic District (RK 281). This district is listed in the
National Register of Historic Places.
We look forward to meeting with an architectural historian from the North Carolina
Department of Transportation to review the aerial and photographs of the project
area so we can make our survey recommendation.
There are no recorded archaeological sites located within the project area and given
the narrow floodplain in the vicinity of the existing bridge, it is unlikely that
significant sites may be affected by the proposed project. However, we would like
information concerning the location of the bridge replacement and any necessary
detour structures or new rights-of-way needed for the project as soon as it is
available. After receipt of this information we will complete our review.
The above comments are made pursuant to Section 106 of the National Historic
Preservation Act and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation's Regulations
for Compliance with Section 106 codified at 36 CFR Part 800.
Thank you for your cooperation and consideration. If you have questions
concerning the above comment, please contact Renee Gledhill-Earley, environmental
review coordinator, at 919/733-4763.
DB:slw
cc: N. Gr9f
B. Church
T. Padgett ?
109 East Jones Street • Raleigh, North Carolina 27601-2807 1?33
Fcdural :\id B T - TIP = 75n9 Count,.. ?Dde_)
CONCURRENCE FORtNI FOR PROPERTIES NOT ELIGIBLE FOR
THE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES
Bricf Projcct Description (?u kce_ r)r I (? ?? ? ? on tiC ? 0Vu 11 t Y
v. I 9 representatives of the
On
North Carolina Department of Transportation (NCDOT)
Federal Hisahway Administration (FH%vA)
`/worth Carolina Statc Historic Preservation Off[cc (SHPO)
Other
rcvic?ved the subject project a[
?A scooine mccttne
? Historic architectural resourct s pilotc(rlPlI rcvic«' scssicr consultation
Othcr

there arc no oroocrucs over f Ftv Years old wilhin the oroicc: s area or ootc:;ua: criccs.
ti,cro arc no properties Icss than firth' Fears old which arc considered to mcc[ Criterion
Considcration G within ti:c project s area of potential c,tcc:s.
there arc properties over Fears old (list attached) , :hc 0 rOICC: 5 = OF pOCC 1Ca1 C ==-.
but based on the historical informatioon availablc and t .c chc[ccraohs of czch oroccr:- . orcccrn:cs
identified as , '(OfJZ?arc considcrca hot 1=211311-1
ror National Register std no LLMkcr evaluation or tncrn is acccssa?'.
there arc no National Rcgisicr-listed oroocrtics ???ithin dic proicc:'s area OF pc[catial c: cc:s.
c
1`-1c pcs
Fcarescnt:tv c, NCD

I-) =
11•\3'
-HwAIfir ?thcDivision ministmtor or ocher Fc oral Arnc:? Date
? L?atc
Representative, S' 0
?C i /(?hl 1 r D
1:11C i'ltstoric Prescrva[ion 0 Y
?. .? Z lintel ?..tn cltlu; I?r.n ;u! ?1,? .at.:ci:?u li,t •?iil be ,,.ci,:??u.
I. a :;t:r?c•; , .;c;r; .. Marc..,
T ?\T
CA R
City of Eden
June 7, 2002
Ms. Stacy Harris, P.E.
Project Development & Environmental Analysis Branch
North Carolina Department Of Transportation
1548 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699-1548
Dear Ms. Harris:
I wanted to thank you for the Citizens Informational Workshop you held in Eden
on May 28, 2002 in reference to the build alternatives for the replacement of Bridge No.
75 over the Smith River on W. Meadow Road (NC 700/SR 3003).
At this same time, we would like to take this opportunity to express our complete
opposition to build alternative 3. As you are aware, this alternative would include a
detour route that is approximately 3.5 miles in length and which would be in place for
approximately two years. This build alternative would have a devastating effect on our
local economy and would most assuredly lead to the elimination of several existing
businesses that are vibrant and eager to still do business. Although the construction cost
is lower we feel the economic ramifications of this decision on the Eden economy and in
turn the North Carolina economy would far outweigh the difference in construction costs.
We would respectfully request that build alternative 3 be eliminated from any
further consideration. Thank you in advance for your assistance with this important
matter. With best wishes, I remain,
nc e y,
? s r^.
Brad Corcoran
City Manager
308 East Stadium Drive . Eden, NC 27288-3523 . (336) 623-21 10 . Fax [phone]
mm as
November 16, 1998
Rockingham County Schools
School Bus Garage
433 County Home Road
Reidsville, N.C. 27320
Phone [phone]
Fax [phone]
,I-lliam D. Gilmore
rialn.nling and Environmental Sran;h Ma`_ager
Department of' Transportation
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, N.C. 27611-5201
Dear Mr. Gilmore:
MMU
o
The information you requested in regards to the replacement of
Bridge No. 75 on NC 700 over Smith River, Rocking:^am County, T1P
No. B-3509.
We currently have sixteen buses that cross this :ridge fifty-nine
times daily.
If I can be of further assistance please do not
contact me here at the School Bus Garage.
Sincerely,
jim Scott, Transportation Director
,Jj/J-
hesitate to
i
•I

Inspe
I annin
& ctiOgartment
?rH CA???? 308 East Stadium Drive * Eden, North Carolina 27288-3513 * [phone] * Far [phone]
November 18, 1998
Ms. Stacey Baldwin
North Carolina Department of Transportation
Planning and Environmental Branch
P.O. Box 25201
Raleigh, NC 27611
Re: Highway 700 Bridge
Dear Ms. Baldwin:
As per our conversation this morning concerning the bridge on NC 700 at the traffic circle, please
proceed with the study of this bridge replacement based upon the city's thoroughfare plan. If
department staff can provide any assistance, please give me a call.
Thank you for your kind attention.
Sincerely,
Kell K. tultz, AICP
Director
.
1702
46-

1708; <r'1789
aken
Pd.

1771 ai
5703 790
0 40,
+
! 9?
00 1714
o Ra
1712
0
17 0 Ul
noa 1713, ; AND NORTMNESTERN RACR0A0

1559 17

- 1710
( '!r 1705 1708

B-3509
S,

Rd.

er 1707W
O

?P

0odo
°o T X1709
/ ° '
G Z
1560 >p m 1785
Ch .

q?
urch a %

R o: 1962
e
?0 ° lisa
re 5t•1747
Moo
?oa ?;. StOdiU o :
t En

o ?D
pr.

1962
1
0
1661
EDEN
154
n e?
o 'A POP. 15,566 G a
m
Church 1535 Rd.s S? vi

1537

y°

St. St
E. K?r`9
?
°ijr W King
° 7
Sr 2066

1565 ?
5ti:
? A
a
no
.QSh??9?•0
\A
1581
1-? u
..
7 5 rice L
en d G /lvl \ I
, Y
1 9
2206 r ayf?eld
9 3 1 Ruth
S Brill (t?
11 10 5t I ?? l
sce
81
K N ?
d
?111di on

'? 3
15A
Wen ? h2
Los
"S 1 ??n R 2 eldSrlll(
t ti ?
29 7 1
t .... 158 15?j2.
f J?.
Korth Carolina Department. Of
Transportation
Planning & Environmental Branch
ROCKINGHAM COUNTY
BRIDGE NO. 75 ON NC 700
OVER THE SMITH RIVER
8-3509
0 kilometers 0.8 kilometers 1.8
0 rniles o'.5 miles 1.0
•`e

•
•
D

L
b
a
J
V
? D
Q
i
ti
0
A
t 9
w
O